Representation games

At some point, even people who are trying not to notice how frequently (((they))) show up in media and entertainment and politics are going to start looking ridiculous as well. We're not quite there yet, but if the current trends hold, then it won't be much longer.

Current President Donald Trump was said to have been antisemitic when calling out Adam Schiff, a congressman who has been trying to get Trump out of office since the day he took it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/aoc-accuses-trump-anti-semitism-over-attacks-lyin-shifty-schiff

Per the accusatory tweet:

Understand that Trump is engaged in deliberate, atrocious, targeted antisemitism towards Chairman Schiff.

Then ask yourself why no one cares to denounce it - esp when his accusation of it towards others drove full news cycles earlier this year.

The article linked then goes on to describe how almost the entirety of Trump's political opposition is Jewish. This is supposed to make it seem like Trump has it out for modern Jews, but ends up pointing out how many Jews have problems with Donald Trump.

For example:

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry on September 24, President Donald Trump and his acolytes seem to have borrowed a page from the Daily Stormer playbook. And here’s the thing: As with the president’s outrageous insistence that foreign governments dish up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, they happen to be banging their anti-Semitic drum in plain sight.

...

To be clear: More than 200 House Democrats have signed onto an impeachment inquiry and yet the president chose to target only three of them by name, two of whom are Jewish: Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The third target was — surprise! — a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shamefully, he attacked all of them as “savages.”

How is such rhetoric not racist?

Here's the thing: Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a Jewish lobbyist.

Chuck Schumer, often seen hand in hand with her, is also Jewish.

As the article would later point out, Jon Stewart is also Jewsih, but only ethnically and is "irreligious".

Why do I point this out? Well, when the article mentions that there are over 200 Democrats, Trump went after the ones who have been in the media, given the limelight. Of all the people on the list, not every one of them has national exposure in the news. Schiff and Nadler are both ranking officials in their respective political associations, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties respectively. Both of them are leaders, not simply random supporters that have been singled out. By their own actions on the political stage, they have drawn attention to themselves and what they are trying to do. And they're both Jewish.

So, were Trump to put forth any sort of criticism at all related to any of these rather well-known figures in the political and media arenas, he could be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because at some level he disagrees with or opposes people who are Jews, whether ethnically or religiously or both. Inherent in this is the implication that Jews are not capable of doing anything wrong, that to disagree with or oppose them is some moral evil, that they are above reproach.

Now, given all this, what did God say about Israel again?

When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:
“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry
And children of harlotry,
For the land has committed great harlotry
By departing from the Lord.” - Hosea 1:2 (NKJV)

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. - 1 Samuel 8:7-8 (NKJV)

Even Jesus got into it as well, the damnable anti-Semite!

For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father [a]or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” - Matthew 15:4-9 (NKJV)

It gets even better later on.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. - Matthew 23:15 (NKJV)

Why is that "great"? Well, you do know who founded Rabbinic Judaism, right?

While there have been Jewish groups whose beliefs were claimed to be based on the written text of the Torah alone (e.g., the Sadducees, and the Karaites), most Jews believed in what they call the oral law. These oral traditions were transmitted by the Pharisee sect of ancient Judaism, and were later recorded in written form and expanded upon by the rabbis.

Rabbinic Judaism (which derives from the Pharisees) has always held that the books of the Torah (called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition.

Yup, you're reading that right. The sect of the historic Hebrew faith which is responsible for modern Judaism is the same one that Jesus Christ called a "son of hell". He didn't do that just once either.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. - John 8:42-44 (NKJV)

Pointing out that Jews are like their father, and that their father is the father of lies, is anti-Semitic.

So Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite. And Donald Trump is an anti-Semite. Also those who reject the works of modern Judaism, or ethnic Jews, are anti-Semitic. Everyone who doesn't bend the knee and serve those who now call themselves Jews is anti-Semitic. It's a term that has become so ridiculously overblown and overplayed that people cannot any longer ignore the inherent supremacy implied by those who accuse others of being anti-Semitic, and thus demanding penance, if not subserviance, to Semites as a consequence.

Jews are no longer God's chosen people, by their own choices, and their resentment of all that reminds them of this is growing ever more apparent.

Like a small child whose approval of their parents relies entirely on the parents doing what the child wants, the harlot Israel is still demanding that everyone, including God, serve them on their terms. Their arrogance and hubris sheds new light on historical events where, again, they were not the majority of representatives in Germany or the Soviet Union, but they were the figureheads. They were in front of people, championing causes, and placing themselves in positions of power and influence.

So keep this in mind the next time someone whines about anti-Semitism. These are a people who rejected the God who loved them, whose hypocrisy even Jesus Christ called out plain as day, and who still to this day believe that they will someday save themselves from the damnation they are entirely responsible for in the first place. These people are not superior in any measure, they are sinners in need of a savior, and they will be crushed once again by the burdens they try to place upon their shoulders.

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9 (NKJV)

Pray for Jews to surrender their pride, to declare Jesus Christ as Lord, and to believe that God raised him from the dead, so that they can be saved. Otherwise all that awaits them is devastation, whether in this life or the next, because they are still living in the flesh, and being good children of their actual father, perfecting themselves in lies and deceit and manipulation.

Shepherd or Charlatan Part 3 - Policiing or Pacing

I am sorry for the lack of focus in getting this series completed.

I can't avoid sounding like bragging, but I am helping start a new church, rebuilding a pickup truck, and raising a family, so I am frequently not putting my writing at a very high priority. This is unfortunate because I've had the chance to interact with some wonderful people, but that is all through writing, and I know that if I am an inconsistent flake, then there can't ever really be a relationship that forms.

The kind of relationship where I can say something that matters to them, and vice versa. The kind of interactions where someone might actually look forward to, even if we ultimately disagreed.

So thanks to any who bother to come back and read the rest of the series.

In Parts 1 and 2 I was laying the foundation for, and then providing an example of, the difference between a shepherd and a charlatan. This part of the series will discuss one specific aspect of the difference in how the two behave with respect to leadership style as seen in the contrast between "policing the flock" and "pacing and leading". We end up with yet another binary, because ultimately a leader either reflects the values of the people they lead or they don't.

When a leader shares the values of the people he leads, there will be a natural affinity. The leader won't need to explain or motivate the people on the topics he acts on, because both he and the people already ideologically support what he is doing, and will be looking for opportunities to contribute materially as needed. For a cause that people care about, they may even volunteer their services because they are so dedicated to achieving whatever it is they want to achieve that just achieving the results they desire will be reward enough. Whether such devotees exist or not, in such circumstances the leader will not need to spend a lot of time directing "the herd", but instead protecting it from outsiders who seek to predate on their flock.

This is where the leader who does not share values comes into play. A leader that does not already share the values of a group will not naturally rise to lead it, and will not have a natural affinity for or with the people, but is either be placed there by circumstance, like being hired, or through social manipulation, which is pacing and leading. When a leader does not already align with the values of the people, but is needing to redirect where they put their efforts, he can do this through pacing their existing convictions and emotional state in order for them to recognize him as the one they should follow. He becomes a refinement, an extreme, of whatever values are already held, and since this person appears to be the epitome of such values, having the most dedication and commitment to them, he will synthetically create a dynamic where the others look to him for direction and guidance. After this relationship has been established, he then leads them to where he really wants them to go, which may end up being in a completely different direction than before, complete with compromises and dilution of the values in order to justify what has been done.

A painful example of this "pacing and leading" is seen in politics. On the campaign trail, charlatan politicians promise so many things, they talk at length about their platform and priorities, and try to garner support from the community in their bid for election. Once elected, however, they then proceed to act in a completely different manner than would have been extrapolated from what they claimed, and are often then pressured to explain why there is a disparity. The good politicians already know this is coming, and will have a host of plausible reasons ready to provide at a moments notice, flipping the tables back on the people that elected them, as if they were delusional or ignorant for expecting to get exactly what they wanted.

Shepherds on the other hand rarely ever get elected in such circumstances because instead of making wild promises and inflating their capability, they'll look meek and incompetent compared to the charlatans. Such people only end up being able to get into political positions that confer little rewards for the effort. Where a charlatan will want to get on the city council to get a property re-zoned so they can develop it privately through their own businesses, a shepherd might get into the position of the local sheriff in a rural community. It's a position of importance for that community, but it also demands a lot of work and without a lot of actual power to change the dynamics of the community, because the primary focus is to protect the community from outsiders who want to exploit the community for themselves, whether a thief or a vandal or what have you.

Leaders aligned with their flock will police it to keep it the way is already is. To protect what it already values, to sustain and enforce the existing values the community already has.

Leaders not aligned with their flock will pace and lead it to achieve what they want. To exploit the declared values, to redirect and redefine the existing values the community already has.

Embrace extremists? Embrace those who share your values, and this is most easily demonstrated through action. If a politician claims to support an ideal, look at what actions they have taken, and whether those line up. In churches, for example, this can be seen in the "holier than thou" types. They are like the Pharisees, and will hypocritically apply rules to others in a way which elevates their own standing in the group, but at the same time will prevent anyone else from doing the same to them. Such people are highly critical of others, and extremely sensitive to criticism aimed at them, even if it is accurate.

Shepherds, on the other hand, because they are already aware of the values, and the affinity they have for the people is natural and not synthetic, when they make mistakes there is grace and mercy on hand. This is seen in the "wild west" stories about the "rogue sheriff", who is forced to bend or break rules to achieve their goals. The goals, the values haven't really changed at all, but by nature of circumstance they have been forced to use means they otherwise find undesirable in order to maintain peace and order. When a shepherd is challenged, they do not try to reject the undesirable nature of what they do, but will often explain that such matters are required for the time, and that the alternatives would all be worse for everyone.

The flock may resent the means of the "rogue sheriff", and not be afraid to express it, but there is forgiveness and understanding, and an appreciation that the shepherd is willing to sacrifice themselves on both a physical and psychological level, so that their flock doesn't have to. And when such a sheriff calls out one of the townsfolk on something they are doing wrong, they know to respect and comply with the sheriff, because he has everyone's best interests in mind.

An example of this type of character would be like Kevin Kline's Paden from Silverado. Thrust into a circumstance where he has to choose between being a shepherd for people in the community he has grown to care about, or living the high-life as a charlatan exploiting those very same people to his own benefit. He ultimately chooses to be the shepherd, risk his life, and as a result, ends up in a position of very high standing in the community for actually being an embodiement of the values they cherished.

Charlatans, on the other hand, are like his former friend and rival Cobb, played by Brian Denehhy. He isn't the rogue sheriff that goes to extreme lengths to "clean up the town", but instead is the one who tries to make a deal with the bandits and the outlaws, makes his own peace in a way that benefits him and his supporters, and ends up largely ignoring the values of the people he is supposed to be protecting as sheriff.

Shepherds react without the flock's permission, because they care about the future of the flock. Charlatans need the flock's permission, because otherwise the flock simply wouldn't naturally follow them at all. The actions of the shepherd and charlatan will expose who they think they are, and what they believe the nature of their relationship is, and that takes time and opportunity, requiring patience and observation.

So look at the leaders who have placed themselves, or been placed, in the various groups and social circles you are part of. Keep track of whether their actions are geared towards action on the existing values, or on convincing people that there's more they could be doing, if only they voted/gave money/supporting them. Are the leaders already taking actions which reflect the existing values, or are they hinging their actions pending further support?

Once you've figured it out, hang the charlatans, and give the shepherds a badge and a gun.

In Part 4, I'll discuss how this dynamic is in all social circles, all circumstances where there is a power structure, and how charlatans may look to exploit any possible circumstance to their benefit.

Trust God, not people

Let's start with some scriptural context.

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:7 (NKJV)

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. - 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (NKJV)

Our bodies? Our works? Our creations? Our knowledge? Finite and imperfect.

In Jesus' day, many in Israel failed to understand that the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of was not of flesh and blood. It was not of material things that we could see and manipulate by our own power, our own will, our own understanding. They expected material salvation, highlighted clearly in how they mocked Christ.

And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” - Matthew 27:39-43 (NKJV)

They believed that if Jesus Christ could not save himself materially from material powers, then that was sufficient evidence that he could not save himself or any others spiritually either. Most crudely, that because Jesus didn't do what they expected, he was no messiah. At no point did they understand that what they expected was based on, at best, a flawed and incomplete perception on how anything should be.

Nobody has all the pieces of the puzzle. People keep trying to compare the pieces they have to someone else's, and the two argue over whose pieces really belong and whose doesn't, while neither is aware of what the puzzle would look like when put together.

Some of the pieces aren't even ready to be put down, to be added, because the time and place where those pieces are created has not yet occurred, and while we can make guesses, that's the best we can do.

People who place their material state in this life as a priority, and serve their own wellbeing first and foremost, are going to figure things out about the material world, but even what truth they stumble upon in finding success in the material life will be confused by the taint of sin.

There's a reason why ideologies and philosophies tend to come in bundles, and people are encouraged to "take or leave" the entirety of the bundle, instead of discerning what is true and discarding only what is false.

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. - 2 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV)

Knowledge is not sinful, but the pursuit of knowledge to save us as a replacement to following what God has commanded is sinful.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:6 (NKJV)

This conflict was the foundation of Jesus' criticism of the "scribes and Pharisees". What seems good to us is not inherently so, which is the kind of thing that feels stupid to say because of how obvious it should be, but the behavior of many directly evidences that they do not understand that simple truth.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. - Matthew 27:1-12 (NKJV)

How God operates tends to directly upend our epxectations. Our assertions about what should be often end up being completely wrong. We are led by those around us "to salvation", only to find ourselves damned by something else entirely.

So, in all of this, trusting people becomes suicidal. Not because the relationships have no meaning or value, but because everyone is going to have something wrong, and we won't really know what all they do have wrong for certain in this lifetime. When we place our trust in people, we put our hope in material things, and we will be let down for it.

When we place our trust in God, however, God will bring people into our lives who are also doing the same, and what can then unify us is not lateral, not a trust in each other, but in our shared trust and worship of the same God. What unifies us is who we serve, our vertical relationships, not how we treat each other, the horizontal relationships.

It is when we don't have trust in people, but in God, that we can gain the necessary perspective to do things like sacrifice for others out of love. To forgive others for when they wrong us. Such things do not occur from our own strength, from our own perspective, but are instead God working through us, and we are but a vessel for God's use.

It is when we are not investing our hope in those around us that we can boldly speak the truth that so many need to hear. When we trust in God, we no longer fear what those around us can do, because we are grounded in an eternal reality that starts to provide a framework for understanding our temporal one.

When we trust in God, we let God arrange the pieces, instead of trying to do it all ourselves by our own means.

Trust God, not people, and in turn God will give you new eyes to see people as God does, and to do works in their lives as God sees fit.

The alternatives only lead to damnation.

Step away from the table and the pulpit

Starting off, here are two common passages cited when defining the qualifications of a leader in a church, with a tangential third as follow-up that is also related:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. - Titus 1:5-9 (NKJV)

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. - 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (NKJV)

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. - James 3:1 (NKJV)

There are many facets to qualification, and in turn disqualification, but focus on the dynamics of discipline and self-control, especially as it concerns health and wellness, given the following:

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (NKJV)

And let's also take a detour to the Old Testament and understand the context that such advice would have existed in relating to how much one eats:

Do not mix with winebibbers,
Or with gluttonous eaters of meat;
For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe a man with rags. - Proverbs 23:20-21 (NKJV)

Whoever keeps the law is a discerning son,
But a companion of gluttons shames his father. - Proverbs 28:7 (NKJV)

When you sit down to eat with a ruler,
Consider carefully what is before you;
And put a knife to your throat
If you are a man given to appetite. - Proverbs 23:1-2 (NKJV)

And continuing the theme:

And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. - Deuteronomy 21:20-21 (NKJV)

All this to say that gluttony is no small sin, and while it does not appear to have such a significant penalty to participation in it as other sins such as adultery or murder, gluttony is essentially the same type of sin as those, manifested differently.

Adultery, and even just fornication, are the result of succumbing to desires of the flesh as related to sex. The feelings produced by such activities are so enjoyed, and so overwhelming to the individual, that when opportunities to experience such feelings arise, they cannot resist them.

This dynamic is not something which "goes away" even after having walked in repentance for some time, because the flesh that lusts after such things is not destroyed when we place our faith in Jesus Christ, but it is simply given competition. The flesh and Spirit rage throughout the rest of our lives, and if it did so for Paul who wrote a large portion of the New Testament, then the same is all the more true for us:

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. - Galatians 5:16-17 (NKJV)

We still are still living in the flesh even if walking by the Spirit.

So what this means is that even elders will fail, will sin, but that alone is not a disqualification, because we are all fallen and we have all sinned.

Instead, what it means is that how a church reacts to any sin on the part of its leaders and teachers is of great importance:

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. - 1 Tinothy 5:17-20 (NKJV)

The double measure of honor does not come without a price, or without requirement, merely because a man placed a label upon himself as "teacher". Along with that greater honor comes greater scrutiny and lack of privacy relating to unrepentant sin.

A church that I used to attend had conflict with the behavior of its head pastor. The pastors which I interacted with tried to make a case for there being systems of accountability in place, and that any corrections would be dealt with in that private and more intimate setting.

Likewise, there have been people I've read or listened to on social media and blogs who take a "public support, private criticism" approach regarding their associates.

The problem here is that correction and censure do not occur where such correction would teach all. Individuals may be singled out and criticized for their flaws, but when it comes to central figures and leaders, somehow they are to be granted extra leniency in the error of their ways?

According to scripture, that is wrong. People should fear taking on such responsibility, such a position in the social dynamic, because instead of having extra leniency, they are instead granted less. If all leaders were being held to a higher standard, we would not be where we are today.

There would be fewer fools or schemers rushing to the protection and position of leadership, because to do so would expose them to their enemies, lay their own selfish plans bare before all. It's when such positions provide insulation that they are brave enough to seek them.

So look at waistline of the man who preaches to you, of the authors you read, of the people who have placed themselves in positions of honor. The consequences of their sin is so much harder to hide, and as such, calling it out should be of little consequence or controversy. The goal isn't to remove them forever, unless they are unrepentant.

Now, you might be wondering, why is this so important? Why is "sin sniffing" so often ridiculed while we're yet commanded by God to hold leaders to a higher standard?

People have difficulty convicting themselves. If I am guilty of a particular kind of sin, my instinct from my flesh will be to hide it away, diminish it, and in so doing try to mitigate the consequences of sin by my own efforts instead of relying on Christ's work on the cross. Such a pattern of behavior creates exploits which people can leverage to mitigate their own sinful behavior.

Not seeking to repent, but to mitigate.

Mitigation circumvents Jesus Christ's work on our behalf, and Jesus is the only path to God, so there will be many who believe they have been saved, but are instead still living in sin without the Spirit to guide them away from the desires of the flesh. We make less of Jesus when we make less of the sin among us, to treat it as middling or trivial.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23 (NKJV)

Repent of your sins, confess them and rely on the Spirit to guide your path away from temptation and evil.

Listen to those who do the same.

Reject the council of those who are still enslaved to the satisfaction of their desires.

Diagnosis is not cure

Filed under "no duh" for most, one of the things I had to learn the hard way over the past few years is that just because someone else can correctly identify a problem you're experiencing, does not mean they know how to fix it correctly.

The self-help industry exists by exploiting how people do not make this connection.

For me, I was distracted by the accuracy with which certain folks on the internet were really good at identifying the problems that got us to where we are. Their analytical skills were excellent, and I foolishly presumed that if they knew how we got here, they'd also have a good idea on where to go next.

And then I finally noticed the circular logic.

And then I finally noticed the recycled content.

And then I finally noticed how the monetization worked.

One example was a program where, once I paid a fee, I had access to an exclusive forum where I could communicate with others also participating in the program for that month. Within about a week, found that the majority of the active posters had been through the program before, and some of them multiple times. Despite the nominal claim that you'd achieve something concrete and tangible by the end of the month, apparently everyone had only attained marginal success, and so repeat attempts were required in order to really "make it work".

Not only was that dubious, the content of the program itself also quickly became just cold reading.

"You have a big issue in your life you're afraid to deal with. DEAL WITH IT!"

This is not much of a rephrasing of one of one day's activity as part of the month-long program. There were certainly more words as part of the required reading for that day which tried to frame the activity as being much more specific in nature, but it was still up to the individual to identify something they hadn't dealt with and then deal with it on their own.

So despite the author of the program being a good parrot about certain topics, it rapidly became apparent they had no idea where to go with any of it, other than fleece rubes like me who fell for the bait-and-switch.

The program had no real accountability relationships set up either, by design, in that individuals were supposed to be self-motivating in addition to self-diagnosing. If individuals were self-motivating, let alone self-diagnosing, why would they need to pay a fee to participate in a program with other people to get help with accountability, diagnosis, and motivation in the first place?

Further, there were mandatory exercise requirements as part of the program which didn't make any sense, and if you can guess the program based on these descriptions and this video, have a cookie.

Things didn't get any better when affiliate links showed up, when content from previous days in the program were literally copy/pasted because they were that important, and the hosts let slip that at the end of that month, they'd be launching a new subscription-based service to reproduce what they already were doing with fee-based private forum access, and that the private forum would be closing at the end of the month.

Smaller issues also showed up which should have been a red flag. For example, in the private forum, people still wanted to hide behind anonymous screen names. Folks uploaded profile pictures which were not them. Any attempt at connection between users was severed because, while it was certainly more exclusive than other forums, it wasn't private enough that folks could let their guard down.

Accountability requires a level of intimacy and honesty that you can't get when people are still hiding behind anonymity.

Another red flag was that there was some silly latin motto which translated along the lines of "talk less, do more". Within that week, the private forum was running out of capacity because chatty folks wouldn't shut the fuck up or demonstrate any sort of discipline. Now, instead of the program with a "talk less, do more" motto telling folks to talk less and do more, they sent out a "hey you guys are really doing a good job connecting and getting yourselves out there" type congratulatory email.

A fool and his money are soon parted though, right?

Another self-help guru I'd run into didn't run a paid venue, but instead ran a public blog with frequent posts and an active comment section, yet there was an undertone of defeatism about the whole thing. The topics covered were entirely reactionary in the sense that they diagnosed how we got here and why, but all of the subsequent suggestions presumed that nothing would ever change again.

"Things changed from what they were, but they'll never change back, nor will they change from where they are now, so you just need to focus on adapting to how things are now!"

Adaptation to a problem, is not a very good way to eliminate the problem. If you have cancer, and want to get rid of it, you should focus on getting rid of cancer, not on trying to burn out your dopamine receptors enjoying whatever life you can before the cancer kills you.

There were books this guru sold, but they were not edited at all, and the majority of the advice was, again, just adapting to the disease, because what you're not supposed to realize is that while folks complain about the new dynamic, they prefer it over how things used to be, and were things to actually change back to what they bemoan having lost, they'd be miserable. Like "conservatives", they make a big show about the problems that afflict them and shape the choices they make, but when push comes to shove they'd prefer the disease to actually fighting back.

My favorite example, though, was with a group of folks that held an annual event where folks just presented old blog posts, including the gurus above, and charged people close to $2000 for the privilege, and then tried to claim that participants privacy was being kept safe to protecting them from people who would be upset that they now had this type of information!

We respect your privacy and safety because if people recognized you at this event, their envy and hatred for what it represents would put you at risk!

It certainly wasn't about preventing said participants from the humiliation of having to admit that they couldn't take a blog post on the internet seriously enough until whoever wrote it read it to them for thousands of dollars. Nope, that certainly can't be it at all. By the time this had come around I was already on my way out the door of my self-help experience, and it certainly cemented the cynicism that I should have had all along.

I was a fool, I got played, and so hopefully I have learned.

The self-help industry preys on the need for someone else to tell you something, but do everything they can to distract you from actually resolving the problem, and instead get you stuck spinning your wheels in the mud, convinced that the problem just needs another appointment. Or another book. Or another convention. Or another month.

Where it is easy to be led astray is that the self-help industry is inherently self-serving, adaptable, hungry for new markets, and so even topics which are otherwise politically incorrect will draw opportunists like moths to a flame. Even if the topics would create paradoxes or contradictions for the individual, with the rhetoric that they'll spout to draw the necessary crowd of suckers.

There are many folks who can diagnose expertly, but when time comes for the "what next", they fall flat. Do not rely on those people. Do not support those people. Do not put those people in a position of authority over you, even if you're genuinely learning things from them, because their concerns are ultimately with themselves, not you.

Don't be a fool like I was.

Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition

Work picked up and things have been busy around the house, so I have been reticent in following up with anything. It's my fault, I still have not instilled habits that avert the more detrimental consequences of my natural laziness.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, there are ways to tell r-strategists and K-strategists apart, but it does require being able to grasp a bit of subtlety and be able to look at things for what they really are and not just taken at face value.

To catch any up who don't know the terms, in the material world for sexually reproducing creatures, there are two reproductive strategies that are viable, and the selection of one over the other is not done intentionally, but is often driven by the environment which a creature exists in.

The major variable that drives the selection is resource availability.

When resources are abundant, the skills and behavior requirements of individuals in order to meet basic survival needs is very low. Think like cows, rabbits, and horses. Each of these creatures, aside from their size and weight, doesn't really change all that much from birth till death. They don't really "mature", there isn't a lot of parental involvement to teach or guide, because it's really not that hard to find grass and eat it.

When resources are scarce, the skills and behavior requirements of individuals in order to meet basic survival needs is very high. Think like wolves, whales, and for the most part humans. Each of these creatures has significant changes in their behaviors over the course of their lives, and that is due to the demands of their environment, supplanted by the teaching and investment of the parents into ensuring their offspring can survive on its own.

The collection of behaviors then is rather dramatically different between the two strategies, and a lot more has been said by smarter folks who are better educated on the particulars, but for the sake of this post, that's a sufficient contrast to work with.

The r-strategist is the one who thrives under resource abundance. The "r" relates to reproduction rate of a species, as that is what drives their survival more than individual skill or competence. Rabbits are simple and stupid creatures, at least with respect to practical concerns, but that does not mean they are simple in social matters. Because, to the extent a social structure even exists, there are no significant environmental pressures, what shapes discourse is arbitrary and abstract. Appearance and perception matter more than reality, because the reality is that nothing really matters. Life and death are a matter of probability and chance, and effort on part of the individual doesn't change that significantly, so to spend time on that anyway would be a waste.

Consume and reproduce and maximize your own ability to do both while trying to hinder someone else from doing the same. You can't directly block access to resources that your rivals may desire, so you have to distract and manipulate them into not desiring them in the first place. Before my twitter account was banned, I had referred to this as the public/private hypocrisy, where a stated value in public was meant to fool others into behaving in a way which maximized the exclusive and private access to the resource discussed in the public declaration.

Rich people flying private jets to an event where they decry wasteful carbon emissions is a quick example of this.

Another is the fire and brimstone pastor who speaks passionately against homosexuality who then leaves his wife to marry his secret boyfriend.

In neither case is the commentary concerned with whether the claims are actually good or not, they may be correct, but that is entirely coincidental as the primary purpose of the message is to distract and dissuade in the public sphere what an individual pursues in private.

Rich people enjoy the luxurious lifestyle, but don't want to deal with people competing over resources that support their lifestyle, so they'll denigrate the fruits of their labor and try to convince people that despite them not giving it up, a life of luxury is not really all that desirable after all.

Or the pastor trying to prevent competition for the affections of his boyfriend if those who were more attractive or younger were to enter the "dating field" and compete with him over the finite resource of his lover's affection.

In each case, the topic at hand is at best tangentially related to truth, and the reason an individual even brings it up is because of trying to eliminate competition, but also to increase their status.

Among the rich, those who denounce riches are viewed as saintly and self-sacrificing, and since others want to feel the same, they're more likely to associate and laud the same principles, not because they're actually good or the people believe in them, but because of the benefit in social status.

Same with the pastor, who seeks to gain or retain a position of power and authority in a church, to be viewed as one who has truth and knowledge, not because those things are necessarily good or true or valuable to the pastor, but because at least appearing to have those things bestows upon them honor and respect they'd otherwise have to work a lot harder to obtain for themselves.

The reason for all this preamble is that, despite not being directly competitive, r-strategists are still competing. It's just not direct and confrontational, but passive-aggressive and manipulative.

If an r-strategist is reduced to always avoiding conflict, then the definition fails to explain things like "mating displays", where males compete to better entertain and dazzle females to convince them of their reproductive fitness. K-strategists simply don't have time for that, males are providers and achievers and the females instead are the ones which compete for the attention and affection of the dominant male who is provisioning for them.

So, with guns, how does one spot an r-strategist?

Well, they aren't just pacifists. They aren't going to shy away from violent tools of destruction because they're violent tools of destruction, but because of how guns play into the social fabric they are a part of. If an r-strategist is in a social circle where guns are viewed positively, then the r-strategist is going to be the guy with the most guns, the most knowledge of guns. At the range, these are the guys where the only thing bigger than their groups is their mouth, despite having the most expensive and new equipment.

They are also the guys who reject guns as evil incarnate, but again that's not because of what guns actually are or do, but because of what saying those types of things in a public sphere does for their social circle and for their private consumption. There's a reason why many of the most vocal anti-gun advocates in Hollywood or in Congress neglect to mention the fact that they live under armed guard.

And since the plebs that disagree with them offer no social status to benefit them, nor hinder the presence of their armed guards, the r-strategist feels safe in ignoring the impotent accusations hurled their way.

It's not about the thing, what it really is, but what it means with respect to resource consumption and social status.

Guns are thus abstracted from what they really are and treated based on abstract terms, where logic and rationality become a non-sequitur.

Guns are simply a means to an end, and to the extent that this aligns with what guns really are and can do is, again, entirely coincidental. If something else would better fit the bill, then they'd use that instead.

So how do you spot the r-strategist in any of these cases?

Unintentional exaggeration.

The pro-gun guy who thinks the bolt rifle from a past century is easily as accurate as a modern budget hunting rifle.

The anti-gun guy who thinks that 5.56 NATO is more lethal than .30-06 because of "clip size".

The pro-gun guy who thinks that just shooting a particular brand will make them a more accurate shooter.

The anti-gun guy who thinks that the arrangement of grip and stock, or the reduction of sound and flash, makes a rifle more deadly.

In each case, whether for or against, because the knowledge base was not driven by necessity or practical experience, the individual will always end up exaggerating. The individual doesn't understand the practical limits or implications because their interest and experience never involved finding or dealing with those limitations, because those are completely unrelated to the ability to simply making claims.

God finds homosexuality an abomination, but no more than gluttony, and few "fire and brimstone" preachers are condemning obesity with the same fervor they do homosexuality. These pastors unintentionally exaggerate God's wrath on one sin, but not on another, because they don't really understand God's wrath at all. God's wrath is a tool to dissuade rivals from competing over resources, and a means by which they attain or sustain social status.

In this same fashion, guns are just a tool to dissuade rivals from competing over resources, and a means by which they attain or sustain social status, whether superficially, publicly, they are pro- or anti-gun. What someone says, the topics one is involved in, aren't enough by themselves to make any sort of determination.

There are r-strategists in every social circle that exists, on every topic that exists, and hopefully now you've got a bit of a sense on how to identify one with respect to the topic of guns. Unless you are an r-strategist, in which case you'll want to tell someone how dumb this post was in fixating on irrelevant details that you'll just happen to use in outing rivals in your social circle to achieve a higher status.

Knowledge is a two-edged sword, and when it comes to survival nobody is happy with second place.

Thankfully a time when practical knowledge and experience will once again take the forefront. We're not there yet, but be readying yourself, learning, practicing, struggling, preparing for the challenging times that are ahead.

Daily Bible Study - Proverbs 10:17

He who keeps instruction is in the way of life,
But he who refuses correction goes astray.

Proverbs 10:17 (NKJV).

If you listen to instruction, you'll do well in life, but if you reject correction, you will lose yourself. This seems simple, right?

The problem is that the source of the correction, the instruction, often taints our ability to hear and understand what wisdom is being shared, and sometimes what we are to take away from an interaction isn't in the surface-level details.

For example, if a friend provides instruction and something goes wrong, their reaction to the correction by reality itself will be informational, if you learn from it. Reject the truth that your friend provides bad advice and you'll keep taking their bad advice at face value and making poor choices.

While there are no shortage of people trying to provide guidance and direction, it becomes much easier to sort between the signal and the noise when you actually listen, consider what is being shared, and then put it up against your existing experiences to see what does or does not align.

In studying counterfeit money, you can try to keep up on all the newest ways that a counterfeiter is creating counterfeits, or you can study the original such that when you come across a suspected specimen, you already know what to look for, and even if you do not understand the nature of how a bill or coin was faked, you can still be certain you do not have the genuine article in your posession.

The wisdom Solomon describes here is challenged by the phrase "how do you know that?" It's not so much a question about whether what is being said is true or not, but a means of trying to disqualify or discredit as a means of circumventing the actual details and trying to lay blame for a discrepancy on simple ignorance. If it's easy to show why a claim is false, why spend time trying to undermine why it could be true?

When we reject correction, we should not need to be discriminatory when collecting information. That's not the stage when we down-select, that's when we should be exploring the possibilities so that we have a full breadth of understanding to pull from.

Then we start the refinement process, the comparison to what we already understood to see if some new understanding really would change our conclusions, or if the conclusion remains unchanged but we find our problem to be even more trivial in that and we're just stubborn and refusing to abide by even what we understand truth to be.

We can't do that if we're constantly rejecting help, rejecting advice, rejecting a different perspective, even if we claim to be confident in our assertions, revealing a cowardice in us, a fear that we may have to admit something uncomfortable or change something we'd really rather not.

Instead, take the instruction and advice and ruminate on it, validate it, and then start figuring out which of it is truly useful to you and which of it is clearly coming from those who are already astray and just wanting to be less lonely while wandering through this life aimlessly.