Notes on the current persecution of Christians

Are Christians being persecuted in the West?

The short answer is: well yes, but actually no. The long answer follows.

Yes, there are some intrinsically impotent imitations of a persecution. They're not done by the best bureaucracy of its day - the Roman Empire. Even if they were, their petty prince can't take your soul without your consent. This putridly pathetic 'persecution', on the other hand, is being done by HR Karens and DMV troglodytes. All they have is high school drama. And we have God. Is it a coincidence that the greatest labor shortage since the war draft coincides with the threat of being fired over the dead baby demon-juice needles? You can easily get another job. The Lord has already provided, you just need to waltz over to the buffet. You are the horse that's been led to the water, now bottoms up!

Let us assume, simply to humour the blackpilled bedwetters, that Christians will be legitimately, effectively persecuted by someone who has half their act together in the foreseeable future. So what? Nothing grows the church like the blood of martyrs. It's evangelisation on roids and meth, at least historically. You want your descendants to live in a genuinely Christian nation? Being persecuted for the Truth and His Commandments is how you get that.

There is tremendous opportunity in every persecution, even this one. Get kicked out of social media over the basic Truth? Now you get to make real life friends and prove to them by your example that life as an authentic Christian is not only possible, it is also a good time. As St. Francis of Assissi put it, 'preach the Gospel at all times, use words when necessary.'

There is even more opportunity in a legitimate persecution. The fastest way to make Christian friends who are also street smart is to go to jail yourself. The Gospel is not locked in with the criminal underclass, the criminal underclass is locked in with the Gospel. Yes, I had to read that comic in high school. Probably still better than the other stuff people have to read in other public schools. Not that a genuine Christian will be in the slammer for even a fraction of his/her sentence, if the Acts of the Apostles are any indication.

Finally, permit me to address the people who sincerely believe they would buckle under persecution. Some of you are going to be on the physically and socially weaker side, and/or struggle with mental health. I do not want to mock you, because the world probably does enough of that already. Instead, I want to encourage you. You see, our Lord has a weird way of using the weak and downtrodden for his greatest feats. The stone that has been rejected by the builders shall be the cornerstone, et cetera. Heck, the king of kings himself found it prudent to come into this world through a probably-illiterate peasant girl in some shed in some backwater. His crowning moment, as it were, was being executed with two petty thieves. Between those two events, he routinely performed miracles on the lowly and outcast, presumably to emphasize the point that what this world thinks is irrelevant. If you keep the faith, you are more likely to experience a miracle than to succumb. God does not abandon those who stick with him. You will not be forced to succumb. You are more likely than most people to get saved in a really spectacular fashion, if need be.

How to start smoking pipe: a review

Full disclaimer: I did not get paid to write this. I did not even get a discount on the pipe or anything, since nobody had any idea that I would be reviewing it. I decided to review it when it arrived.

This is the long-overdue review of Kade's Small German Clay Pipe-Green Bit. I ordered one of these a few weeks ago, and it shipped a lot sooner than I expected, which is always nice. Please find below a picture of the product, with a zippo for scale:

As advertised on the website, it is a compact pipe design that fits into basically every pocket. The bowl is also small, lending itself to quicker smokes. So far so good. But how does it smoke?

It is at this point that I must preface that I am a beginner to the fine art of the pipe, and to smoking in general. I picked up my first pack of American Spirits three months ago, and this is the first dedicated pipe that I have ever owned. The reason I feel qualified to review the pipe is that Kade describes it as "perfect for beginners". I am as beginner as it gets, and I will not write how many times I had to re-light this tiny bowl, because the number is shameful.

The pipe smokes well. I used some lousy tobacco that I bummed off of my roommate for free, but I still enjoyed the smoke. It's easy to operate, but still pleasant to smoke. That being said, I have had more pleasant smokes with nicer tobacco out of nicer pipes. To Kade's great credit, he does not pretend that this is a fancy pipe. It is exactly what he says it is: a beginner's pipe, good for quick smokes and trying new tobaccos, since the clay does not retain flavor.

Therefore, I recommend that anyone trying to get into pipes buy one of these. If you are already into pipes, consider getting one anyway, since they are cheap and they can be used to try new tobaccos without risking the retention of a lousy flavour in one of your fancy pipes. I for one will definitely keep it around, first to practice my technique, then to try new tobaccos.

Out of five stars, I give this pipe all five. Not because it will blow your mind, but because it is exactly what it purports to be, and a good deal to boot. Show our man Kade some love!

Staffing the next system

 As most of you will know, a lot of people are choosing something right now that will kill some of them [1]. You also know that this excess mortality might be intentional, somewhere on the chain of causality. Let us assume that it is intented to work as it apparently does, for a thought experiment.

If you've ever created anything, you understand that certain specialist skills are required.

Would you like to make a website?
Someone has to code that.

Care for central heating?
A whole lot of people need to build that system.

How about a functioning war machine?
Add several orders of magnitude more infrastructure.

As the storms in Jacksonville shows, complex systems will collapse simply by people taking a day off [2]. It gets considerably worse when the specialists in question are six feet under, as the bad weather brigade can be convinced to come back and eventually train the next generation, whereas a bunch of rotting corpses cannot.

Consider also this historical precedent [3]. Stalin's ballistic implementation of cancel culture did not take out nearly as many people as the famines or the war did; he only caused the execution of various paper-pushers that had fallen out of favour in Moscow. Nevertheless, the combined loss of talent and experience destroyed the Red Army in 1941, to the tune of 4 million men lost in 6 months [4]. It can be concluded that whoever decided to push some random poison knows perfectly well that you can't just take out the talent and expect to run anything. Hence the question:

How will the next system be staffed?

There are two answers I can think of.

First option: certain groups of people and their families are getting their "Your papers, please" without the associated Faucian Roulette needles. It would also explain Newsom's odd behaviour; maybe his daughter did not make the list and is earmarked for the aforementioned Faucian Roulette [5]. This would leave the required staff alive and well for the next system to run reasonably smoothly.

Second option: they don't care. Everyone gets the same mixture of God-knows-what. Since the Prince of this World is hardly fond of human life, maybe system-wide collapse and mass slaughter is the actual top-level plan.

Personally, I am torn between the two, because option one is something already explored in popular media [6], whereas option two makes perfect sense in the supernatural analysis.

Muth Be Nice: Musings on privilege

Privilege is real. It does not take the forms that we are asked to check, and it is often situational. Nevertheless, privilege exists, and the Christian needs to understand what this means for his or her individual situation.

For the purposes of this post, privilege can be defined as an advantage which the individual happens to have at the outset. Examples include height in men, visual beauty in women, as well as wealth and high intelligence for both. It should also be noted that privilege is never good or evil: that would be a category error. The whole point of privilege is that one does not choose it, so there is no moral element. Yet.

Similarly, most privileges are situational. Being a giant among men is all fun and games in most sports, but not in most buildings, cars, or shower stalls. High intelligence is a pain when interacting with the cognitively normal. Nevertheless, privileges exist. So what is the privileged Christian to do?

More.

That's the short answer. Luke 12:48 elaborates: " And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more". Christians who have received more than average, have to do more than average. This provides two valuable insights.

First, there is no need to feel guilty about being born rich, handsome, intelligent, tall, or anything else. It's part of the plan, and not in the Qtarded sense of the term. Life is not unfair, at least not in the sense that matters.

Second, there is no need to be envious of anyone who has it better than you do. Sure, they got a nicer house or car or whatever, but they also have more asked of them. Every time you get done in by circumstance, you know that God is giving you an easier time of it. If you'd gotten that promotion, pay raise, gold medal, or whatever, then more would be required of you. So thank God, and move on with life.

This begs one final question: do more of what? Love more, that's what. Love God more, and love thy neighbour more. It's the greatest commandment, so it's as good of a general direction as you're going to get. Got funds to spare? Support your church and community! People listen to you because you're good at rhetoric or just an Alpha? Tell them the truth, and the Truth! People trust you with their problems for no reason at all? Listen to them, it literally helps them! Humans are weird like that.

Whatever you got, love God and neighbor with it. It's both simple to understand and hard to do, but you got the Almighty on your side, so you should be fine.

Much Love!

PS as PhilosophicalBear on SG put it, the biblical term for "privilege" is blessing.

A Vaccine for Rhetoric

Disclaimer: The following is not entirely clean speech, due to the nature of the topic involved. A clean TLDR is provided at the bottom.

There is a vaccine that actually works, and the side effects are not life-threatening! Of course, this vaccine does not involving injecting God-knows-what into your bloodstream. As the title suggests, this vaccine prevents any and all damage from rhetorical attacks. Here's how to get this vaccine.

Call yourself the term.

That's it. Just start using it on yourself, and use it often. It's a combination of exposure therapy and hyperinflation. Own the term and make it meaningless at the same time. Trump did this to great effect with "deplorable". But we can do it with every other term too.

For further evidence, one but needs to consider the term "queer". This used to be a playground insults for boys who acted weird. Now it is one of the Qs in LGBTQQKKKNSDAP. How did this happen? Easy: the freakshows just started using it on themselves. They got vaccinated against "queer". It's past time for you to vaccinate yourself against "racist". Much Love!

TLDR: Use the rhetorical device on yourself, and use it often. Just call yourself the "-ism" or "-phobia" du jour.

How to dress well with minimal effort/funds

Many of us never got into dressing up. And why would we? Our jobs require more practical clothing, and there are much better uses for surplus funds anyway. However, as Christian men, we have a moral obligation to be a role model to the young men in our congregation. When we were young, we looked to the adult men for role models, for someone to aspire to be like, especially when our Boomer parents did not provide much direction.

But now we are the adult men. Now the young men and boys look up to us. Let us all strive to never disappoint them. Let us, among many other things, present ourselves properly in church. Let us make our 'Sunday best' be pretty good.

This guide will work from the bottom up, starting with the cheapest/simplest setups, and building from there. This will allow every man to commit as far as is appropriate for his situation.

Stage 1: the absolute basics

Get a light blue or white dress shirt and navy blue chinos. If you get both colours of dress shirt, this should still be around $100. Definitely buy these in person. Make sure that they fit properly. It is a better use of your money to get the cheapest stuff altered than to buy the slightly nicer ones and have them not fit well. What does a good fit look like? It looks like the dudes on the pictures displayed in the store. They were all fitted perfectly for the photoshoot. If needed, work on your posture. Good posture saves money in the long run, and it makes almost every outfit look substantially better.

Stage 2:

Get a charcoal-grey sports jacket and a tie. Stay away from fancy patterns. With alterations, this may set you back up to $300, but then you are covered for every occasion.

Stage 3: 

Get a pair of khakis and a white polo shirt. This is essential for warmer climates, since the polos have short sleeves. Do NOT get a dress shirt with short sleeves/Hawaiian shirts. Leave those for the celibate vocations and the Boomer filth.

Stage 4: further reading.

A lot of men dress a lot better than I do, and some of them have written about it. Below is a list of links for your perusal. Note that I do not vouch for their adherence to clean speech rules.

https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2015/12/28/a-non-idiots-guide-to-idiot-advice-on-getting-dressed/

"Critical Race Theory" might be bait

I do not believe in online privacy. I spend my entire digital life under the assumption that someone is at least taping it, and that they can access it as needed. If I want something kept a secret, it stays on pen and paper.

Therefore, Google knows what I read, whom I follow, et cetera. Anything that Google recommends for me, it must be aimed at an at least right-of-centre, if not far-right audience. And boy have they been pushing the "critical race theory debunked by [jogger]" headlines! They show up on my Google News about as much as a certain injection. This is getting pushed hard.

As you know, anything that makes any media headlines is automatically suspicious. Why is it being pushed? I initially thought that 'muh critical race theory' was just the usual mix of fear, division, and incitement-to-cortisol that makes up every news feed, whether it leans left, right, up, down, front, or back. But something that gets pushed this hard is definitely worse. The usual suspects must really be up to something serious. But what are they up to?

This morning, a SocialGalactic post containing the following image solved the query:

It should be noted I was unable to locate this tweet. It might be fake or just deleted already. Either way, I will assume that the information presented is somewhat factually accurate. If parents have indeed been letting their school boards know how they feel about critical race theory, then the whole push makes sense. Here's why:

This theory was insane to begin with. It debunks about as quickly as the wage gap, since it posits that white supremacy somehow makes it easier for blaqs to get into college and makes asians richer than whites. It's a complete joke. Real propaganda is subtle, such as pushing self-destructive lifestyles as 'freedom' and 'cool' and whatever else the Boomers called it.

I posit that the real goal of this 'debunking of critical race theory' is to make the right trust the schools again. You see, we got them libs! They couldn't push critical race theory into the schools! Nevermind all the other propaganda about sex-ed, climate change, and socialism that is still very much in the curricula! Disregard entirely the absolute torture that a 103-IQ teacher excersising their petty tyranny on a 140-IQ student inflicts! Really avoid paying any attention to the pathologisation of masculinity, where every insufficiently castrated boy gets put on amphetamine compounds to suppress the entirely natural and healthy impulse to move around and be physically active! We can trust the government schools now!

Don't fall for it. Homeschool or die is still in full force and effect. Much Love!

Read Better Words [corrected]

Rare is the day that yours truly finds himself disagreeing with Vox Day, but today is one such day. Usually, Day discusses topics which he is interested in but I am not, so I just roll with what he says, because he is honest, intelligent, and wise. That being said, there is one publicly expressed opinion of his that I must offer a rejoinder to, since it is my belief that we are not in a post-literate age.

It is absolutely true that less books are being read. I've read exactly one book since Christmas, and that puts me above the average of my social circle in uni of all places. But I still read a lot, on a daily basis. I read social media feeds and blog posts and such things. Excluding vocation-related reading, I would estimate that I read some five thousand words a day, and that is in line with what I have observed among my 'post-literate' peers.

However, there is a readily apparent difference between reading books and reading social media feeds. Said difference is probably what the word 'post-literate' is used to get at. While 'post-biblio-[suffix]' would be more dialectically acccurate, the bibliophiles have a point. We should be reading more books. Reading five thousand words takes less than 20 minutes in your native tongue. I wonder how many books each of us would get through in a year if we took half our 'reading stuff on the internet' time and read books with it instead. It's the same activity. We are already literate. But the words are better.

Hence I ask you, dear reader, to read better words. There are many better words out there. If you have no idea where to start, I recommend the Bible for about five minutes a day. For the other fifteen, ask about any genre on SG and the bibliophiles will help you out, guaranteed. Much love!

###

Correction: I stand corrected by people wiser than myself. Post-literate is the correct term. Mea maxima culpa for getting into a semantics spit in my seecond language with a bunch of bibliophiles in their first language. I should know better. I should read better words.

All The Rhetoric That One Needs

Some Rorschach tests are easier to pass than others. Allow yours truly to describe one that I passed recently:

Leftist woman: "I'm so glad that the government is caring about the environment."
Holzkind: "It really sucks for low-income communities and small businesses, who can afford neither the raised gas prices nor flashy, new, high-efficiency cars."
LW: *crickets*
[ One week later ]
LW: "Hey Holzkind, can I get a ride to [ place well within walking distance ] ?"
HK: "No."

As everyone can imagine, 'Leftist woman' is somewhat upset at me. Even better, she understands that she cannot say anything, since I'm doing exactly what she wants. It is, of course, pure coincidence that she now has to walk a quarter mile through moderate rainfall. But she will be happy to do it for her beloved environment, I'm sure.

More importantly, what the above demonstrates, is that rhetoric is easy, even for the dialectically inclined. This should not come as a surprise, since it is usually the lower IQ bands that are limited to the rhetorical. Nobody is ever limited to the more difficult of two options. For example, everyone who can drive manual can also drive automatic, because automatic is easier.

Now that it is established that rhetoric is easier, here is your first rhetorical device. It is also the only one you will ever need, although you are welcome to experiment with others:

"No."

That's it. Just say 'no'. The reason 'no' works so extremely well is that we live in a fake cultural hegemony that demands compliance. The people who go around demanding compliance are actually a minority. And they know it, and they are afraid. Hence the reactions that you will draw with a simple 'no'. In one word, you activate their fear that not everyone agrees with their delusion, directly attacking the very root of their identity and confidence. The dialectically challenged erroneously think that consensus means correctness. Hence the manufactured consent of the fraudulent elections. Hence also the awesome power of 'no'.

Just say no.

Do American Blaqs really vote Democrat?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a conspiracy hypothesis for you perusal. Or some potential gravy, depending on how you prefer to phrase it. Here it is:

Do American Blaqs really vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and with such reliably high turnout?

Lately, a few US States, most notably Georgia, have looked at fortifying their electoral processes. Given the colossal and obvious fraud last November, this makes sense. But that is not what I find interesting. Does anyone know the knee-jerk sub-par rhetorical response to increasing electoral oversight and voter fraud prevention? I'll give you a minute.

"yOu'Re sUpPrEsSiNg tHe bLaCk vOtE! jIm cRoW!"

This accusation makes no dialectical sense whatsoever. Blaqs have papers, just like everyone else. They also have signatures. And Blaqs are also literate enough to fill out a ballot, despite the best efforts of Democrat-run school districts.

That being said, it is effective rhetoric, since pathetic conservatives fear nothing more than that the people who already want them dead might call them names. But I digress...

Getting back to the point at hand, are we sure that Blaqs overwhelmingly vote Democrat? I for one am dubious. Here are a few reasons why:

First off, being under Democrat rule is the worst thing that can happen to a Blaq person. The taxes go up, the schools go to pot, and the crime increases. Whatever the race realists may be right about, everyone enjoys it when their kids actually learn stuff in class as opposed to getting shot in drive-bys. Even the Blaqs.

Second, there is the reverse great migration of Blaqs back to the American South. And who can blame them? Those States are much saner than the Democrat-maladministered cities and the Brothers are comfortable with the permanent and outrageous heat down there. Point being, Blaqs prefer being 'disenfranchised' by Republicans to being 'empowered' by Democrats, and those with sufficient funds are demonstrating it, one Penske truck at a time.

Third, Blaqs live in big cities, where the population density makes it easy to commit voter fraud. If DeWitt County, IL, suddenly discovered 20K Dem ballots to magically swing an election, everyone would call bovine excrement, since there are only 15K people in that neck of the cornfields, some of whom cannot vote. Cook County, on the other hand, has a whooping 5.15 million million people in it. Nobody would notice 20K extra ballots.

These three reasons are why I believe Blaqs may not actually be the Democrat monolith we are told they are. They suffer from Democrat rule to a point where they try to leave when they can, and they live in cities, where voter fraud is easy.

It would appear that the mainstream media are right in a roundabout way. Electoral fortification does "suppress the Black vote". However, it only suppresses the fraudulent vote of paid Black activists, not the actual vote of real Black people.

You will be a leader. Get ready for it.

Proverbs 5:13 reads:

"And have not heard the voice of them that taught me, and have not inclined my ear to masters?" [Douay-Rheims]

"And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!" [KJV]


"I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors." [ESV]

"Why did I not listen to the voice of my teachers, incline my ear to my instructors!" [NABRE]

Independent of which Bible translation you trust, the meaning is clear: trusting your teachers, masters, instructors et cetera is a good move. In the context of the full passage, the author regrets not listening to said people in authority about matters of adultery*. This implies that listening to leadership figures is usually a good move. But what does this mean for said leadership figures?

It is my opinion that all of you will end up in some leadership position at some point. Think about all the people who inspired you or whom you followed in your life thus far. Either they are formally in charge, or they have been in the job for a longer, or they generally give the impression that they know what they are doing. The odds that you will be one of these things will apply to you before too long. Even more so, if you become a parent, the children will look up to you for a long time. This applies to both men and women, as @ElaineAsh and other lovely ladies on SG confirmed for me.

Next, think about the times a leader or role model turned out to not be good at that job. That sucked, did it not? If basically everyone is going to end up in a leadership position, and bad leadership royally sucks, being a good leader is essential to follow the Greatest Commandment of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

As it happens, I personally end up in a lot of leadership positions, especially considering my age. And I could not tell you why this is. It could be for SSH reasons, or I just hang out with indecisive people, or something else. I truly have no idea why. Either way, thanks be to God, because I have screwed up a fair few leadership tasks. It is my hope and my prayer that my numerous leadership failures, explored below, can make you a better leader when the time comes.

One of the major times when I fail as a leader is in areas where I do not have my act together. The problem is that one leads not only explicitly by direction, but also implicitly by example. If I kind of skip the very necessary stretching before and after a workout, so do the people who look up to me. And then they injure themselves. Is it directly my fault? No. Could I have prevented it by being a better example? Yes. So have your act together.

Another huge thing is sleep deprivation, or anything else that messes with my discipline and self-mastery. The examples are obvious and plentiful. Leading by example goes wrong, because I mess up stuff that I would otherwise be really good at. Leading by direction goes wrong because I make really dumb decisions. I could write about the time I got caught going down the wrong way down a one-way with eight people in a seven-seater, but you get the idea. The solution is simple: get your sleep, your meals, and everything else you need in order, all the time.

Finally, major messes happen when I do not notice that people are looking up to me or looking at me for leadership. Sometimes I am just shooting the excrement because why not and who even cares. Well, people might care. And you might not notice that they are. The only solution is to be on my A-game most of the time.

All of the above sounds like an invitation to be self conscious and nervous about failure. Allow me to offer some consolation. If you mess up, you can clean up after yourself by admitting the failure and seriously resolving to do better, both to God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and to the people you were leading at the time. It is actually good for people to see their leaders mess up, provided said leaders admit it and fix it. 

In conclusion, you will lead some people at some point, whether you like it or not. Heck, you will lead people whether you notice it at the time or not. And it is very easy to lead well. All it takes is to have your house in order and to clean up after failures.

* TLDR for adultery: Cut it out. All of it. You will never regret not doing adultery things.

Real-time spell breakdown

Content warning: will be discussing violence and homicide. Please do not read on if those topics upset you. Thanks!

Quick post today on the Colorado Shooting. As with all such events, I make no claims as to the factual accuracy of the reported narrative, and neither should you. That being said, there is a spell at play here.

As always, the factual accuracy is irrelevant to spellcraft. What matters is what people believe. So the events being presented might be one hundred per cent true, or not. The spell works either way. This is a breakdown of the spell being woven around the reported shooting in Boulder, Colorado.

We are told that a Muslim migrant called Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa allegedly shot up a supermarket with an AR-style rifle, killing ten people, including an off-duty police officer.

Notice immediately the triggers in this narrative. It's an evil scary Muslim with a scary black AR-15. The left gets to be all upset about "muh guns". The right gets to be all upset about "muh Muzzies". For added effect, the spellcasters have thrown in two more little side-triggers for everyone to enjoy. The suspect is not only an evil scary muslim, no, he is an evil scary Muslim from Syria! Furthermore, he also shot an off-duty cop, the "good guy with a gun" that your racist uncle on Faceborg keeps talking about in gun debates! Everyone gets to be scared by the shooting! Left, right, up, down, shift key, we all get our Fear fix in!

But why cast this spell? Why send out some Fear p0rn for both sides of the fake political divide? It is because either way, the government gets bigger. Either the gun is scary and we need more gun laws, or the Muslim is scary and we need a bigger surveillance state.

This is a classic example of a fear spell, and it is a fairly competent fear spell, at least to the uninitiated. Whichever way the narrative goes, the government gets bigger, and Americans become less free. So do not fall for the spell. Keep your rights, or what is left of them. Much Love!

The prepper case for bicycles

When people think about prepping, they usually think about building a compound that can sustain life without supply chains, and about weapons. Transportation is usually an afterthought, and if it is considered, the proposed solution involves off-road capable motor vehicles and perhaps a boat or a snowmobile, depending on the terrain.

However, all of these means of transportation have a major downside: the supply chain. They all require fuel, and various other chemicals, such as engine oil or transmission fluid. Furthermore, they have many moving parts. Many things that can break, and a fair few of them are difficult to repair. There is a much simpler vehicle that could meet many transportation needs, especially considering how incredibly cheap it is. Enter the bicycle.

You can get a decent new bicycle for $500 or less. I paid $700 for mine, but I needed a raised saddle, raised handlebars, and extended brake lines to accomodate my oversized legs. 99% of people reading this will not have this problem. Another $500 will get you a nice lock, a saddlebag rig that can hold 80lbs of stuff, and some basic tools. The tools needed to completely assemble a bicycle from parts might cost a little bit more, but I am confident that you can get a fully tricked out one with all the tooling for under $2K. All the tools you need are the screwdrivers, a tire change kit, and some kind of big clamp stand to hold the frame up.

That covers the initial cost. What about operating supplies and spare parts? Common bicycle tires are $50 each, and they last forever if stored in a dry place, so you can stock up. They can be changed by either raisng the bike on the aforementioned clamp, or by just resting it upside down on the saddle and handlebar. The only chemical that they need is some manner of lubricant for the chaing and cog assembly. Fortunately, since there is no combustion or other extreme environmental stresses on this lubricant, one can simply use bacon grease, or canola oil, or literally any other greasy stuff that is readily available. Brake pads are under $10 each, even for nicer ones. It is readily observable that most of this stuff is an order of magnitude cheaper and easier to procure than what a motor vehicle needs.

Now what about speed and range? This is where cars come out ahead. It is hard to do more than 200 miles in a day with a bicycle, but how far does one need to move around the post-apocalypse anyhow? Personally, I have found that I can take a fully loaded bicycle up to 10-12mph without getting too exhausted. Granted, I have done this with road tires, which are notoriously faster than off-road tires. But it is certainly possible to have both sets of bicycle tires, because a full tire change takes half an hour, even less if you're good.

In terms of off-road capabilities, a properly assembled bicycle will go everywhere that a car can go, assuming the rider is strong enough. Furthermore, bicycles can fit through smaller gaps, which is useful in the woods and amazing in the city. And if a hill is too steep, the bicycle can always be carried by its rider, although this can get difficult with 80lbs of cargo on the bicycle.

The final consideration for preppers is the combat utility of a vehicle. Here, bicycles have the problem that there is no armor on them, and no cover behind them. That being said, bicycles are more than proven as an excellent way to move around war zones. And these were standardized bicycles that were not adapted to the individual riders, mind you. It does not need to be said that a properly set up bicycle can carry a lot of ammunitions, first aid, and other supplies.

In conclusion, I would encourage any prepper to seriously look into getting a bicycle for each adult in their family. They will serve you well, especially in flatter areas.

Ideologues think you're an animal

Depicted above is a dog whom I was sitting last week. For the purposes of this post, let us call him Sparky. Sparky is a puppy of some manner of sheepdog, so he is a hyperactive psycho who needs to run around for hours a day. I really like Sparky and I try to make him happy any way I can. For him, this involves letting him run around. This can be difficult because he thinks he can just run up to every human and get affection for trying to climb up their leg. It is positively adorable, but also awkward.

Over the course of this particular dogsitting shift, best job ever by the way, I thought about happiness and fulfilment, particularly in the context of dogs. It is very easy to make dogs, and many other animals, happy. Some permutation of food, space, and human affection usually does the trick. All their needs can be met by material things of this world.

Humans are not like that. We need more than just things. Humans need something above and beyond, something or someone to believe in. For most people, this is met by either religion or some cause du jour. Religion and spirituality are obvious examples of this, and the people who have neither will usually chase something else for meaning and purpose. The owner of this dog, for instance, is an atheist vegetarian. And boy is she devout to the vegetarianisms! It is impossible to even have her try even a bite of the awesome Al Pastor that my friend made. She is considerably stricter than any people of faith that I know.

All tangents aside, the point is that humans need something supernatural. St. Augustine said something to the effect of "Our hearts are restless until they rest in God". Other examples of this need for something more litter the arts, to a point where it becomes undeniable that this need is universal to humans. Every isolated tribe that explorers run into has some manner of spirituality going on, for instance. Animals, however, do not have this need. Give Sparky a park, some food, and an affectionate person, and he is as happy as he will ever be.

Not only do all humans share this need for the supernatural, but there is no animal that needs the supernatural. I would go so far as to posit that a need for something more is a good way to determine the humanity of a life form. But some would disagree with me. There are many people, some of them very influential, who believe that humans can be entirely satisfied by the material.

For instance, Marxist theory holds that all human problems are caused by inequality in this world, therefore allowing them to be ameliorated by creating equality, one mass grave at a time.

On the not-so-other hand, Marxism's equally insane but nominally opposite reaction, libertarianism, holds that all human problems are due to structures imposed on these humans. Leave them alone and they will spontaneously develop happiness and fulfilment.

As a matter of fact, most ideologies present their worldly proposals as the way to happiness. However, this world cannot make humans happy. Humans need the supernatural. Humans need God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, specifically. But that is not the point of this post. The point is that there is one category of creature that can be made happy by this world and its things: animals. Anyone who thinks you can be happy without the supernatural considers you an animal, effectively. This also explains why so many of the various ruling classes have such obvious disdain for the people they rule over. At some level or another, they consider their underlings to not even be fully human. This conviction, even if verbally denied, rears its ugly head sooner or later.

TLDR beware anyone who does not think you need the supernatural. They think of you as a mere animal and will treat you as such.

The whole ghey thing is a spell

Content warning: will be discussing sexual topics, please excersise due discretion.

Like everyone else, I usually do not think about sexuality a lot, especially not what other people do with other people. What do I care? That being said, I have recently taken an interest in the ghey situation. I wondered why everyone has strong opinions about something that objectively affects less people than are in actual danger of the Feng Shui Flu. It makes no sense, and yet they do. Allow me to list a few examples.

1. Most of the gheys themselves and various assorted identities are upset about being oppressed by the people who in fact largely ignore them.
2. Many religious people are upset at having the ghey pushed on their children in school and media, both of which they subject their children to for no discernible reason.
3. Sane men are upset at their healthy friendships being called 'gay' by people who consume too much media.
4. Some assorted identities folk do not want to be bothered by the spectacle, because they always get singled out, even though they are just people working through issues.

Yours truly falls into the third category, even though I try to not get too upset at the stupid people, mostly because whacking them with a shovel is illegal in this jurisdiction.

So why is everyone up in arms about the ghey thing? To answer this question, I went into the history of this situation. As the reader can imagine, any history books about this are too biased to be of actual use. They're always written by group 1 or 2 people, because the other groups cannot be bothered to write a lot about it. So I went to Google NGram, for an approximation of how much people talk about the ghey situation:

Hoping that this diagram goes up properly, there is a clear trend. Since 'gay' means happy in olde English, its use declines and then goes back up, largely in tandem with 'lesbian', 'homosexual', and 'LGBT', which themselves did not exist before the Antisexual Revolution of the late sixties. Similarly, 'queer' is first popular as a slur, then it goes out of fashion, only to come back as one of the assorted identities.

Here is my theory, inspired largely by my observations, the NGram above and Sacred Scripture: there is a gigantic spell, and it encompasses the whole ghey thing. As far as I can tell, there are three major lies that we are supposed to believe, and I shall refute them below.

The first major lie, in my analysis, is that Jesus Christ of Nazareth somehow approves of acting on ghey temptations. If this lie is ever presented, the Scriptural evidence is that Jesus never explicitly condemns it. Jesus also never explicitly condemns torture or arson, so let's get involved in those while we're at it, shall we? Obviously not. As is explicitly mentioned in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. Furthermore, Jesus is really strict on the subject of adultery. In that same Sermon on the Mount, we read that even looking at other women is a form of adultery. There is no doubt that any sexual action with not your spouse is a sin. Additionally, everything about marriage in all of the Scriptures points to the obvious reality that marriage is between a man and a woman*. Hence, anything ghey whatsoever must be a sin.

The second major lie, whose adherents are plenty among the 'conservative' Baby Boomers, is that straight adultery is somehow one iota better than gay adultery. It is not. I understand that it makes them feel better about their numerous youthful indiscretions, but it simply is not. Again, Jesus' own words and every other command in the Bible are generalized for a reason. All of it is adultery. All of it is sin.

The third, and perhaps final big lie is that normal male friendship is somehow ghey. This is pushed in two ways: all manners of 'no homo' jokes and related stereotypes to discourage young men from bonding with other young men, as well as a crude historical revisionism where every famous figure in history who had a male friend must have been taking this friend behind a dumpster on the regular. It is perfectly normal for men to be friends their entire lives. As a matter of fact, a long, stable male friendship goes to suggest that there is nothing ghey going on, since anyone who knows practicioners of the ghey can tell you that these people do not have the stability for long relationships of any kind.

After all these observations, the logical questions is one of motive. Why would one encourage all manners of sexual immorality but discourage male friendship?
The reason for the first is found in statistics: the sexually immoral are considerably less fecund. There are statistics that one could look up, but it is much more expedient to compare the number of kids had by Muslim immigrants to those by ghey fake marriages. Ditto for rich liberals versus Mormons. Sexual immorality is a great avenue for the prince of this World to discourage God the Father's command to be fruitful and multiply. This would also explain why the ghey is bein pushed in institutions of this World, such as government schools. All worldly power structures are influenced by the prince of this World, so they will do some of his pathetic bidding.
An answer to the second is also in the Bible. Brother helped by brother is a fortress, or words to that effect would explain why the prince of this World wants to destroy male fraternity. They that hold to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True must be weakened if el diablo wants to get stuff done.

If this analysis is correct, which I believe it is, there is a simple antidote to all the damage wrought by the ghey spell. Form relationships with other men, build each other up, if you are a man. If you are a man or a woman or any of the assorted identities, find a spouse, get married, and be fruitful. Do not be too concerned with the various intricacies of the ghey spell. Identify its purpose and counteract that, effectively cutting off el diablo's weasely efforts at the root. Much Love!

* Take a peek at all these Biblical laws and commandments about marriage. If one want to argue that one can marry within the same sex, one has to demonstrate that every single one of these can be applied to same sex situations. I will not hold my breath.

How much can one blame unprotected women?

Content warning: I am writing about abuse and related topics. Discretion is encouraged

Between Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, and many other media figures, there is always a contingent of people who like to blame the women who, more or less voluntarily, agreed to their mistreatment. I find this to be wrong, if understandable.

There are several reasons to blame women for their semi-willing participation. Often, proponents of this erroneous viewpoint will argue that the victims could have just torched their careers, or spoken out sooner. Both of these are factually correct, and certainly a standard that men should be held to. Emphasis on men.

The problem is that women are objectively the weaker sex, in more than just the physical sense, even though the physical sense is part of the problem. Absent specialized martial arts training and/or firearms, the most pathetic gamma weasel can overpower most women. It is highly unfair, but that is how bone density and upper body strength work. While physical violence is seldom part of these stories, it is always in the back of women's minds. Deep down, they understand that pretty much every able-bodied man can overpower them. They have every reason to be afraid of men, especially men with less than entirely noble intentions.

Secondly, predators perfect their craft. They certainly do not run around with 'I want to hurt you in intimate ways'  emblazoned on their T-shirts. What they do is they seek out vulnerable women, make them more vulnerable, and then move in for the atrocity. In a similar vein, women are very easy to manipulate, and consequently to prey on. There is a reason that most consumer advertising is aimed at women: it is much easier to deceive them long enough to make a sale.

It is for these reasons that I find it unfair, and more importantly useless, to blame the women for what they were pressured into. It may be true, but it is about as useful as blaming a deer for getting himself shot in hunting season; they did not stand much of a chance. There is a much more effective target for blame. Where were the fathers, cousins, and brothers of these women? Unprotected women will be targeted, because it is so easy to target them.

For further encouragement, consider the fact that sexual predators are fundamentally cowards. Their physique is also much closer to Ira's than to Chris Hemsworth's, so most men are able to intimidate them. The first time I caused a creep to back down, I was 14 and my sister, the intended mark, was 12. And I just stared at the weasel. He physically backed away from my then skinny teenager frame. It would be funny if one ignored how many women still fall prey to these creeps. I repeat: predators are fundamentally cowards. If you show up, they back down.

If you want to protect women, do not just blame them. Educate and protect them. Much love!

Death is a fear spell

 Very short post today. SocalGalactician Desoto opined that 'it ain't over til we are 6ft under'. This is excellent rhetoric, but, as a Christian, I must disagree on the dialectical level. We already know that death is not the end, but I would contend that every death, at its particular timing, is exactly part of God's plan, and here's why: the resurrections.

Any astute biblical student remembers that Jesus is hardly the only one to ever come back from physical death. There is also Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and the daughter of Jairus, in the Gospels alone. This website has an excellent list if you wish to read up on it.

While there are many different lessons within each of the biblical resurrections, and every passage is worth studying and contemplating independently, there is a common thread throughout these: If God's plan involves you being alive in this world, then you will be very much alive. Granted, you may be wrapped in cloths and stumbling into the bewildered arms of your sisters, but you will be alive. God will not let you die, let alone stay dead, if His plan involves you being alive.

Therefore, death is not only not the end, it is also not worth being afraid of. If God wants you to participate in something in this world or experience it, you will be alive to do so. The only possible reason to fear death is that you have a few things to answer for when you pass from this world. In that case, a) God has already set up many opportunities for you to be forgiven, and b) you are well advised to take those opportunities as they show up. Much Love!

Crushing in local politics

As most of us know, barring highly improbable events, federal politics are more rigged than the original USS Constitution, and therefore not worth the wait in the polling line in November.

This leaves the state and local politics. Personally, I recommend getting into local politics, because the barrier to entry amounts to 'can you be bothered?' Allow yours truly to make the case for why you should very much be bothered, using some practical examples that may be relevant in the immediate future.

The County Recorder can decide whether or not Dominion Fraud Machines should be used. Expect many purple counties that allegedly voted for Biden to become very red if you get on this.

The Sheriff can decide whether or not to collect guns. He also gets some veto powers on Federal raids

The local zoning authorities can cause major headaches if Planned Parenthood or anyone else wants to set up shop.

I do not have to elucidate how much power local judges and juries wield, all of you just saw the election lawsuits and their miserable fate.

If you have any money to spare, local races are very cheap. As Jose Miguel on SG pointed out, as little as $400 gets your foot in the door.
If you do not have any money or opportunities to work more hours and make some, you can volunteer your time. This might be even better than donating, since local races do not have hierarchies. Every canvasser and poster-installer will personally meet the candidate, and have an opportunity to, erm, present them with certain points of view.

There are also other organizations worth considering, depending on the local political balance. Think major unions and religious groups.

Long term, consider God's first direct commandment to humanity: be fruitful and multiply. Nobody has to canvass neighborhoods on a bike in winter if you are the electorate and if all the serious candidates have shared a meal with you at some point.

It's time to live a less comfortable life

It is necessary to preface that I am no theologian, and that I have never read most of the Bible. My only claim to theological credibility is that nobody is paying me to say what I am saying. Considering the views on my blog, nobody would consider paying me to lie about Jesus, but that's neither here nor there. For I do not need to be a theologian to see that we as a society have put comfort before God for a while now.

In my profoundly biased and reliably un-researched opinion, there are several kinds of comforts that we place before God, sometimes on a daily basis. I would divide them into material, social, and spiritual comforts.

First, let us look at material comforts. There are quite many of these, such as driving a mile to the grocery store to get like ten pounds of groceries. Barring actually unhealthy weather or time pressure, you can walk that. Then there are the many comforts afforded by social media and Big Tech. The cult of free is a cult. Eating out is a comfort too. The list goes on. In my opinion, many material comforts can be avoided by able-bodied people, and some of them definitely should. A twenty minute walk to the grocery store is a great opportunity for prayer, among other things.

Then there are social comforts. A prime example of these would be to never argue with the SJW relative(s), with the greedy Boomer uncle, et cetera. This attachment to social harmony and comfort has convinced many freakshows that their insanity is not only moral, but also popular. Since they do not care about morality, letting them think they are socially accepted is comfortable, but it aids and abets their evil. Hint: when they find out that you read VP or that you voted for GEOTUS, they will hate you anyway. Might as well confront them about their insanity, show them that nobody agrees with their garbage.

Finally, we get to spiritual comforts. I would define these as every time we try to warp theology to be more comfortable about our own lives. There are many of these. WASPs love to pretend that the stock market is any less gambling than Vegas is. Left-leaning Christians love to pretend that Jesus does not have clear prescriptions about family and gender, I personally love to pretend that the words that I use and the media that I consume do not affect my spiritual life and that of my friends, et cetera.

I invite you, dear reader, to take a moment to consider things that you perhaps should not be doing, that are comfortable.

Now onto the reason to forego these comforts, which is twofold. The first is the rather obvious one that a good amount of these comforts are vices, even sins, so they should be avoided on their own merits, or rather their lack thereof.

The second reason is that I believe that God is about to, if not already in the process of, taking these comforts away from us, such that we may return our focus to Him and Him alone. In this way, God is doing our souls a favor, as He is clearing away some distractions. However, this entails that we will have to make do without these comforts. If we get used to discomfort now, we will be better equipped to love God and neighbor when the rest of the world goes cold turkey on the comfortable life. Good times create weak men, and the hard times will be shorter if we become strong men ahead of schedule. Much love!

George Soros might be a fear spell

This morning, I went to a Bible Study in a local protestant church. The church is woke on the mask question and the lady presenting the Study is really well read, so it is always an interesting time. Even better, she is a Boomer who has figured out computer technology. She has figured it out enough to record her presentations and upload them as podcasts, presumably to SoundCloud or a similar service.

On said service, she told us about how she looked up who was following her. Among her followers was some foundation/institute/thingy affiliated with none other than scary evil George Soros himself. The gist of her little story was that she was afraid of putting the presentations up there if Scary Soros and his Commie Crew of Marxian Misfits was listening in. Would she not get persecuted or at least put on some list? Fortunately, she claims to have taken this worry to prayer and God resolved it for her. Happy ending for her, but it got me thinking. Is there a fear spell surrounding George Soros, particularly among American Christians?

The reason for my question is twofold. First, George Soros seems a little too obvious for me. Sure, he hides behind front groups, but that is about as transparent as when potential Clinton witnesses coincidentally perish in car accidents. The enemies of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True tend to hide in plain sight but if Tucker Carlson can mention Soros on Fox News, I have my doubts as to Soros being more than a scarecrow.

Second, the Devil loves himself some fear spells. They are an extremely efficient way to stop Christians from spreading their message. If Christians are afraid of persecution without there being an actual persecution, the Devil wins. You see, full size persecutions are difficult to set up. One has to take over a whole government and then get all the wheels in motion. It's a bureaucratic pain in the hindquarters, even for the Devil. Much more efficient to just plant fearful thoughts in people. Why persecute people if they are going to effectively persecute themselves? Fear is an extremely powerful weapon.

I could be wrong with all this. Maybe George Soros is planning to round up Christians. But I have a hunch that the Devil is hyping up a fear spell here. Either way, be not afraid of the guy. He has no real power at all, unless you give it to him first.

The Delta-Bravo continuum

Since the SSH is more of a series of behavioral patterns than a set of drawers to toss people into, it makes sense that some people can exhibit multiple of these patterns, depending on the situation. The PUA world has long talked about situational alphas, which is a similar concept to this proposed continuum.

The idea of the Delta-Bravo continuum is that people who would normally be Deltas can be situational Bravos, and vice versa.

As patterns go, Delta and Bravo are extremely similar. Both function best when given a purpose by an alpha. Both can set their minds to someone else's goal, without suffering a mental crisis á la special boy. Finally, both tend to be fairly normal men with simple, conventional desires. They are not alphas who want to rule the world, gammas who live in a delusion bubble, or sigmas/omegas who want God only knows what. Since they are so close, I posit that a Delta can be a situational Bravo much easier than he could be a situational Sigma, et cetera.

For example, a Delta being a situational Bravo would be if a group decides that the most experienced member takes charge. If this most experienced member is somewhat reluctant, he is a Delta being forced into the Bravo role. I am confident that every Delta over twenty five reading this has a story about being asked to lead something he did not want to lead, simply because Deltas get so good at stuff that it makes sense for them to lead, much as some of them do not enjoy it.

Conversely, one can occasionally observe the more cheerful and boisterous members of the group really shrinking back when there is something new to learn, when the terrain becomes unfamiliar. This, I believe, would be a Bravo being a situational Delta because he does not know enough to lead. It is worth recalling that Alphas and Bravos tend to lead because they, often correctly, consider themselves to be good at leading, whereas gammas lead to get petty revenge or an ego boost. Therefore, when a Bravo feels unable to lead properly, he shrinks back. Alphas do the same thing, to an extent, because they too are capable of stepping back to benefit the group effort. It just takes a little more effort to slow down an alpha. If you ever see a guy with nothing but respect for the guy who just busted his nose, it is two alphas who figured out their relative hierarchy the hard way. If, on the other hand, busted nose says he actually won because the other guy cheated and he is off his game this week and is secretly an MMA champion, well, you can guess.

Waiting Room Theory

 Hopefully, nobody reading this has too much experience with the waiting room in the hospital. It is not a fun place to spend any length of time. Anywhere from a few seconds to many hours ago, you saw your loved one being moved throuth the door, into a room down the hall, and you do not know if they come back, or how much of them comes back. It truly is a horrible feeling, a combination of fear and powerlessness. Both fear and powerlessness are bad feelings in their own right, but the hospital waiting room takes it to a whole new level of suck.

So why do people chase this feeling?

I am not kidding. People actually go out of their way to get into 'waiting room situations'. They try to be powerless yet emotionally invested, if not outright afraid. Consider politics for instance. People right now are losing sleep about whether or not the guy they believe left office will be impeached again. On the other side, people are losing sleep about electoral irregularities in a contest between two factions of the same status quo in a demographically doomed empire.

Granted, there is only one truth, one correct version of events, and one of the political perspectives will be closest to that, but that is not the point. The point is the 'losing sleep' part. In the entire United States, there are some number less than ten thousand people who have tangible, immediate influence in the federal political process, and three hundred million and then some who do not. Those not-even-ten-thousand are the only ones who have any right to worry about this stuff in the short term. The rest of the country does not. And here is the kicker: the rest of the country would not even know what to get worked up about this week if they did not watch the fake news all the time. They fire up their computers and effectively order the machine to make them angry and afraid by lying to them when they open some article, video, social media feed, et cetera ad nauseam. News junkies are junkies too, and they need to get clean like every other junkie.

But how does one get clean? How does one stop worrying about stuff that one does not control? Unfortunately, I have no idea. But I would like to help people, so if you know anything about stopping anxiety and undue worries, please do drop a comment. Much Love!

Why I hate determinism

Content warning: I will be sticking to clean speech, but I will discuss some rather dark things to illustrate my point. I trust the reader's discernment if they want to keep reading.

Please do not read this as a theological opinion. As a matter of fact, please do not assign too much of any 'logic' anything to this. It is purely my subjective opinion, elucidated and explained. Thanks.

The header realy says it all. I hate determinism in all its forms. Predestination, fate, whatever people call it, keep it away from me. I am not going to wage into the determinsism versus free will debate, I just subjectively hate determinism. And here's why:

There ceases to be a point. Believing the future is already decided means that your actions do not matter. It leads to a personal nihilism, because there is nothing that you can change about the future so why bother? If carrying a gun is not going to prevent you from getting robbed, because your life is already mapped out anyway, why bother trying to protect yourself? If fate or something else has already decided whether or not you will be stuck with an abusive spouse, why seek help? If your future with substance abuse is already set in stone, what is the point of trying to get clean?

Yes, that went to a dark place very quickly. But that is the point. Believing that you can do something about unfortunate circumstances is often the only possible shot at a way out. That is why I personally and subjectively hate determinism. It implies telling an abuse victim 'hey, this is your lot in life, sucks to be you.' It tells genuine victims that they will always be victims, that they cannot fight. Maybe that is why people find it appealing: it gives them every excuse not to fight. It turns their weakness to wisdom. 

Side note: being weak is not necessarily bad, especially as a woman. Not everyone has to engage in conflict. As I have written before, there is plenty to do for the conflict avoidant. But, please, stop telling those who fight that it does not matter anyway. You do not have to be ashamed of your weakness. It is not shameful to be weak. It is however shameful to discourage the fighters and attack their strength from 'their side'. It is a psychological backstab. Cut it out.

Again, this is not an argument for or against determinism in the philosophical or theological sense. I have personally witnessed reasonable people argue both sides. This is my subjective opinion, my roundabout way of saying 'bodybags for blackpills'. Much love!

Plans for a Biden Admininstration

The whole point of planning is that less-than-ideal future events do not bite you in the posterior any more than they have to. You do not plan to get all As without studying, you do not plan that your love handles just magically evaporate between Dunkin Donuts trips, et cetera. You plan for the absolute worst. Some of us plan to survive for years without access to a grocery store. Others plan for the possibility of being abducted by mind-controlling alien lizard people. Realistic or not, what you plan for is the worst outcome that you reasonably expect.

Therefore, I think it is prudent to plan for the possibility that President-Pretend China Joe, or Javier Bardem, or whomever actually runs them, gets a full four years at the helm of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the United States of America. What does this mean specifically, and what can one do about it? The recommendations below will be divided according to groups, since this hypothetical affects everyone differently.

People outside the US: figure out post haste who the next big dog after Uncle Sam is, specific to your region. Is it Russia, China, or India, or anyone else? The thing is that nobody takes this administration seriously. Therefore, some regional hegemonies may or may not get some ideas. Study them, what they want, if they are currently capable of making such moves, et cetera.

Non-US Citizens in the US: What is the situation in your country of citizenships? There is a non-zero probability that they look better that Biden's handler's America. This goes double if you hail from Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and select other countries. I am no expert on world politics, but I will certainly be studying my home country to see if it is worth setting up shop there. On the other hand, you can certainly bloom where you are currently planted, especially with God's help.

US Citizens inside the US: I encourage you to disengage from Federal-Level politics entirely. If you are a politics fiend, there is plenty of opportunity at the State and Local levels. I believe it was Missouri that recently cancelled a lot of gun control, for example. Furthermore, a lot of 'battleground states' went +5 or more for Trump in November because they had implemented strict voter fraud prevention at the state level*. Take out the roots of the Leftist power structure, one county clerk at a time.

Christians: You'll be golden. A majority of the ink in the Bible details how God uses any genuine follower in any circumstance to mop the floor with evil authorities. All you need to worry about is being a genuine follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, but you needed to worry about that before Wednesday as well. Nothing actually changed in the grand scope of things, but this hypothetical situation is certainly added incentive. If you ever needed a reason to quit various sins, here it is. More specifically, I encourage you to detach yourself from various things that the powers of this world can take away. Examples of this would include excessive money and social status. It will get less comfortable, so you will have to get stronger. As always, hope, pray, and love.
For further reading: consider Matt Cochran's post on the same topic. 

Non-Christians: I am not going to attempt to convert you, especially not here. What I will do is encourage you to study the history of the Christian Faith, using whatever sources you consider trustworthy. Specifically, I offer the following syllogism:
Premise 1: Somewhere between 0 and 150 AD, this group calling themselves Christians showed up on the politcal map, initially in the Middle East.
Premise 2: The Roman Empire, the hegemonic power at the time, did not like these Christians and went after them, at great loss of life on the Christian side.

Premise 3: By AD 325, Emperor Constantine was helping the Christian Church and formally converted the entire Roman empire around that time.

Conclusion: Whatever this early church was up to really works against a hostile political authority.

If, in your analysis, the premises check out, and the conclusion follows, it stands to reason that the Christian way of life offers an effective strategy against hostile governments. Even if you do not believe in God the Father of Jesus Christ, I strongly encourage you to try out the prescriptions of the Christian Life. They will help. Be a cargo cult Christian for a year, see how it works out for you.

Thanks for reading. We will make it through this hypothetical winter, and through every real winter. Much Love!

* Credit for this observation goes to Razörfist by the by. Check out his rants on the election.

What the Pharisees got right

First of all, allow me to thank @PewienBear and @Scutum for the inspiration that lead to this post. At the time of writing, they are probably still duking it out about theology, so go watch them if you have enough popcorn handy.

The Pharisees got something right. They did not get a whole lot right, considering how often and how forcefully Jesus Christ of Nazareth decided to unload on them and their hypocrisy and other sins, but they did get one thing right: Righteousness itself. The law they professed to follow was in fact God's own law at the time.
A few caveats are in order. Yes, they royally sucked at following said law despite publicly preaching it, and most of them completely missed the memo that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Christ, leading to the first recorded example of "How Deer Ewe!?!" (Luke 13:11ff). Furthermore, said law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ on the Cross.
That being said, what does this fulfilled law look like? What does God require of us in response to His Perfect Love? I cannot tell you that with certainty. But I can offer a few pointers.
For starters, we have Matthew 5:20. Individual translations vary, but the gist of it is that Jesus tells us we have to be 'more righteous' than the Pharisees were. More righteous means the Pharisees were righteous to some extent. This begs the question: what were they righteous about?
I contend that they were righteous about the law. The law that Jesus came to fulfil, as per Matthew 5:17. Again, we arrive at the question above: what does this law look like?
We are told, in Matthew 22:37-40 that the whole Law rests on two commandments, to love God above all else and our neighbor as ourselves. Personally, I find it extremely fitting that the God who loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die for us asks us to love. I am no hippie by telling you that it is all about love, maaaaaan, because it very much is.
Getting back on topic, what is this love that explains everything? It does not take a sporadic and inconsistent blogger like myself to tell you that it has extremely little to do with what takes up the skin suit of love in pop culture malware. Shout-out to @architectbear for this rhetorical gem, by the way.
This love is painful. We're supposed to take up an entire cross. What Matthew 16:24 mentions is at least a few hundred pounds of wooden beams, considering that it has to hold a whole human several feet off the ground. Worse yet, if you are a bigger specimen, your cross is also bigger, because it has to hold you up. This sucker scales. Take up your cross as opposed to any old cross.
Next up, this love is sacrificial. John 15:13 foretells not only the Passion, it is also sage advice for us. We have to sacrifice first for God and then for others, in order to love Him and them.
Finally, this love is joyful. The trials are to be enjoyed. See James 1:2, Romans 12:12, and 1 Peter 1:8 among many other verses. I do not know how joyful the Pharisees were, but we have to be joyful.

TL;DR : The pharisees got the old law mostly right. The new law is love, which is painful, demands sacrifice, and you will enjoy the ride.

Much love!