Serpey

@StocksToTrade #STTsetup Trading with my assistant!

In 1 Peter 3:5-6, the Bible tells wives to be in subjection to and to obey their husbands as their earthly lords. But how can they submit to a husband who never tells them what to do? A husband who expects nothing of them? A husband who never tells them "No, your not going to do that" or "This is what I want you to do"? For a woman to submit to her husband's leadership and control means that the husband must give his wife leadership and exercise control over her. This is something far too many Christian husbands fear to do today with their wives. How can a woman know if her cooking pleases her husband if he never tells her what pleases him or displeases him about her cooking? How can a woman know if her appearance, the way she keeps her hair, her makeup and her clothing is pleasing to her husband without both his positive and negative feedback? How can a woman know what pleases her husband sexually without him taking the initiative and control telling her what he likes and dislikes and what he wants her to do that she may never have thought of? When Christ washes his wife, his church, in Ephesians 5:26-37, those spots and wrinkles are failings. Christ tells his church what he expects of her and tells her where she is displeasing him or failing him in certain areas. And husbands must have the courage to emulate Christ in this manner with their wives. A woman growing into the glorious wife God wants her to be requires both her complete submission to her husband and his taking complete dominion over her. It won't happen if either of them are unwilling or fearful of doing their part. Which is the best wife according to the Bible? The one who never submits because she is never expected to? The one who is uncontrolled by her husband and does whatever she wants? Or is it the wife who is fully submitted to the dominion of her husband and seeks to please him each day of her life?

The end state of hypergamy is in fact polygyny...

They say that the words "gay" and "homosexuality" did not exist in ancient Greece because it was completely normal, just like pederasty. WRONG. I will easily humiliate everyone who tries to manipulate the Classics. The words existed, and they clearly denoted something reprehensible. In this post, I will prove why everyone is lying. First, let me clarify that I do not deny that homosexuality existed, that would be false. However, it is anti-scientific and insidious to deliberately try to turn the entire Greek history, mythology, and personalities into homosexuals without original primary sources to support it. This is done with malice and deceit. I cite some words from ancient Greek that carried the etymology of "gay" with a very negative meaning: 1. κίναιδος (kinaidos) = κινεῖν τὴν αἰδῶ = the lewd man, the one who stirs pleasure, the fornicator. The "ai" is a diphthong. The one who stirs shame and disgrace for himself. It is derived from moving the shame (αἰδῶ), or from moving the genitals. 2. ἀνδροβάτης (androbates) = ἀνήρ + βαίνω = the active kinaidos (the active homosexual male). 3. ἀρρενοκοίτης (arrenokoites) = ἄρσην + κοι- (from κεῖμαι, to lie down) + -της = the man who lies with males, who has intercourse with men, homosexual ≈ synonyms: sodomite. 4. καταπύγων (katapygon) = κατα- + πυγ(ή) + -ων = lustful, vulgar, worthless, lewd, kinaidos. These four words were insulting characterizations. In ancient Greek texts, they are used to mock the "gay" man of the time. This alone shows that it was not a normal institution or something natural, but something condemned. The issue with the vases is also anti-scientific. Out of the half a million vases that exist, depictions of homosexuality appear in only 0.001% of them. Is this a serious argument or source to claim that homosexuality was an institution and the norm? Anyone who supports this is lying. Also the 95% of this 0.001% can't be proven that depict homosexuality, it's just a theory from some "academics". Now let’s move on to some laws from our sources. 1. "I think I should also speak about eros (love) for boys, since this too has to do with education. Other Greeks, either the Boeotians who live together in close pairs of men and boys, or the Eleans who enjoy the bloom of youth, have different customs. Some completely forbid lovers from conversing with boys. Lycurgus, however, in contrast to all these, approved of the following: if a worthy man admired the soul and virtue of a boy and tried to make him a perfect friend and associate with him, he praised this relationship and considered it the best form of education. But if someone appeared to desire the boy’s body, he considered this shameful and legislated that lovers should abstain from their beloved boys in the same way parents abstain from sexual relations with their children or siblings with each other. I am not surprised that some do not believe this, because in many cities the laws do not oppose desires toward boys." Source: Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Chapter 2. 2. "The Spartan love had nothing shameful in it. If ever an adolescent dared to commit lewd acts with another, it was in no one’s interest for the two to disgrace Sparta; they were either exiled from their homeland or, even worse, lost their lives." Source: Claudius Aelianus, Varia Historia, Book 3. 3. "You may take this matter seriously or as a joke, but you must always remember that when a man unites with a woman to produce a child, the pleasure they feel is entirely natural. Homosexual intercourse, however, is contrary to nature and is committed because men and women cannot restrain their desire for pleasure." Source: Plato, Laws 636c. 4. "If someone appeared to desire the body of the boy, Lycurgus considered this very shameful and legislated that the lovers of the boys should abstain from sexual acts (Aphrodisia) as much as parents abstain from their children and brothers from brothers." Source: Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.13.5–14.1. 5. "It was permitted to fall in love with the noble soul of a boy, but to approach boys erotically was something shameful and disgraceful, because in that case they loved the body and not the soul. Whoever was convicted of approaching a boy in a shameful erotic way was punished with lifelong atimia (loss of civic rights)." Source: Plutarch, Ancient Customs of the Spartans, Chapter 7. 6. Solon restricted many practices of society that created an atmosphere of “disorder” (lack of order and organization, but also meaning marital infidelity) and “akolasia” (lack of moral restraint and surrender to pleasures, especially sexual ones). The prohibition of excessive female laments and dirges at funerals of strangers aimed to limit excessive passion, which the ancients identified with the emotional female nature and considered dangerous to the male life that had to be based on reason, calculation, and composure. Plutarch specifically notes in the ancient text that it does not befit men to display excessive passion in mourning (but of course nowhere else either), because it was “unmanly” and “womanish” (something that did not fit the Greek ideal). Source: Plutarch, Solon 21.4. 7. Socrates explains the myth of Ganymede and refers to Achilles and Patroclus: "I wish finally, Callias, to prove to you also through mythology that not only humans but also gods and heroes prefer the friendship of the soul rather than the use of the body. Zeus, as is known, after having relations with mortal women he fell in love with for their physical beauty, left them mortal. But those he loved for the beauty of their soul, he made immortal. Among them are Heracles, the Dioscuri, and others. I also maintain that Ganymede was taken up to Olympus not for the beauty of his body, but for the beauty of his soul. The name itself confirms my opinion, because in a passage of Homer it says 'γάνυται δέ τ’ ἀκούων' which means 'he enjoys listening to him.' There is also another Homeric passage: 'πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδεα εἰδώς,' meaning 'he who had wise thoughts.' From these two things, therefore, Ganymede, having received his name not as pleasant-bodied but as pleasant-minded, has been honored among the gods. (i.e., not because of a beautiful body but because of wisdom. Zeus symbolized the Mind/Intellect and was the father of Athena, the goddess of Wisdom. Our mind begets wisdom.) But also Achilles, Niceratus, is portrayed by Homer as having most gloriously avenged the death of Patroclus not as his lover, but as his friend. And also Orestes and Pylades, Theseus and Pirithous, and many other of the best demigods are extolled not because they sleep together, but because each admired the other and together they performed the greatest and most glorious deeds." Source: Xenophon, Symposium [8.28–31]. 8. Proclus gives us the meaning of the terms "lover" (erastes) and "beloved" (eromenos), which had nothing to do with their modern meanings: "After calling Parmenides and Zeno lover and beloved, or the one teacher (guide) and the other initiated disciple (perfected by the verb τελέω, meaning to initiate), [he makes] the lover and teacher cross such a great sea of words toward the beloved and the disciple initiated by him." Source: Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. In classical antiquity, the lover and the beloved, in correspondence, are considered, at least for those who have studied Plato’s dialogue Phaedrus in depth, as teacher and student. In this work, Plato presents this relationship as an erotic one, meaning a relationship of attraction, between the one who seeks knowledge and the one who provides it. By the term “eros,” therefore, is meant the relationship based on feelings of deepest friendship and respect between two people. In the eyes of the adolescent or child, the teacher-lover was the embodiment of the ideal, the ideal person he aspired to imitate, to adopt the love of beauty, and to pursue moral virtues. After all, this was the meaning of Paideia (education) in antiquity. When we talk about pederasty in antiquity, we should not equate it with modern homosexuality. Primarily because it was a pedagogical relationship. I emphasize: pederasty had nothing to do with romantic-sexual love as we say today, but with upbringing and education, in the spirit of that era. It was a relationship between an older man and a younger one, which ended when the youth reached adulthood. The continuation of the relationship was a social stigma. Of course, the relationship could sometimes take on a sexual character (in some cities, as Xenophon informs us, but not in Athens and Sparta), but rarely in the form of sodomy, and it was always condemned by society. It is wrong to equate pederasty with homosexuality. Many Greek academics and foreign historians equate these two concepts. This happens because many newer historians, both foreign and Greek, who deal with ancient texts, do not know them from the originals. Unfortunately, many younger historians do not know ancient Greek and read the ancient authors mainly through bad translations that are paraphrases.What I have to tell you is that pederasty does not mean the renunciation of the youth by his friend, i.e., of his masculine identity. It was not an act that operated against his manliness. In classical Athens, this institution was an element of the upbringing of young men of the upper social class. It certainly included the initiation of the youth by the mentor-elder into erotic life and what a young boy needs to know (today, doesn’t the mother do the same with her daughter or the father with his son?).It is characteristic that most depictions (on vases) include only touching and not sexual intercourse as we understand it. What is of great importance for the value of societies is that in Athens this institution appears either quite limited or is treated with mockery in the comedies of Aristophanes and in other poets, historians, and writers in general. If it were something established and natural, then why would Aristophanes emit such harsh mockery? What should impress us is the legal protection of young people from the possibility of their prostitution. A foreign historian writes that adolescence was not an easy matter for attractive young Athenians. They had to avoid the stigma of those who submitted to unnatural contact. Homosexuality for emotionally immature youths was like walking a tightrope, as social disapproval and comments would not be long in coming. Thus we understand that what is disapproved of is not an institution. And it cannot be an institution, because there is also a multitude of words that exist to condemn these unnatural pleasures (ἀνδροβάτης, ἀρρενοκοίτης, καταπύγων, γυναικάνηρ, γυναικείας, γυναικίζω, etc.). Homer Pavlos

@babyblueice22 @sleepy_devo Anything less than 2 per couple is bad.

@sleepy_devo "Nobody"? then the birth rate would be zero. And BTW, it is even lower in Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, South Korea -- explain that.

conservatives spent decades saying "don't have kids if you can't afford them", which is completely reasonable advice nobody can afford to have kids, and they're all just doing as you said

PAXTON DOING WHAT EVERY STATE AG SHOULD BE DOING Thanks to @SaraGonzalesTX - AG Paxton is rooting out the fraud within Texas' H-1B program. We pulled the 9 companies he listed in his press release. They accounted for ~900 LCA filings for H-1Bs since 2015. How many were fraud?

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU THE REAL STORY OF THE SCOTUS VOTING RIGHTS RULING Yes, the Court ruled 6-3. Yes, race-based districting is now unconstitutional. Yes, Louisiana's map got thrown out. But here's the part everyone is missing: Democrats don't have a House majority without those court-ordered maps. → A dozen of their current seats sit in districts that only exist because federal courts FORCED states to draw them → Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina — every one has at least one Democrat seat in a court-created black-majority district → Their House margin is FOUR seats → SCOTUS just made 12 of their 213 seats legally redrawable → Republican-led legislatures don't need new voters — they need a redistricting committee and a Tuesday afternoon If race-based districts are unconstitutional, then Louisiana redraws. If Louisiana redraws, then Alabama redraws. If Alabama redraws, then every Southern state redraws. If every Southern state redraws, the Democrat House majority was a 60-year courtroom artifact — not an election result. That's what nobody is saying out loud. The 2026 midterms were just decided 6-3 — six months before Election Day. if you're not following me you're finding out about this 48 hours late from someone who read my post..

The price of homes has skyrocketed since we passed Hart-Celler.

"Every red dot is a filing for an Indian to be hired instead of you." Replacement immigration is the most real most pressing threat to the American people and the future of young Americans. Foreign policy issues pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by mass immigration.

Illegal alien households: 59% welfare use. U.S.-born: 39%. Not gratitude. Pure “you owe me” entitlement. Mass deportations aren’t just policy — they’re attitude adjustment. @Bannons_WarRoom #ImmigrationReality

Older than the Incas Older than the Aztecs Older than the Maori in NZ Older than the Zulu in SA Older than the Lakota Older than Islam in India But the English are not officially considered "native" to England.

Despite being 14% of the population foreigners were 26% of penal space, 40% of charity, and almost 60% of illiterates in the US; 1922. Worse if you add 2nd gen. In attempt to remedy this America responded with a national immigration cut until deportations surpassed importation.

America is currently an open-air borderless daycare for retarded Thirdworlders from all across the planet. I am an extremist, because I want to end that. The more eyes that open to this, the less “extreme” this position is revealed to be.

New England mastered the art of gerrymandering years ago The 6 states are 40% Red They have 33 seats between them So they have 13 Republicans, right? Wrong. They have 1. This is modern day taxation without representation coming full circle to the birthplace of the Revolution

The Mailbox Test, like the breakfast test, is an excellent way to tell who you can allow to wield power in your society. Goes like this: If someone is hurt trying to destroy someone else's stuff in order to take pleasure from their pain, do you sympathize with... The aggressor because he got hurt? Or with the guy who owns the stuff, because he wasn't the aggressor? You can have people in your society who fail the Mailbox Test. That's okay... they can work at hospices, or shelters for orphaned kittens, or something. But you cannot allow them to vote, or otherwise wield political power. Because if you do, they will open the gates of the city to the enemy. I am personally tired of everyone pretending that people who enjoy ruining things for random strangers are just kewt smol beans who are only aggressive because of all the complex socioeconomic factors and lack of resources. They knew someone would be hurt by what they did. They knew that someone had done literally nothing harmful to them. And those two ideas, in combination made them feel pleasure. And they went and did it. That is the sign of a rotten soul. Defending ourselves and our property is not just a right, it's a moral obligation. Otherwise, we just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, someone who may not be able to defend herself. I don't care if a vandal breaks his arms trying to destroy my stuff. Because I value my stuff more than a vandal's arms. And the fact that he tried to destroy somebody else's stuff shows that he, too, values his arms less than the opportunity to hurt somebody. We cannot allow such people inside the city, and we cannot give the keys to those who would open the gates for them.

Reminder that the CIA wrote a report in the early 1970s emphasizing that Ian Smith was governing Rhodesia well, was not corrupt, was advancing in prosperity, and--most importantly--that it was fighting communist rebels The report nevertheless demanded Rhodesia be destroyed because of the Smith government's decision to not be racially egalitarian, and instead remain committed on Responsible Government that would advance national prosperity and fend off communism On that basis, the CIA supported the communist-led destruction of Rhodesia, much as it had supported Ho Chi Minh against the French in the late 1940s The CIA is rotten and should be destroyed

🚨 NOW: Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino (Ret.) is calling for SURGES of DHS agents to major US cities to FORCE OUT 100 million illegals “Let's make it SO HARD for them to live, to work, to procreate, to do ANYTHING in the US that they have NO CHOICE but to self-deport” They MUST have incentive to self-deport. Saying we’re targeting the “worst of the worst” is signaling to the majority of illegals that they’re SAFE from deportations. @GregoryKBovino @JackPosobiec

A lot of these students are either foreign born or the children of foreign born parents. They can’t even speak English let alone read it.

💯

Trump had a short window to enact mass deportations at the scale of 10 million a year that Americans voted for. He could have immediately targeted employers, SS numbers, banking, document fraud. Instead, he shielded businesses that rely on the slave labor that illegals provide.