houseoftolstoy @[email protected]
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Oh BOY, we got a follow-up from JD Hall about Protestia's dumb little engagement slop stunt.
https://protestia.com/2025/08/07/redeemed-whores-pride...
To the young men he says:
"DO NOT MOCK REDEMPTION
To the young men reading this, I say this: the world is broken, but your calling has not changed. You were not made to be a permanent bachelor. You were not made to sit behind a screen, waiting for a unicorn to descend from heaven. You were made to lead, to love, to marry, to father. And that means you may one day meet a woman whose past makes you pause. Ask the right questions. Use discernment. But if she is in Christ, if she walks in holiness, if she hates her past and clings to the blood of Jesus, then do not let your fear of man outweigh your fear of God. Do not let pseudo-science about “pair bonding” override your theology. That junk theory was cooked up by the same culture that made purity into a performance and turned virginity into currency. It is not truth. It is not Scripture. It is not Gospel.
You believe in a God who heals the blind, raises the dead, and calls sinners His bride. You believe in a Spirit who transforms hearts and rewrites stories. You believe in a Savior who bled out not just to forgive you, but to cleanse your future wife. Do not pretend to hold to that Gospel and then treat her like used merchandise. That is hypocrisy. That is cruelty. That is unbelief."
To the young women he writes:
"YOUR SHAME IS NOT YOUR NAME
To the young women reading this, hear me: you are not damaged goods. You are not second-class. You are not too far gone. If you are in Christ, then you are a new creation. Not a repaired version of your old self. A new self. A holy self. A beloved daughter of the King. Your past is not your name. Your shame is not your identity. The blood of Christ did not leave part of you unwashed. It did not leave one corner of your story untouched. He took all of it. He paid all of it. And now you are His.
Do not listen to the voices who sneer behind their screens, calling you names that Christ has erased. Do not be defined by those who judge what God has justified. They are not your judge. They are not your groom. The one who loves you rightly will love you because of grace, not in spite of it. The man God is preparing for you will not treat you like a rescue mission. He will treat you like a gift. He will not idolize your past or ignore it, but he will honor the blood that washed it away."
You hear that, young men?
From JD Hall, you have responsibilities! You will have no attaboys from him for keeping your purity while the women didn't. You will get no rewards. And sure, he says you don't have to lower your standards, but you need to be realistic (which means lowering your standards) so you can man up and marry these women!
Meanwhile, to the young women who engaged in all this sexual sin, what does he say? Ah, ladies, you have no responsibilities whatsoever here except to expect the absolute best from God as He personally delivers a great man to you. You are a princess who is entitled to the cream of the crop among Christian men.
No advice for these women to show fruits in keeping with repentance. No encouragement for these men that God will make everything right for them. No, see, all the reward goes to the girls because they're the truly beloved ones - men are just slaves in this situation.
Dalrock would have had a field day with this one showing how deeply feminism has nestled itself into Hall's soul.
https://protestia.com/2025/08/07/redeemed-whores-pride...
To the young men he says:
"DO NOT MOCK REDEMPTION
To the young men reading this, I say this: the world is broken, but your calling has not changed. You were not made to be a permanent bachelor. You were not made to sit behind a screen, waiting for a unicorn to descend from heaven. You were made to lead, to love, to marry, to father. And that means you may one day meet a woman whose past makes you pause. Ask the right questions. Use discernment. But if she is in Christ, if she walks in holiness, if she hates her past and clings to the blood of Jesus, then do not let your fear of man outweigh your fear of God. Do not let pseudo-science about “pair bonding” override your theology. That junk theory was cooked up by the same culture that made purity into a performance and turned virginity into currency. It is not truth. It is not Scripture. It is not Gospel.
You believe in a God who heals the blind, raises the dead, and calls sinners His bride. You believe in a Spirit who transforms hearts and rewrites stories. You believe in a Savior who bled out not just to forgive you, but to cleanse your future wife. Do not pretend to hold to that Gospel and then treat her like used merchandise. That is hypocrisy. That is cruelty. That is unbelief."
To the young women he writes:
"YOUR SHAME IS NOT YOUR NAME
To the young women reading this, hear me: you are not damaged goods. You are not second-class. You are not too far gone. If you are in Christ, then you are a new creation. Not a repaired version of your old self. A new self. A holy self. A beloved daughter of the King. Your past is not your name. Your shame is not your identity. The blood of Christ did not leave part of you unwashed. It did not leave one corner of your story untouched. He took all of it. He paid all of it. And now you are His.
Do not listen to the voices who sneer behind their screens, calling you names that Christ has erased. Do not be defined by those who judge what God has justified. They are not your judge. They are not your groom. The one who loves you rightly will love you because of grace, not in spite of it. The man God is preparing for you will not treat you like a rescue mission. He will treat you like a gift. He will not idolize your past or ignore it, but he will honor the blood that washed it away."
You hear that, young men?
From JD Hall, you have responsibilities! You will have no attaboys from him for keeping your purity while the women didn't. You will get no rewards. And sure, he says you don't have to lower your standards, but you need to be realistic (which means lowering your standards) so you can man up and marry these women!
Meanwhile, to the young women who engaged in all this sexual sin, what does he say? Ah, ladies, you have no responsibilities whatsoever here except to expect the absolute best from God as He personally delivers a great man to you. You are a princess who is entitled to the cream of the crop among Christian men.
No advice for these women to show fruits in keeping with repentance. No encouragement for these men that God will make everything right for them. No, see, all the reward goes to the girls because they're the truly beloved ones - men are just slaves in this situation.
Dalrock would have had a field day with this one showing how deeply feminism has nestled itself into Hall's soul.
@Terry I recall that the leftists that did protest Israel found out that being "on the right side of history" got themselves arrested and found that their usual state-backed support evaporated. This does not absolve them one bit, as it only goes to prove that they are merely attack dogs and they just happened to find out that they attacked the "wrong" group. Anyone who claims to be "the resistance" but refuses to fight the moment they get no state support is no resistance at all.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
@SuperLutheran True repentance means no expectation of reward; you may be forgiven one day for your sins but you may spend the rest of your life paying for them. These whores and their defenders demand forgiveness, DEMAND that you accept them, you aren't ALLOWED to judge them or say "no."
If they were seriously repentant, they would seek to become nuns, not housewives. Transformation must be demonstrated, not assumed.
If they were seriously repentant, they would seek to become nuns, not housewives. Transformation must be demonstrated, not assumed.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
if the covid vaccines caused a bunch of negative outcomes, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the medical establishment is going to admit it. they're also not going to let the data they collect reflect their failure
similar problems exist in the "climate change" world. practically everyone involved is invested in the narrative that AGW is a massive threat, so they make sure the data shows that
well, practically everyone in medicine is invested in the acute medical intervention/vaccine miracle narrative. it's where their authority and prestige come from, and they're not going to undermine it
similar problems exist in the "climate change" world. practically everyone involved is invested in the narrative that AGW is a massive threat, so they make sure the data shows that
well, practically everyone in medicine is invested in the acute medical intervention/vaccine miracle narrative. it's where their authority and prestige come from, and they're not going to undermine it
My inspiration for this Freedom Test comes from a scenario by the fat fuck commie Vaush. He asks if you are in a lawless desert, do you have freedom? The answer he expects you to give is no, because you don't have food or water and cannot live.
The presence of provisions or the lack thereof does not define freedom. So his assertion is retarded and the answer remains yes, you do have freedom. Take the inverse, prison, and even with food and shelter provided, you are not free.
@Zeb That is what marriage is supposed to be. A religious ceremony. The government doing every other action around the marriage makes that part not pass the Freedom Test. But you can have the ceremony and every other aspect of marriage if you remove the government from the equation. In fact, you remove all the bad parts of marriage when you remove the government. Namely, family court bullshit in the event of a divorce.
@shortstories Another good example to use. Without the government, these spouses would not have this provision, thus making it not pass the Freedom Test.
We can apply this test in multiple facets too. For example, gay marriage.
Whether you like it or not, if there are no restrictions to marriage, then gay marriage would be possible under the value of freedom.
The problems start coming in when the state is involved, such as lawsuits for gay wedding cakes or forcing others to acknowledge their marriage as valid. Many gays fail the freedom test the moment they are confronted with the fact that others do not want to participate.
Not everyone is going to be all about genuine freedom. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. But people should not be so quick to proclaim that they are about freedom if they require others to be forced into some action in order to attain their "freedom."
I would not consider myself anarcho-capitalist, but they at least are those that would be genuinely about freedom. But considering we have yet to have an ancap example in the world, that might show that 100% freedom might not be possible.
The Freedom Test is helpful in determining who is for freedom and who is for "freedom."
The test is this: if we remove government entities from the equation, are you able to get what you want? The answer should be quite clear if you think about this.
For those who want their freedom to have firearms, the government being out of the way would not change your ability to have firearms. But if your "freedom" is paid for by the government ("free" healtchare), then you do not have true freedom.
I have an idea I would like to call a Freedom Test. The idea of this test is to determine if you really value freedom or if you value something else. Many people will claim they are about freedom, but often they either are conflating freedom with another value that is not actually freedom.
One example of the misuse of this term is by those who call for "free healthcare." Whether or not you value this, it is not freedom, but a provision.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
@Tfmonkey @VooDooMedic when the western economy finaly crushes do you think countries like mongolia or thailand will be hurting?
Any mention I have seen of a "power couple" is always catering to the ego of women. No man cares about power couples, because they are not looking for a woman who is chasing some high flying career.
It only seeks to validate the feminist idea that a women should be celebrated for chasing careers, and that they should be rewarded for keeping their hypergamy even when it is unnecessary. A family can be supported fully with one high flying career. Two of them just means more money than needed.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Turns out all the UN produces is reports no one reads. Bureaucrats don't do anything besides push paperwork and water is still wet. More news at 11.
@Aether I don't need a study to know that learning whole word reading or "by context" is a horrible way to teach someone how to read.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Why Johnny still can't read.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wr...
Given the original book examining that question was published in 1955 my guess is because Johnny 78 and can't remember where he left his glasses.
But back in the Eisenhower years little Johnny couldn't read because teachers weren't teaching phonics, the relationship between written letters and spoken sounds.
Back in the core of the boomer years the trend was to jump too quickly from phonics to sight reading, recognising an entire word and its pronunciation from memory. If you were already a strong reader you were likely fine with this; if you were at all behind you would be left struggling.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find new generations of children who still can't read because they have been trapped by the once new trendy pedagogies. Molly Woodworth was a poor reader as a child and came up with tricks to help make it through lessons, though the tricks never worked terribly well.
When she looked at the reading lessons for her daughter Claire, she was horrified to discover that the tricks she created for herself, the same ones that didn't work for her, were being taught as standard practice.
>A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.
>The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"
>Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."
Why are teachers deliberately sabotaging reading skills?
Enter Ken Goodman.
>The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.
>The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.
>In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words.
Goodman still believed that when this article was written in 2019, the author requested and was granted an interview.
The problem is, Goodman was proven wrong fifty years ago:
>So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.
>They couldn't have been more wrong.
>"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition."
Or to put it another way:
>Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"
>"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."
Why did Goodman still believe in his failed ideas after all this time? (At the time the article was written, he was 91 and had just published a new edition of his book.)
Put as politely as possible, he is an idiotic kike:
>"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."
No, he really meant that:
>I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p//o//n//y/ says "pony"?
>And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
>"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Like a true jew he tripled down minutes later:
>In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
And why is fashionable nonsense so entrenched in education?
Lots of reasons, one primary reason, is because jews want you to learn this way. It is actually how hebrew is taught.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wr...
Given the original book examining that question was published in 1955 my guess is because Johnny 78 and can't remember where he left his glasses.
But back in the Eisenhower years little Johnny couldn't read because teachers weren't teaching phonics, the relationship between written letters and spoken sounds.
Back in the core of the boomer years the trend was to jump too quickly from phonics to sight reading, recognising an entire word and its pronunciation from memory. If you were already a strong reader you were likely fine with this; if you were at all behind you would be left struggling.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find new generations of children who still can't read because they have been trapped by the once new trendy pedagogies. Molly Woodworth was a poor reader as a child and came up with tricks to help make it through lessons, though the tricks never worked terribly well.
When she looked at the reading lessons for her daughter Claire, she was horrified to discover that the tricks she created for herself, the same ones that didn't work for her, were being taught as standard practice.
>A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.
>The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"
>Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."
Why are teachers deliberately sabotaging reading skills?
Enter Ken Goodman.
>The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.
>The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.
>In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words.
Goodman still believed that when this article was written in 2019, the author requested and was granted an interview.
The problem is, Goodman was proven wrong fifty years ago:
>So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.
>They couldn't have been more wrong.
>"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition."
Or to put it another way:
>Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"
>"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."
Why did Goodman still believe in his failed ideas after all this time? (At the time the article was written, he was 91 and had just published a new edition of his book.)
Put as politely as possible, he is an idiotic kike:
>"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."
No, he really meant that:
>I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p//o//n//y/ says "pony"?
>And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
>"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Like a true jew he tripled down minutes later:
>In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
And why is fashionable nonsense so entrenched in education?
Lots of reasons, one primary reason, is because jews want you to learn this way. It is actually how hebrew is taught.
@Aether she clearly has some European genes, so it is not shocking that the child comes out looking like the majority of his genes.
@shortstories The only time I used an elliptical it did nothing for me. Maybe I was not using it in a way that would make it a more worthy workout. But I don't have a strong desire to try and use it again.
In theory I can run a sub 7 minute mile. I say "in theory" since it was done on a treadmill, which is not the same thing as regular running.
I doubt I will get to the point of being at my peak for distance running, but I at least am happy to be capable of improving my running back to a level I am happy with. And since my main exercise focus is lifting heavy, there is no way I am training optimally for distance running. But I am just fine with that.
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
