Why Christian Men Are Not in Church, and Why They're not Marrying

 Folks, I just left a comment in response to a video addressed to Christian women finding a husband. Below is my comment in response. It was too good to just keep as a YouTube comment, so I'm sharing it here as well.

As a former Bible college student, churchgoer, and present Christian, I have some thoughts about this. I left the church not because there was sin in my church and Bible college, though there was; sin will be everywhere, even in the church, as the church is comprised of sinners. No, what bothered me was the lack of response in handling the sin that happened there. Hence, I left. Also, before COVID happened, I was going to return to the church; I really was! Unfortunately, no church in my area resisted the governor's and mayors' orders to close; that is to say that there are no good, strong Godly churches in my area that followed God's Word that admonishes us to not forsake the assembling of ourselves. Hence, I never returned, nor do I plan to do so. Anyway, here are my thoughts about the question of dating, relationships, and marriage among Christians. One, the church is feminine, and it bashes men. Two, Christian women aren't that different from their worldly counterparts. Three, the divorce rate among Christians is higher than it is among secular people.

The church is feminine, and it caters to women. Churches and pastors know that, if they don't please the wives, they don't have butts in the seats; because those butts aren't in the seats, the collection plate is lighter too. How does the church cater to women? Here's one example: on Father's Day, men are chastised and admonished to be the men, husbands, and fathers they should be; they're upbraided from the pulpit. Does anything similar happen on Mother's Day? NO WAY, JOSE! Again, pastors know where their bread is buttered, so they govern themselves accordingly.

You know, I, as a Christian man don't need to attend any church to hear that I'm scum of the Earth; I don't need to attend church to be bashed and trashed. I can find that everywhere else in society, TYVM! All one has to do is tune in TV or radio for a few minutes to see this constant man bashing 24/7/365. You think I want to hear the same in church? GTFOOH! You want Godly, Christian men back in church? Then make it a place that's not only hospitable to them; make it a place they want to be! Ah, but that won't happen, as the majority of pastors, deacons, and elders want to please the women. Again, they know where their bread is buttered.

We see this attitude all through Christianity. For example, there was a Christian film some years ago, called "Fireproof". It was about a Christian couple having marital problems. Do you know what? The husband was portrayed as the bad guy-what a surprise! The couple's problems were all Hubby's fault. This completely glossed over the reality that, when a relationship has problems, that both parties are at fault; it may not be an exact, 50/50 split, but it's a split nonetheless. When there are relationship problems, both the man and woman are culpable. That's just the way it is.

Point #2 is that Christian women aren't that different from their worldly counterparts. They've adopted the same, feminist values. They pursue degrees and careers just as secular women do. They have the same attitudes, dress, and demeanor. Oh, and if you, as a Christian man, even HINT at submission (the role of a Godly wife), LOOK OUT! They'll bristle at the notion just like any secular, feminist woman would. Christian women do precious little to differentiate themselves from their secular counterparts. Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, any thinking man will assume that he's dealing with a duck-DUH!

Finally, the divorce rate among Christians is HIGHER than it is among secular people; that's a SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY! Even so, that was Barna's findings when studying the question of divorce in the church. A more recent study by a university confirmed Barna's findings; I believe it was Baylor that did the study, but I can't recall for sure. In any case, divorce among Christians occurs more often than it does for non-Christians. That's just the way it is. Furthermore, even if someone wants to dispute those findings, one cannot dispute this: divorce happens all too often in the church, when it ought to be a rarity. After all, aren't Christians called to be the light of the world? Aren't we called to be better than the world? How can we do either of the above when we don't LIVE any better than the world?

Now, as a man, divorce concerns me. Why? One, because my life will be WRECKED by it, for one! I'll lose the house, the kids, everything. Wifey will keep the house, while I keep the mortgage payment for the house I'm no longer allowed to live in. I'll be saddled with child support and possibly alimony too. After all that, I might end up HOMELESS! Two, women file for divorce 80% the time; if they're college educated, then they file for divorce 90% of the time. The family courts, where divorces are adjudicated, are overwhelmingly biased against men. Anyway, as the old country song goes, Mama got the gold mine, while Daddy got the shaft. Sorry, but marriage offers few, if any, benefits for a man.

Before I continue, there's a Christian man who's MGTOW; that's men going their own way for the uninitiated. He's a YouTuber who talks about Christianity, marriage, MGTOW, and how they relate to the Bible. His channel is is called "Whirlwind MGTOW", and I'd encourage you to watch some of his videos. BTW, Whirlwind MGTOW married a Christian woman from his church, and she divorced him after 10 years of marriage. Though he doesn't make videos very often anymore, he has a lot of older ones that are still up; for those pondering where the good, Christian men are, I'd admonish you all to watch his videos, and for you to listen to what he says. Those are the elephants in the room that NO ONE in the church wants to talk about! However, if you want Christian men back in the church, let alone willing to marry, you'd better listen to him; many of us have the same concerns, concerns that are all too often ignored.

Now, that leads me to ask some questions. WHY would I, as a man, want to marry? What does it offer me? Oh, I have a righteous outlet for my sexual desire? Oh, please! All too often, wives deny their husbands intimacy, especially after the kids come. Why on Earth would I, as a man, want to be celibate within marriage? Why would I want to have all the responsibilities and obligations of a husbands, while enjoying none of the benefits? Why would I want to risk being homeless, because my now ex wife eviscerated me in the divorce? I could go on, but you get my point.

In closing, many Christian men have concerns, concerns that the church has ignored. One, there are no good, solid, Godly churches in my area; all of them obsequiously followed gov't mandates to close during COVID. How do I know? Because none made the news, that's why! Two, the church is feminine, and it bashes men. When I get that in the world, WHY would I want to get more of it in church too? Three, most Christian women are little different than their secular counterparts; whether it's in terms of dress, demeanor, conduct, lifestyle, or conversation, it's almost impossible for a Christian man to discern which women are Christians vs. those who are not. Finally, divorce occurs more often in the church than it does the world. That being the case, WHY would I want to have an even greater chance of having my life destroyed by divorce? Why would I marry someone from within the church? If the risk were negligible, that would be one thing; unfortunately, according to Barna, divorce happens more often within the church than without. Hence, I'm single, and I plan on remaining that way. Those are my thoughts.

Bud Light Brouhaha

 Folks,

I have to comment on the Bud Light Brouhaha; I have to comment on their decision to use a TRANNY as their front person! Since Dylan Mulvaney is a guy (that's how he came into this world anyway; he has both an X and Y chromosomes), do I call him Bud Light's front man? Since he's pretending to be a woman, do I call "her" a front woman? What about being politically correct, and calling IT Bud Light's front person? I don't know.

I'm no marketing person. I've never taken a class in it, though I would like to read and learn more about it. That said, I do possess common sense; I know what not to do. One thing I know is that the customer is always right; that's Rule #1 for any business! Rule #2 says, when in doubt, refer to Rule #1. Another elementary tenet of marketing is DO NOT piss off your customers! Do not anger them. That goes double for your core customers, the ones who buy your brand no matter what, the ones who grab your product without thinking about it.

What Mrs. Alyssa Heinerscheid (actually Alyssa Gordon Heinerscheid), the real WOMAN of genius behind the tranny campaign, has managed to do is ALL the above! She insulted and upset the core customers of Bud Light. Actually, Miss Heinerscheid is the VP of Marketing for Bud Light. SHE is the one behind Bud Light's tranny campaign! Get a load of her arrogance and condescension in this video here. This is just breathtaking to watch.

For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Heinerschied is a woman of privilege. She attended the Groton School, an exclusive, college prep school for grades 8-12 in Groton, MA. She then went to Harvard to get her BA in English Literature. She got her MBA at Wharton, Penn's b-school. That is to say she attended Ivy League schools, hotbeds of both Wokeism and privilege. Does she even know who Bud Light's core customers are? Has she ever sat down to have a beer with them? I think we all know the answers to those questions-a resounding NO!

There's a rumor on the web saying that Anheuser-Busch senior management didn't know about this marketing campaign, and that it was the decision of a low level staffer. Really? Would you call any corporate vice president a low level staffer? Would you call Bud Light's VP of Marketing, the aforementioned Mrs. Heinerscheid, a low level staffer? I think not!

Furthermore, senior management at AB InBev, the company that owns Anheuser-Busch and its associated brands, had to know about this marketing campaign. Not only that, they ordered it. How do I know? Why, Mrs. Heinerscheid told us so! Watch the above video again, please. At 16 seconds in, Mrs. Heinerscheid says that she had "this super clear mandate"-her words, nobody else's! Keep that in mind.

What is a mandate? It's an order, isn't it? Dictionary.com defines the word (def #3) as "an authoritative order or command". It's an order from on-high, an order from someone or some entity in authority, is it not? Who would be in authority over Mrs. Heinerscheid, hmmm? Who could give her these real clear mandates? Who would be in position to issue orders and mandates to her, the VP of Marketing for Bud Light? Wouldn't that be senior management at AB InBev? OF COURSE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ISSUED THE ORDER FOR THIS BS! To claim anything to the contrary is naive.

I'd like to say that I'll boycott Budweiser and Bud Light, but I can't; I don't drink their piss water identifying itself as beer. I haven't consumed a drop of that piss water in ages! Seriously, it's bad. That said, the parent company of Bud, Bud Light, and Anheuser-Busch is a globalist, Belgian conglomerate known as AB InBev. They own hundreds of beer brands, including Becks, Modelo, and Corona, among many others. The list is included for those of you who want to cast your dollar votes with anyone besides AB InBev.

I can't remember this big a marketing screw-up since the New Coke of the mid 1980s. I dare say this one is much bigger, because Coca-Cola at least didn't insult and intentionally try to anger their customers. This botched abortion could do in Bud Light as a brand-not that that would be a big loss. As I said above, Bud and Bud Light are piss water masquerading as beer. Will Bud Light become the next Stroh's? I remember when Stroh's was a big thing; they were the third largest brewer behind Anheuser-Busch and Miller. They were everywhere! Unfortunately, because Stroh's overextended; because they tried to grow too much, too fast; they no longer exist. Will Bud Light follow their fate? It has the potential to do so. I guess we'll see soon enough though. Have a good day... :)

First Top Gun Maverick Post: Maverick

 Folks,

I've wanted to post things about the new, blockbuster movie, Top Gun: Maverick. That said, I wasn't sure of where I wanted to go with these posts, nor was I sure about how to get there-wherever "there" is. With that in mind, I'm going to start off with some of the characters. Since Maverick is the driving force, I thought I'd start with him.

First of all, it's readily obvious from the DarkStar scene on that Maverick is different. He still does things his way; he still bristles at his superiors' orders; he still schemes to find ways around said orders; IOW, he's still a maverick, which is why we love him. That said, Mav doesn't do what he does to be selfish, as he did in the first movie; no, what I like about the older, more mature Maverick is his focus on others.

Some reviewers on YouTube, a pair of former fighter pilots, said that they couldn't understand why the DarkStar scene was in TGM; they didn't think it had anything to do with the plot, let alone advance the it. I beg to differ; I think that the DarkStar scene does a lot for the movie, particularly with respect to character development.

After Maverick leaves what is the ULTIMATE bachelor pad (the Airstream trailer in an aircraft hangar with a P-51 Mustang and some hot bikes!), he arrives at the DarkStar hangar. There, he finds the crew, led by his right hand man, Chief Warrant Officer Hondo Coleman, with long faces. When Maverick asks them what's wrong, they inform him that Rear Admiral Cain, who they call the Drone Ranger, is seeking to kill the DarkStar to use the funds for his unmanned program. Maverick then says with that roguish smile of his, "Well, he isn't here yet! They want Mach 10? Let's give 'em Mach 10." As I said, Maverick is still the same guy we all know and love.

Now, before I continue, programs like the fictional DarkStar have milestones in their contracts; that is, they have to meet the overall goal in steps. For example, when Maverick went to fly the DarkStar in Top Gun: Maverick, they were slated to fly Mach 9; that was their test point for that flight. As Maverick pointed out, the Mach 10 milestone was two months away. In other words, had they met that milestone for that flight (Mach 9), then, per the contract, it couldn't be killed-not by a Rear Admiral, anyway. The program would've been good to continue. But then, we wouldn't have had the movie, would we?

After prepping for the mission, Maverick is taxiing to the runway for takeoff. As he positions himself on the runway, RADM Cain arrives. Hondo informs him of this; he tells his friend, Maverick, that it's not too late to stop, and that he knows what'll happen to him if he continues the flight. Maverick then says something that made me really love the guy in a way I couldn't in the original Top Gun: "I know what happens to everyone else if I don't," meaning his colleagues and friends will be out of a job if he stops the flight. Hence, I think that this scene was necessary to establish Maverick's focus on and concern for others. This concern for others will continue to manifest itself throughout the rest of the film. Before I continue, here's the DarkStar scene from TGM.

Maverick takes off. During climbout, he buzzes the Admiral! You can see that at 2:39 in the above video clip. After going aloft in the DarkStar, a couple of other things become obvious: 1) Maverick still isn't over Goose's death decades after the fact; and 2) he still likes to push things. At 4:37 in the above video, Maverick says, "Talk to me, Goose." At 6:12, when Mav reaches Mach 10, Hondo says, "Don't do it, don't do it,", Maverick says, "Just a little push," as he presses beyond Mach 10. My reaction was: he CAN'T HELP himself! He has to push; he's the same old Maverick we know and love. You know what happens next: DarkStar disintegrates, and Maverick dodges death yet again.

Before continuing, I'd like to make a comment about that. Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that, had Maverick ejected at Mach 10, there'd be nothing left of him; he wouldn't have survived. That's true if he ejected only in the seat; if he just ejected in the seat, he'd turn to mist at those speeds If, on the other hand, there was a crew escape pod that separated from the aircraft in an emergency, then Maverick could've survived.

The next instance where we see Mav's concern for others is when he's chewed out for breaking the hard deck and doing his Cobra maneuver while he and Rooster were going at it. After Admiral Bates asked Mav what he thought he was teaching the students, Mav said that they still had things to learn. Cyclone says that he's talking about the best fighter pilots on the planet; Maverick counters that they've been told that their entire careers, and that they'd had little or no dogfighting experience; that is, Maverick is thinking of everything his students are likely to face, and he's preparing them accordingly. After Vice Admiral Simpson says that the pilots know and accept the risks of their upcoming, dangerous mission, Maverick says that he doesn't accept the risks; Mav wants to give his students all the tools they need to make it home alive. These are two additional important instances where Maverick expresses concerns for others-in this case, his students.

It's in this scene (where Mav is chewed out) where we see the old Maverick and his desire to always push, to always do things his way. After Cyclone yells at Maverick about breaking the hard deck, Maverick places the written request to change the hard deck, so as to accurately simulate the upcoming mission parameters. The scene ends with Admiral "Warlock" Bates admonishing Maverick about his timing. Admiral Bates was in Maverick's corner the whole time, even if he wasn't obvious about it. This scene is below.

The next instance where Mav shows his concern with others is when he's talking with Penny post coitus. She asked him what happened with Rooster. Mav explained how Goose's wife, Carole (i.e. Rooster's mother), didn't want her son flying after Goose was killed, and how he'd promised her before she died that he would honor her wishes. Penny asked if Rooster knew that, and Mav said, "He'll always resent me for what I did. Why should he resent her too?" IOW, Mav took all of Rooster's anger, resentment, and upset to protect the now deceased wife of his old friend, Goose; he was protecting Carole and her relationship with Rooster.

When Maverick was brought back to Top Gun, it was to solely teach and prepare the pilots for the mission; they didn't want him flying the mission. Because he's concerned about his students, Maverick wants to do more than teach them; he wants to lead the mission. Cyclone and Warlock aren't keen on this idea. After Iceman, Maverick's friend and guardian, died, Cyclone wasted no time in grounding Maverick after almost gleefully informing him that he'll be taking over the training.

Before I continue, I need to set up the next stage of the story. After Maverick was grounded, he went to see Penny. Penny, who's been plugged in to the Navy all her life (she was the Admiral's daughter), had heard about Mav being grounded. While I'll have more to say about Penny; while I'll be devoting a separate post to her; I like how she's empathetic, supportive, allows Mav to be vulnerable, all while giving him a gentle nudge to find a way back on his own. I love how she reminds him of how he cares for his pilots, and that he'll never forgive himself if anything happens to them. The moviegoer can clearly see how crushed Maverick is that he can no longer teach and look after his students. Unlike Charlie in the original Top Gun, I like how Penny is there for him. She's a good woman, and though she's not perfect, I like her. This scene was one of the most touching in the movie; it tears me up every time I see it. After this scene, he shows that the mission can be done.

After Penny supported and encouraged Maverick, he demonstrates more concern for others-in this case, his students. We see VADM Simpson, aka Cyclone, informing the students that Maverick is no longer their instructor, and that he's taking over the training. He tells them that the time to target is four minutes, and that they won't be having to do the low level ingress with the high G pullout after dropping their bombs. The students look like, "WTF, is this guy trying to get us killed?" While they'd been challenged by Maverick all through their training; while he'd been hard on them; they could clearly see the wisdom of why he'd been hard on them. At this point, Maverick, in a borrowed (or stolen?) F-18, entered the range, and showed the students that yes, the mission could be done; not only that, it could be done in record time. A great leader doesn't just tell you something can be done; a great leader DOES it! I like how Maverick, with nothing left to lose here, made a last ditch effort to remain their instructor and hopefully lead the mission. I love how Mav lays it on the line for his students here. Again, he's focused on others, not himself.

Maverick, of course, was successful in his gambit to be mission commander. The two final instances of Maverick demonstrating his concern for others are leading the team into battle, then taking a missile for Rooster. We can see Maverick's willingness to die when he says goodbye to his right hand man and friend, Hondo. Those scenes are below.

What I like about Maverick (among many things!) is that he not only went on the mission; he led from the front! That's what all great leaders do; they're the point of the spear. How can his team not be inspired by that?

Here's the bombing run scene; my apologies for the overlap between this clip and the one above.

Finally, here's Maverick taking a missile to save Rooster; here, he made the ultimate sacrifice.

Finally, I have to insert the scene where Maverick and Rooster meet up on the ground; it's such a PERFECT man/dad moment! Rooster stuck around, saved Maverick's life, then got shot down doing it. Maverick ran over to Rooster. After he made sure that Rooster was all right, Mav then shoved him into the snow. It also reiterates that Maverick took the missile for Rooster, so Rooster could make it back to the carrier. I love how Rooster throws Maverick's words back at him; he reminded Maverick that he said not to think. Mav's facial expression is, "Oh yeah, I said that..."

Of course, this isn't the end of the movie, but this post isn't a recap of the movie; it's about how the older, more mature Maverick is focused on others, and how he repeatedly demonstrated that throughout the film. I must say that I really love the older, more mature Maverick; I love how he became the best version of himself in Top Gun: Maverick.

And yes, I LOVE this movie! I dare say it's the best movie I've seen in ages. I also think that it's one of the few sequels that not only equaled the original; it exceeded it. It joins a rare group of movies such as The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.

In the near future, I plan on doing separate posts on Penny, Hondo, Iceman, Hangman, Rooster, Warlock and Bob. I may do one on Cyclone too. Have a great day!

Climate Science Is NOT Good Science!

 Folks,

Below is a comment I left on Stuart Fililingham's recent video about being shadow banned for questioning the climate change narrative. That video can be found here. A Ross Jones left a typical, arrogant ad hominem comment about climate change. His comment is pinned at the top of the video's comments, so it'll be easy to find. Below is Mr. Jones' comment, along with my rebuttal. Mr. Jones' comment is in colored text, while mine is in the regular color.

------------------

Science has only recently confirmed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. It’s not about “activists” any longer but a joined up confirmation and acceptance of science. Us general citizens have to make our decisions based upon prevailing scientific thinking and as I said scientists took a long time to prove unarguably that “we” are the cause of global warming. Sadly this will have a negative impact on motorcycling as we know it. I too am affected but I choose to accept good science. Personally I think you should avoid topics you know very little about. I’d rather enjoy the last days of the internal combustion engine used by motorcycles while we can. The next generation will be riding electric machines or something similar. Get back to the core topic of your channel for the sake of us viewers, and for you too. Start another channel if you need a platform for your political views…or many like me will be unsubscribing.Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?

Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even though their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?

FIrst of all, there was the climate change email scandal at the University of East Anglia back in November of 2009. Hackers got a hold of emails from the university's Climate Research Unit, and posted them to the Internet. The crux of these emails was that research data had been fudged, because the real data showed that the climate wasn't changing; if anything, they showed that Earth is cooling! Those who are proponents of the climate change narrative said that the emails were taken out of context; they said that they were misinterpreted. Even if this were true, WHY didn't the university share its data? Why weren't they transparent? Do you see how even the APPEARANCE of impropriety would make one question the university's findings?

Second of all, climatologists are reluctant to share their data and their findings with the world at large. Why is that? Why not be transparent with their findings? For example, the noted American professor and climatologist, Michael Mann, when he was at the University of Virginia, put out some findings saying that climate change was real. A group skeptical of his findings requested his data. He refused. They had to SUE him in court, and even then, the data weren't shared! Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, i.e. people who pay Mann's salary and fund his university, be allowed to see these data? Since public policy is being crafted as a result of these findings supporting climate change; since these policies will impact our lives in unforeseen and profound ways; shouldn't we see them? Why are they being hidden if they're legitimate, hmmm? Care to answer THAT, Mr. Jones?

Thirdly, am I the only one who's noticed that, within the climate change debate, that natural phenomena impacting climate are NEVER discussed? You know that, when volcanoes erupt, that they spew MILLIONS of tons of debris in the atmosphere, right? Do you know that this debris can impact weather and climate? For example, the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was so severe that it resulted in the year with no summer; there was no summer in 1816, which was responsible for the Irish potato famine back in the 19th Century. But wait, there's MORE!

Did you know that sunspots impact our climate? Sunspots affect the radiation and energy that reaches the Earth. This energy is an important driver of weather and climate. Solar cycles last 11 years. Shouldn't we be researching the sun's impact on our weather and climate, so as to understand its role in climate change? Here, NASA acknowledges and admits that we don't really understand the sun's impact on Earth and its climate: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html. Ah, but wait, there's STILL MORE!

Do you know that undersea volcanoes exist? Why wouldn't they, when we have volcanoes on land? Do  you know that many of these undersea volcanoes erupt continuously? Do you know that they stream lava, or hot, liquified rock? You know that this heats up the ocean right? This, in turn, affects La Nina and El Nino. You know that both La Nina and El Nino impact both weather and climate right? Why aren't undersea volcanoes ever discussed when talking about climate change?

Mr. Jones, have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's the process used for understanding natural laws, crafting hypotheses, creating theories, conducting research, etc. IIRC, there are seven steps, but I want to focus on the first one, as it's the most critical step; get the first step wrong, the rest of your work will be wrong. The first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. What is it? What is it not? How does it manifest itself? When does it manifest itself? Under what circumstances does the problem occur? And so on. If this step isn't performed correctly, then everything else done afterward is faulty; blow it here, and all subsequent research is useless! The first step of the scientific method is analogous to a building's foundation; it is essential to get both right.

With that in mind, why AREN'T natural phenomena being discussed WRT climate change? Don't these phenomena affect the climate? Since they affect the climate, shouldn't we understand them? Shouldn't they be part of defining the problem of climate change? If we, as a people, are to craft good solutions to climate change, shouldn't we understand all the variables first? By ignoring them, aren't we negatively impacting and distorting all subsequent research that follows the essential step of defining the problem? What do all these natural phenomena have in common, Mr. Jones? Man cannot control them! There's nothing humanity can do about sunspots, volcanoes, or undersea volcanoes.

Finally, why is such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term like "climate change" even used? I'm old enough to remember when this was first called global cooling back in the 1970s. Then, during the 1980s, it was called global warming. When that warming didn't happen, it was then called climate change. The climate is ALWAYS changing-DUH! It's called the four seasons: winter, spring, summer, and fall. Again, if we're to really understand and define any problems with Earth's climate, shouldn't we use precise terms as part of that understanding?

Mr. Jones, you said that you believe and follow "good science", right? In light of what I've pointed out, does climate change science look like good science to you? Does good science hide their data and findings? Does good science ignore ALL variables affecting a process, such as the Earth's weather and climate? Does good science refuse to acknowledge, let along understand, all variables, such as natural phenomena impacting Earth's climate?

To recap, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia email scandal. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?

Red Pill Wisdom in Jack Reacher

 Guys,

Though it came out 11 years ago, I just saw the movie, Jack Reacher, this weekend. It's a pretty good action and suspense flick. I'd like to draw your attention to the bar scene where Sandy sits at Jack's table just before the fight outside. Sandy tells Jack she's old enough to do "a lot of things". Jack replies that he's on a budget, so he can't afford her. She indignantly protests that she's not a whore, to which Jack says, "Then I really can't afford you." Sandy gets upset at this, then Jack says that the cheapest woman tends to be the one you pay for-OUCH! It's true though: when it comes to sex, a guy ALWAYS PAYS! The only question is whether the charges will be up front, or on the back end. Now, enjoy a clip of Jack Reacher...

My Thoughts on Female YouTubers Addressing Men's Issues

Folks,

Below is my comment to Sandman MGTOW's most recent video about women commenting on men's issues. While he says that they're part of the Manosphere, I disagree; they comment on men's issues, but they're not part of the 'sphere. Here's the Sandman video on which I commented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJmc8iKeVx8

----------

Sandman, as someone who follows three of the four women you mentioned; as someone who subscribes to two of their channels; I'd like to comment here. I subscribe to SDM and RFS; I follow Pearly on occasion; and I have no idea who BC is, as I never heard of her before your video. Now, on to my comment.

I think that SDM is sincere; I think she's real; I think she has a good heart. I subscribe to her, and I watch her fairly regularly. I struggled with similar psychological hangups as she did, so I can empathize with her. I think she says things that need to be said, and she does so with wit and humor. She started her channel with the intent of focusing on and directing her content towards women. However, for whatever reason, she got more traction with men. Hence, I wouldn't consider her to be in the Manosphere, and she doesn't place herself there; in fact, she says so in a recent video of hers. I take her at face value, and I believe her when she says that she wants to do her part to fix the damage wrought be feminism. I'll give her props for that. What's going on between men and women isn't what God intended.

Next, I subscribe to Aly too, aka Real Fem Sapien. I wouldn't classify her as Manosphere, either; if anything, I think she targets women as well; most of her content appears to be directed at younger women, and she teaches them how to live as a new Christian, how to live a traditional life, have a happy marriage, and so on. If she brings up men's concerns, it's part of her overall raison d'etre. She's trying to help women understand men, so they can have a better marriage. RFS also brings up men, so as to show how our thoughts, feelings, and actions impact women. Like SDM, RFS isn't a Manosphere; it's just that her content has struck a cord with men as well as women.

As for Pearly, she's more of a moderator/host of a podcast vs. a creator of original content. She has many "woke" guests on, which spices up debate. I don't subscribe to her; I used to, but no more. Though I think her heart is in the right place, many of the debates she hosts are just unwatchable. If I see a video of hers in my feed and it interests me, I'll watch it. Pearly seems to be sincere, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt until I have reason not to.

I cannot comment on Brett Cooper, other than to say WTF were her parents thinking?! Prior to watching this video here, I had no idea who she was. However, since she's part of Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, I wouldn't trust anything anyone at DW says. Daily Wire is a "Conservative, Inc." organ, and as such, is controlled opposition; i.e. they carry forth The Narrative put forth by the MSM, Deep State, et al. Why do you think Ben Shapiro and other cucks like him are not only still on Big Tech platforms like YouTube and Facebook, but are heavily promoted? Doesn't that raise any eyebrows? You can read what Andrew Torba, Founder/CEO of Gab, has to say here: https://news.gab.com/2023/01/conservative-inc-and-the-deal-with-the-daily-wire-devil/

Anyway, thouse are my thoughts. I think that SDM, RFS, and Pearly are sincere. I wouldn't place either SDM or RFS in the Manosphere though. They're more about undoing the damage wrought by feminism. They just say stuff that needs to be said, and they say things that strike a cord with good people of both sexes. Pearly is more of a moderator, not an original content creator like SDM or RFS. As for BC, she's part of a major Conservative, Inc. organ; for that reason alone, she should be distrusted. Thank you.

Restricted Movement Due to Climate Cult

 Folks,

Here's a comment I left in response to Stuart Fillingham's first video of the new year. Stu is motorcyclist in the UK who has a fondness for Royal Enfield motorcycles. Since I own a Royal Enfield motorcycle myself, I follow his channel. At times, he discusses issues impacting mobility, as they impact two wheelers as well as four wheelers. In his video, he talks about the Irish, UK, and EU governments enacting movement restrictions-to save the planet, of course. Below is my comment...

------------

Stu, you didn't hear from me, because I respected your wish to have a holiday vacation. Now that you're back, rest assured that many of us Yanks ARE paying attention to what's going on over there! More often than not whatever happens over there finds its way here.

Secondly, we have to stop going along with the climate McGuffin! We can't just say we'll build H2 cars, hybrids, etc.; the only thing to do with the climate cult is to tell them to FUCK OFF! That's it! ICEVs are already very clean, thanks to better emissions controls and refinement of the ICE over the course of more than a century. The climate McGuffin is only being used to get us out of our cars and reduce our freedom of movement.

Thirdly, those of us with brains need to point out that there are plenty of NATURAL PHENOMENA that can change the climate! I'm talking about sunspot numbers; there's a proven correlation between temperatures on Earth with the sunspot numbers. There are terrestrial volcanoes to consider. How many MILLIONS of tons of debris are spewed into the atmosphere with a serious volcanic eruption? Then, there's the matter of undersea volcanoes, which warm the ocean water; warming oceans impact the climate, Folks! What do all three of these phenomena have in common, besides being natural? We cannot control them-end of story. Mother Nature will do whatever the blazes she wants to do.

Fourthly, I remember seeing a History Channel documentary about the Middle Ages, and what the weather was like then. England was quite warm, actually; it was warmer than it is now. How warm? You all had VINEYARDS there in the 1300s! What didn't you have? Man made pollution from cars, factories, etc., because those things didn't exist, nor would they exist for centuries. With that said, the question begs: if humans weren't polluting, then how did England become warmer during the Middle Ages, hmmm? Natural forces were responsible of course; to ask the question is to answer it.

Finally, anyone who's surfed or even spent time in the ocean will tell you how mighty and powerful it is. They'll also tell you how insignificant they feel, because they are. Man thinks he can influence the climate? GTFOOH! Humanity is but a PIMPLE on the ass of Mother Nature! Who are we to think that we have any impact at all?

Female Delusion by the Numbers

 Folks,

This is a comment to a recent video by Strong Successful Male on YouTube. SSM is a GREAT YouTuber! He puts out a lot of interesting content, and I'd recommend watching his videos.

-------------

SSM, I LOVE your channel and your content! Today's episode was good as usual. Now, for a couple of points. One, what the 46 y/o interior designer forgets is that the guys she wants have options; as you pointed out, they can get the 20 somethings who are hotter, nicer, and more agreeable. Besides, no guy, especially a successful one with options like she wants, is going to want to put up with her attitude. Her letter to Market Watch gave a glimpse of her attitude, and any guy with any sense will say NO THANK YOU; that goes double for the guys she's seeking! WTF would they pick her, when they could get someone who's much more desirable? Why?

Now, as for how many guys even have the Triple Sixes (six figure income, 6' or taller, and with a six pack), they're small portion of the population. I'll crunch the numbers in a minute. First, let's look at the percentage of guys in each category, shall we? The % of men earning a six figure income is 22%. The % of men who are 6' or taller is 14.5%. Finally, the % of men with a six pack is about 2%; while I couldn't find an official study confirming that, the 2% figure popped up in my research, so we'll use that.

Now, how do we find the % of men who have the Triple Sixes? How do we find the number of men who meet all three criteria? Well, we crunch some numbers, of course. To find the overall probability of finding a man with the Triple Sixes, we must multiply the individual probabilities together. Mathematically speaking, this looks like: 0.22*0.145*0.02=0.000638. To get the percentage, we multiply this by 100, which looks like: 100*0.000638=0.0638%. Rounding that up, we get 0.064%, or 65 ONE THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT! Ah, but we're not through yet...

To figure out the approximate number of men who meet all three criteria (six figures, six feet, and six pack), we must crunch a couple of more numbers. The approximate population of the US is 330 million; if we divide that in half for the number of men, we get 165 million. I know that there are slightly more women than men, but we're just doing some quick and dirty calculation here; we're looking to illustrate a point: female delusion. SO! We multiply 165,000,000 by 0.000638 to find the overall number of men who meet all three criteria. Mathematically speaking, that looks like: 165,000,000*0.000638=105,270. That's right; out of 165,000,000 men in the US, only 105,270 men have the Triple Sixes. That's a SMALL number, Guys! Ah, but we're still not done; there's more!

The 105,270 figure assumes that all these men (i.e. the ones who are Triple Sixes) are all available and are all seeking a relationship. Common sense tells us this isn't the case; common sense tells us that many women will find these men desirable, and will therefore lock them down; IOW, many of these men will be unavailable. Being generous, let's assume that half of these men are off the market; it'll probably be more, as many women will want these men, but let's be generous here to illustrate a point. Mathematically speaking, this looks like: 105,270*0.5=52,635. That's right: out of 165,000,000 men, less than 53,000 meet the Triple Six criteria. When we consider that there are about 165,000,000 women in the US, competing for those 53,000 men, those are LONG ODDS! To put it another way, each of these Triple Six men has 3,135 women to pick from. IOW, women have 3,135:1 odds of finding a Triple Six man.

These numbers, of course, bring up some questions. Why should one of these Triple Six men pick the average woman seeking him out? What makes HER so special? What does she bring to the table? How DELUSIONAL can modern women be? All I can do is shake my head in response. Those are my thoughts...