Jedediah

Often I talk about how using The System is necessary to achieve anything. Many wrongly assume I just mean “the democratic process” in exclusion. But when I talk of men who used The System I often refer to Napoleon, Caesar, Cromwell, Franco, for a few examples, as men using the system. They used the system, because each held positions of legitimate authority and power within it when they took action. That is what I mean. There is an utterly clear historical trend I see in which one must work within the previous established order and use in varying measures the legitimate positions of authority in order to accomplish anything when dealing with internal conflicts and changes. I have found maybe one example of an internal conflict in which this didn’t happen, but it requires more actual exploration. I’ve had no one provide me anything to counter this. In our case, it’s also not simply supporting or voting for or joining the established party. By all means, if you want to go and actually do other things that aren’t within the system itself which is not merely posting your beliefs on Twitter, they can certainly be quite important and useful and you ought to do them. Many of these are worthwhile to do and help quite a bit. Whatever your talents are, whether that’s a poet, a partisan, or a politician, you ought to use them, and they’re all useful. What I push against, are notions that the way forward is simply to talk about things until everyone agrees with my exact ideology then we actually take action. What I push against is the notion that things simply just happen or there is some inevitable collapse coming with no human impetus in bringing it about, so we really just do nothing but wait for it. What I push against, overall, is what I see as total inaction in building towards anything useful. Further, if you can give me a coherent way in which you can fight the system without utilizing the two party system in some capacity to do so, in a way that even makes the slightest bit of sense as having even a coherent shot at victory, I’d love to hear it. Certainly, if one can either rise through the ranks of the military or federal three letters and then either use that position or build off it to start a legitimized private military company, that’s certainly a possibility too. But note that this too would be using the system as I see it. But no matter what, I see no coherent vision or plan or way of accomplishing anything at all that doesn’t use the system as I mean it when I say this. And I never receive rejections to this based on anything except people aggressively misunderstanding what I mean ie, just “vote for the GOP”. But mostly, what I receive are objections on moralistic or principled grounds. They find working through the system too impure for them, and so they’d simply rather remain safe talking of nothing more than their beliefs and castigating anyone who truly sets out to change things or make an effect on the matter. What I operate off of what my vision is best summed up by a quote I was fairly recently made aware of. “Our task is not to search for our leader. Either God will give him to us or he will not come. Our task is to shape the sword that he will need when he comes. Our task it to provide the leader with a nation which is ready for him when he comes!” I seek to do what I can to help get people into positions where the sword is shaped and the nation is readied. That’s all. I really, genuinely want to hear anyone present anything even remotely coherent that’s contrary to all of my positions. I’m desperate for it. I have yet to receive it.

@KaiserLoengramm It’s actually crazy how much this show helped me understand political reality. I was definitely “purist” oriented before. Still am in some ways. But if “purity” keeps you from “edification” it’s a misnamed purity.

The Mount Rushmore of deconstructing the Right's enemies.

It’s a demoralization operation aimed at the west with almost no connection to reality. It’s crazy to me that everyone can’t see it.

@justawhitefella @PerfInjust Spangler himself thinks you’re probably gay for that. Public scandal invites public response. Spangler doesn’t listen to private entreaties anyway.

@LexRexEst @PerfInjust I think Christians should seek to resolve disputes privately before publicly blasting one another, you got me bro.

I’ve known Michael for many years. I don’t recall when we first met in person, but we became friends over three years ago. For much of that time, he lived near me. We’ve been to each other's houses. Our families have had dinner together, and our kids have played together. On a few occasions, he volunteered to help me with projects on the property: building a deck, moving felled trees, and other things. His wife is kind. He has good kids. Michael was repeatedly kind to me. I’ve spent more time with him than 99% of his critics, though I haven’t seen him much in the last year or so. I once said that Michael is a “friend” and “a good man”—-something used against me for nearly a year now. No critic has asked what I meant by it, and my default response is to ignore such people. I was referring to his kindness and generosity to me, and to his concern for my spiritual well-being, which surpassed that of many people in my life. Mindful of this history, and out of loyalty to a friend, I did not denounce or openly distance myself from Michael as he began to embrace positions that I reject. This came at great personal cost, not only for me but especially for my family. Online agitators and tale-bearers, most of whom are incapable of argument, insinuated that Michael and I are “fellow Nazis,” despite my numerous articles, videos, and books contradicting that claim. I do not expect any session or presbytery to correct these sinful accusations (WLC 144), despite several coming from those vowed to maintain the “peace of the church.” Michael knows the cost of being associated with him. He knows that anything he says places burdens upon others. I chose to endure them. An elderly man at my previous church—known and well respected in both the OPC and the PCA—encouraged me to remain friends with Michael for his sake, and I did. But the post below is a turning point for me. It represents a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association. When consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated, there comes a breaking point. It begins to look like exploitation. Obviously, “Christian prince” is a term I retrieved from the Protestant tradition, and it immediately recalls my work. Michael had to know that I, yet again, would be dragged into accusations of Naziism, even from those of decent will. He chose words (when there are alternatives) that instantly recall “Stephen Wolfe.” It is an act of betrayal. He has not considered how his actions affect others. He could have easily added, “I know that Stephen Wolfe does not agree with me.” But he did not. As I’ve said for years now, I have no interest in retrieving Naziism, nor do I want a “Protestant Hitler.” Michael knows this, as I’ve said to him (among others) that revising 1930s German history is unnecessary to critique the “post-war consensus”. I am right-wing, but I am an American. By today’s standards, American history is right-wing, and it contains all the resources for recovering a manly, moral liberty and a Christian society. Anglo-Protestantism, despite its faults, is still the core tradition of America. Our fight is to recover it. I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. I do not shy away from references to Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, or “critical theory.” Viewing everything with the good/evil binary, or relying on a set of scary words to categorize intellectual history and various individuals, is unserious. I even use Marx in my MA philosophy thesis. But I would not say that we need a “Protestant Marx” or a “Protestant Heidegger”. We need a George Washington. Given Michael’s behavior—his disregard for my position and the effects of his actions—I can no longer consider him a friend. But I will not take on a mission to destroy him. I will not toss epithets at him or make quips for spectacle. I simply cannot continue in what I consider an exploitive relationship. I pray that Michael and his lovely family would live well in godliness.

This is pretty obvious when you're paying attention. This is why I call on people to mute every groyper. If you were duped by them, you need to do some soul searching and figure out why

Major notes from the weekend on Iran: 1) Combined Force strikes started hitting IRGC Ground Forces units in the Kurdish regions. 2) We have confirmed that IRGC members are at least two cycles behind on pay. 3) *Coincidentally,* I'm sure, the IRGC Ground Forces Commander went on a tour visiting these forces. In combination, these three notes indicate a high risk of desertion throughout the IRGC. 4) Separately, we have the attack on Diego Garcia that, frankly, justifies the war in and of itself. The base itself isn't terribly significant, its not that "Iran can get Diego Garcia! We have to go to war!" The issue is that Iran constantly lies about everything to do with its nuclear program. Taqiyya. They've issued fatwas against nuclear weapons, then simultaneously enrich uranium to levels only usable in weapons while developing long-range ballistic missiles. "Its for medical purposes!" No, it wasn't, and it couldn't be. Uranium enriched to this degree has no medical uses. "Its for self-defense!" Then why were you hiding a long range ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to London? The fact they were developing these weapons while consistently lying about it, in the face of all the world being united against their acquisition of the weapons, combined with all of their past acts of terrorism and piracy, absolutely justifies this war. 5) On Negotiations: These are being played very close to the chest, but here's what I've been able to gather... Witkoff and Kushner are keeping lines of communication open with non-IRGC elements of the Iranian State—if I had to guess, I'd expect officials within the Republican Government. If not Pezeshkian himself, then probably people with access to him. It seems abundantly clear that the situation in Iran is at this point A Tale of Two Cities. One is an IRGC-Cleric alliance propping up the corpse of the Velayat-e Faqih. The other is the Republican-Reform alliance propping up the still in-tact organs of state outside of the IRGC's control. We are almost certainly negotiating with one of these 'cities,' and not the other. This is what I expected would be the prelude to final resolution. The existing power structures in Iran will continue to pull support away from, and rallying support against, the IRGC. At this point, it appears the plan is to reach a pre-negotiated settlement with the Republican-Reform Government while hammering the IRGC on all available fronts and enabling a fairly smooth transition of power. Mass uprising is probably now the backup plan, with total dismantling of Iran's infrastructure the backup to the backup plan.

@justawhitefella @PerfInjust This is the gayest and most effeminate line of questioning.

@PerfInjust Did you reach out privately and speak to Spangler about this prior to posting?

@PerfInjust Spangler should have watched LOGH. @KaiserLoengramm

@ket38111 @PerfInjust @spanglermt Exploiting your friends and choosing loser causes simply for the sake of losing isn’t godly.

Dr. Wolfe, what does it mean that you do not consider @spanglermt a friend? You sound like a teenage girl. If you do not think we need a Protestant Hitler, than just say that and move on. You caved to pressure and, in fact, the left will not even be satisfied with this anyways. You have been sitting on the fence for a long time on several things (Kinism, etc). I'm afraid you just chose the wrong side of the fence. But I still hope that Lord blesses you and continues to show you His word.

A number of press reports have characterized our and other shareholders’ efforts on behalf of Fannie and Freddie (F2) as seeking a ‘gift’ or ‘handout’ from the government. We, the shareholders of F2, seek no such thing. Hundreds of financial institutions were bailed out during the GFC by the U.S. Treasury. Nearly all of the financial institution bailouts during the GFC involved an injection of capital in the form of senior preferred stock by Treasury at an interest rate of 5%, plus warrants to acquire common stock in an amount equal to 15% of the face amount of the preferred with an exercise price at the then-current stock price of the rescued institution. For example, Treasury’s preferred stock investment in Goldman Sachs was in an amount of $10 billion and, in addition, Treasury received warrants on $1.5 billion of GS' common stock at its then market price. The bailout terms for F2 were materially more burdensome and expensive, with a higher interest rate and substantially more warrant coverage, than that of every other financial institution (other than those of AIG whose terms were similar). Despite the F2 bailouts’ massively more burdensome terms, shareholders are not complaining about the original terms. Treasury invested $193 billion in F2 in the form of senior preferred stock (SPS), including funding for $2 billion of commitment fees, with a 10% coupon (twice that of the banks). Treasury also received warrants on 79.9% of both companies’ outstanding shares. Fannie and Freddie have since repaid Treasury $301 billion, which includes interest on the SPS at a blended rate of 11.6%, an interest rate which is 160 basis points more per annum, and have returned the entire $193 billion of outstanding principal, $25 billion in excess of what was contractually owed. In summary, the F2 SPS has been fully repaid according to its original contractual terms plus an extra $25 billion. Despite the fact that the SPS has been more than repaid in full, Fannie and Freddie have not accounted for these payments on their respective balance sheets, and the $193 billion of SPS remains an outstanding liability as if no principal payments had ever been made. How can it be, you might ask, if indeed F2 have repaid $301 billion to Treasury when only $276 billion was due could there be any remaining balance of the SPS on the F2 balance sheets? The answer relates to something called the ‘Net Worth Sweep (NWS).’ During the second term of the Obama administration, on August 12, 2012, two quarters after F2 returned to profitability, Treasury announced that it was unilaterally amending the terms of the SPS stock to provide that Treasury would take 100% of the profits of F2 each quarter in lieu of the 10% annual dividend rate. This was not a negotiated resolution with F2. It was a unilateral amendment of the original terms of the SPS that was done in bad faith. The supposed rationale for the amended terms of the SPS was akin to the IRS garnishing the wages of someone who will never be able to pay the taxes that they owe. That is, the Treasury said F2 will never be able to pay the 10% coupon, let alone the SPS’ $193 billion principal balance, so it decided instead to ‘settle’ for 100% of F2’s profits forever. In discovery, shareholders learned that the stated justification for the amendment was false. In mid 2012, the Obama administration had come to learn that both companies would soon be reversing tens of billions of reserves on their balance sheets as housing values had increased and the reserves taken during the GFC had been excessive. The NWS was instituted by Obama to forestall F2 from forever being able to recapitalize and be released from conservatorship. The NWS was not a ‘settlement’ for a lesser amount of future payments. It was the outright theft of the forever profits of both companies. Never before or since has the government ‘swept’ 100% of the profits of any company, let alone a financial institution in conservatorship, a form of government intervention where the goal is rehabilitation of the institution, and where the hierarchy of corporate claims has always been respected. The accounting for the NWS payments while it was in effect (until Secretary Mnuchin terminated the NWS in Trump’s first term) was also unusual. The NWS was treated by F2 as a quarterly adjustment to the dividend rate on the SPS such that the dividend amount owed was made equal to the after-tax profits of F2 for that quarter with no limitation. In other words, regardless of the amount of profit F2 generated for the quarter – whether or not it was in excess of the original 10% annual dividend – the dividend payable under the NWS was made equal to the quarterly profit. The absurd terms of the NWS sweep therefore made it impossible for any partial or full repayment of the SPS to take place as every dollar paid to the Treasury on the amended terms of the SPS was considered a dividend payment, even if the amount was massively in excess of the original contractual SPS terms. The absurdity of the NWS was made clear just two quarters after the NWS went into effect. Fannie Mae generated a profit of $59 billion in the first quarter of 2013, and the SPS dividend rate for that quarter was set at $59 billion so the entire amount was swept to the government, more than 10 times the contractual dividend rate. I had the opportunity to discuss F2 and the NWS with Warren Buffett about a decade ago and he said that he “couldn’t believe what the government had done.” In short, the shareholders of F2 are simply asking the government to respect the original and highly burdensome terms of the SPS. There is no dispute that Treasury has received more than the original 10% coupon and full repayment of principal of the SPS, that is, an extra $25 billion. We and the millions of other shareholders of F2 are simply asking the administration to honor the original SPS terms and properly account for the $301 billion of payments, thereby eliminating the SPS liability from both companies’ balance sheets. Shareholders have not asked for the extra $25 billion to be returned to the two companies. Treasury can decide whether to keep those funds or return them to the companies. Accounting for the repayment of the SPS has other important implications. Namely, it is critically important that conservatorships respect the rule of law, in particular, the contractual terms of corporate instruments and the hierarchy of claims. Otherwise, no financial institution that gets into trouble will be able to raise rescue capital in the private markets. Notably, the treatment of F2 in conservatorship explains why Silicon Valley Bank and other recent large bank failures since the GFC were unable to raise private capital and avoid government intervention or a forced sale to J.P. Morgan. If the government with the stroke of a pen during conservatorship can at a whim wipe out common and preferred shareholders, no one is going to step in to try to save a financial institution that gets into trouble, and only the top few banks will be possible rescuers of big banks that fail. Furthermore, because of F2’s history, their reputation in the capital markets has been greatly damaged. F2 raised $22 billion of preferred stock in the year or so prior to conservatorship as the government pressed both companies to raise capital. Institutions were willing to invest billions of dollars of capital into both institutions before they failed because, based on all precedent conservatorships, the contractual terms of all financial instruments and the hierarchy of claims had been preserved. Unfortunately, in light of the precedent of the net worth sweep, no investor can be confident that they won’t be wiped out in a future conservatorship so none has been willing to take the risk. Some have proposed that Treasury simply convert the SPS into junior preferred and common stock and massively dilute shareholders. Putting aside the potential legal challenges to this approach, the result will be that Treasury will at best own something approaching 95% of both companies rather than 79.9%. While the government’s percentage ownership stake would be larger in the SPS conversion approach, the value of the government’s larger stake would be considerably lower as the companies would become un-investable. Who would invest in F2 alongside the government when they just wiped out the previous owners? In the SPS conversion scenario, the government’s stake, at best, if it could be sold, would trade at a massively discounted valuation, well below the value of the government's stake if Treasury retained only its contracted for 79.9% stake and respected the original terms of the SPS. In other words, a slightly smaller ownership stake of much more highly valued companies would equate to considerably more value for Treasury and taxpayers. In a public letter to Rand Paul after his first term in November of 2021, President Trump recognized that the net worth sweep was theft from the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie. He wrote: “Another Obama/Biden scam in legal trouble was when they allowed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to steal the retirement savings of hardworking Americans who had invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…The idea that the government can steal money from its citizens is socialism and is a travesty brought to you by the Obama/Biden administration. My Administration was denied the time it needed to fix this problem because of the unconstitutional restriction on firing Mel Watt. It has to come to an end and courts must protect our citizens.” I couldn’t have said it better than President Trump. Now that you have the time, Mr. President, let’s Stop the Steal!

@MordeStack The thought that America is just allowed to win on its own terms never crossed their minds. This fake anti Israel grift is acutely distracting from the real non-retard problems America has with Israel.

All White House official communication has replies about dying for Israel, ranked in the order of 1) retarded mutuals 2) blue check anon groypers 3) Brown Guys named Muhammad or Pradook with Muslim country flags in bio.

This is a retarded take. It’s one of the more evil ones out there too. Define your terms. The sense of “receive” or “admit” is to accept the truthfulness of the charges and so act in censure upon them. It does not mean “don’t look into it, investigate, or dig deeper”. A man should not go to prison without multiple credible lines of evidence. But the investigation can certainly start with just one.

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim. 5:19) Many Christians and churches have come to treat this is a mere suggestion. But it’s not. It’s a command. And yes, the bar for admission of charges against elders is high—that’s precisely the point. God sets the bar high to protect His shepherds from slander and talebearing. He knows that His undershepherds are susceptible to false accusations from sheep. Misconstrued words. Whisper campaigns. Uncharitable interpretations of motives. And the law goes further than simply not admitting a charge: if someone makes a false accusation, “then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother” (Deut. 19:19). The punishment falls on the liar’s own head. This is God’s wisdom for the purity and peace of His church. No charge against a pastor or elder is to be entertained unless it is confirmed by two or three credible witnesses. That means two or three others saw the purported sin. Elders must be shielded from baseless charges. To spread or countenance false accusations against a pastor is to stand against God Himself. And His law prescribes a just punishment for such conduct as a deterrent. May the church once more uphold God’s law and protect His ministers from baseless accusations.

@CudaMster @HazelAppleyard You are technically correct, But in a society that doesn’t execute pedos like this, normal standards need not always apply.

I get the people here who will cheer this. I really do. But, do we have some laws that shouldn't require a conviction in court and we are allowed to just kill them. And I'm not talking about 'caught in the act' cause I would bust a cap also in that case. Is this what we want. No court, no proof, no conviction? Yes, a conviction for a case like this should lead straight to the chair and not take 15 years to complete. But that's a different subject.

Based?

Not always. Probably not. But the church probably should at least do a little digging. It’s pretty common that victims don’t want to speak out. I know a local family where the father should be hanging from a light post, but none of the girls wanted to press charges so it went nowhere.

@LexRexEst @coconservative7 @danielsilliman Should the police always pursue an investigation on the basis of mere claimed suspicion, without any specifics or even claim by the victim? What would such an investigation even entail?

What it sounds like when a Reformed professor and his wife can't get a sheriff's office, a state child welfare agency, or his church to seriously investigate the suspected abuse of a child youtube.com/watch?v=9Ala5s…

@coconservative7 @NateAFischer @danielsilliman Mhm. Maybe I’m the retard. I’ll listen again. Either way doesn’t influence how to interpret it tbh. They seem to sincerely believe their daughter has an issue. The right thing to do is to pursue investigation from there.

Steve Nichols 8:21 I almost wonder if we should just have a record that we reported this, even if it goes nowhere. (Officer: "It's up to you") I'd be fine...or does that put our names on some I mean... PD Officer 8:29 I mean, well, it puts your name on the report, and then obviously, if you named her... Heidi Nichols 8:33 ..they can figure out who the [unintelligible] ..so then people will know who the victim is, that's what our attorney told us... he said, by coming here, our name is on it and anybody could search and find out who a potential victim is... PD Officer 8:48 Um.. yes and no, the juveniles that are mentioned in cases aren't released, like, for public. So if you.. (Steve: "like our names would...") ...so yeah, so like, if you guys filed a report, yes, then anybody can come in here and file basically a public records request (Heidi: "I don't really want that..." Steve: "It could show that we did...") and then they would see your report, but it would be redacted. Heidi Nichols 9:04 Well, should we...can we take a picture of ourselves right now? (Officer: "For?") ...and prove that we were here? They specifically did not want their names in a report, even though their daughter's name would be redacted (that is, unless she had turned 18 by May, 2025).

@coconservative7 @NateAFischer @danielsilliman No, you have poor comprehension. They explicitly wanted their names in the public record so if someone else did a search they could find them. The officer is the one who told him there was no point in filing a report.

In the footage, they clearly didn't want to file a report, and expressed concern that their names would be in the public record if they did. Why was this? If they had any actual evidence against Adams (with or without a direct statement by their daughter), this would have been probable cause to launch an investigation.

@StephenAdams26 @nc_reformed @ReformedArsenal Good power move. Bring concerns first so that you can manage the procedural process and choose the court of battle.

If you read my original letter, the Nichols letter, and the SAC communications, you will see I am the one that brought concerns. Once that happened, the elders sought to hear from the Nichols. Through every single meeting, the body cam footage where a report was not made but a picture was requested, to this very day, there’s never been an actual charge. There is quite literally nothing to investigate. There is nothing to refer. Do you believe in presumption of innocence? Do you believe in probable cause? Do you believe a man is supposed to have his life torn apart simply because one person says another person said something, but you can’t speak to that other person and I have no evidence to offer. Is that the world you want to live in Christian man? This is me too all over again. This is a dozen other stories all over again. All ones that many of you rightly see for what they are. But you don’t know me and you think you know Steve Nichols so you fill your head with assumptions. I’m just a normal Christian, god-fearing man like all of you. Be grateful your family hasn’t been torn to shreds for no reason.

An important update from the SAC elders.

The logic of this situation makes no sense. If Nichol's daughter were making up the charges, what would be her motivation? The only real motivations would be for attention or to get at Pastor Adams maliciously.

Is this that retard professor?