houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

First they went after the White people and I did nothing because I was not White and then I starved to death because there was no one doing stuff to ensure I had food left

> "Save" = Spend it on other shit we don't want either.

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.

@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 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

@Tfmonkey @VooDooMedic when the western economy finaly crushes do you think countries like mongolia or thailand will be hurting?

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.

https://www.rt.com/news/622419-nobody-reads-un-reports/

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.

Older boomers used to have go to dance halls to meet girls, kissing was taboo on the first date, abortions were also taboo and rare, pre marital sex did happen but it was frowned upon and a "Shotgun wedding" was considered mandatory if you knocked a women up, otherwise the girl would be sent to the "home for unwed mothers" for a bit and you would be ostracized from polite White society as a despicable degenerate and all around horrible piece of shit, child support wasn't necessary because White people policed their own and niggers, only 7% of the population, were mostly good with keeping a two parent household.

Then sometime in the mid to late60s/early 70s all of this fell apart, boomers, if they didn't actively contribute to its downfall of this ordered society, let it happen with virtually no resistance.

If you ask boomers about that today they'll say "yeah things ain't like they used to be." Why is that grandpa? Was there possibly something that happened when you became a young adult that contributed to this?

if war ever comes to the US mainland again 99% of "high skill" immigrants are going to run right back home to avoid danger and hardship, which will cripple a bunch of critical industries that have been freezing out real americans for decades