Notices by Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Mar-2026 01:59:14 JST 
Ash Kvetchum
Donald HUSSEIN Trump
(😆) -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 29-Jan-2026 11:43:24 JST
Ash Kvetchum
🍻 That's why I threw an "it" for a pronoun because I'm actually not sure which it started as -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 29-Jan-2026 08:24:43 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>fas<ist
>pro test
Good God, this fat fuck and those like it imagine they're living in the dystopian books of their fucked up childhood. They "have" to do this to "avoid censorship," posting their face and name to a chosen bop theme song openly to the public forum.
O What an Oppressed State for One to Be! O the Clever Sidestep! -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 17-Jan-2026 04:15:10 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I have silicone ones.
One looks like the One Ring--for if we're going somewhere nerdy 🤣 -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 17-Jan-2026 04:13:00 JST
Ash Kvetchum
My sister-in-law tried to shame my wife and myself right after our engagement for my having given the engagement ring. "Rings are a symbol of ownership. Where's *your* ring?!1? Where's the ring for the MAN to wear???"
She said this in insistent, smug "superiority," while on her own hand she wore a $5k ring from her obese nigger sugardaddy. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 17-Jan-2026 04:12:59 JST
Ash Kvetchum
She was very certain she was going to be asked to be the maid-of-honor (🤣), started telling us about how excited she was to run it. (She is anti-marriage, anti-"name-changers," openly told us to not have White boys for children or if we do that they'd better be gay, and so on.)
She wasn't invited to the wedding at all.
Boomer-spirited parents wanted to have a sit-down shamefest at us for not allowing her. We had to explain to them what a degenerate their other daughter has become and how hands-off they've been about it. It was a good (entertaining) dinner in public. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 18:51:25 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Mm, wow, that was way back in 2025. (lol)
That's a good memory-holed point to revive (or present for the first time) to normie friends, acquaintances, and family. Good reminder. Thank you. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 18:34:59 JST
Ash Kvetchum
It makes me so patriotic that the US can arrest the leader of another nation in one night, but just can't seem to charge a single Epstein client--let alone name any--despite years of public demand.
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 17:02:13 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Nine2five, man, we've talked about this.
I'll just start by saying there's not a standing body authority over CI, no pope or committee saying "This is our creed." Same as there isn't one of, say, Christianity. There are divisions and some divisions get behind leaders. So anyone claiming "I've talked to a CI guy and I took CI down!" is like some faithful-to-progressivism, confident Leftist talking to a random on fedi--or even to some "big follower account" somewhere--and saying they "DESTROYED (YouTube all caps) the ideas of the Far-Right!!1!"
The label "CI" is no more useful than the label "Christian." It's only a label of which beliefs are in common--not a statement that all (or even most) beliefs are in common.
Keep that in mind as you mull over things.
Alright, so.
I'm just hitting bullet points because we've talked about this.
Edomites are from Esau (Edom). Esau himself was down from Adam, and Esau took two Hittites for wives to spite Isaac and his mother. (His mother lamented that if Jacob followed suit, her life would have been pointless.) The Hittites were Canaanites. The Canaanites had mixed with Kenites. The Kenites were from Cain.
(btw The Canaanites had also mixed with the Anakim, the Rephraim, etc., who were the Nephilim. This is explicitly stated.)
Cain was not from Adam, but was of Eve.
The verse describing Cain's conception is volatile, changing more than the verses around it. "I have born a child of a lord / with the help of a lord" and its variations are among these, missing the "And Adam knew his wife" at the beginning.
(Yes, God's Word will never change. No, our recording of God's Word doesn't keep with that. Otherwise, Revelation wouldn't end with a warning about the possibility of adding or subtracting text, we wouldn't have clear examples of verses and entire passages added centuries after the NT authors wrote (even as late as the 16th c.), and we wouldn't have multiple versions on the same bookstore shelf. "The" Bible is not infallible because we who handle it are not. We turn it away from what its authors wrote--by accident at times, or with intent at others.)
The description of Eve's interaction with the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is the same as descriptions of sexual temptation in writings just as old. The epic of Gilgamesh is an example.
Or in Proverbs of an adulterous woman.
Note that in the garden were "all the trees which God had made" and *in the midst of those* were the Tree of Life (which is God, who would "be like a Husband" to us) and the Tree of Knowledge. (Hmm? Are we talking about an actual tree still?)
Eve didn't eat from a tree. She conceived with an angel, just as happens 3 chapters later with other women (Gen 6:1), for which God floods the land of the descendants of Adam and starts again with Noah.
Alright, I'm cooking chicken now. Again, those are bulllet points of things I've already written more at length about with you specifically. I didn't even touch Malachi, Isaiah passages (ch 63, for example and its relation to the latter chapters of Revelation), the two Revelation verses I'm sure everyone on fedi knows (2:9, 3:9), and more and more. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 12:19:21 JST
Ash Kvetchum
The intent of God for the world and your place in it is not to
>See if you're a good person because good people ('good' meaning repentant here) get to go live with me somewhere else with all the other good people who believed me
That is the selling message of churchianity.
The intent of God--if the words of his prophets and the other apostles are true and if their recordings are unchanged--is to
>Show you, whom I've chosen--regardless of whether you're faithful to what I've set for you or not and regardless of whether I am believed by you or not-- that I AM. I am the only eternal; I alone am faithful continuously; I am first and last. I will save you despite yourselves, from yourselves and from our enemies. You are of me (yet are not me). There are those who are not. You are more than those around you but just as base if you join them. I am giving you essentially monopoly money so that you may see yourselves. You are fools and will suffer them rather than be faithful (to yourselves, which is to be faithful to me), if I am not explicitly beside you. I will prove yourselves to you by your own actions--even up to the point of your whole destruction. I will save you and end them-- even then, as you failed to do. You will see. Yet I will give you something more. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 12:19:20 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Going back to what you wrote earlier
>i gotta say, churches did themselves no favors by portraying god as a neurotic and abusive paren
Churches (Christians making them and of them) have been on one about this. They really do teach as if a son saves us from his dad. His dad is harsh with curfews and talks about making a sacrifice, but the son who understands you more because he's more like you is about love, forgiveness, and being there for others. And secretly the harsh father sent his son to do this and that's the lesson all along. And they're both God. And there's the Holy Spirit which is God leading me to this conclusion because I've been wanting faith and am now so faithful.
Change the tone of that bit above with a few noun changes, and this is the honest take-away of most Christians. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 12:19:19 JST
Ash Kvetchum
😆 I get that
We're his image in that our spirit is of his.
Nothing to do with our bodies or cognitive abilities. (Anything more specific than that and I'd be speculating. There are things no one has seen. His "Spirit" could be "his intention" and/or could be some actual quality beyond current grasp. Either way 🤷 God is "Spirit" and we do not know about that aspect of existence.)
Our being in his image is not "human bodies were made in the same shape as God" nor "humans were made with the ability to reason." It's that the line of Adam (scripture starts listing nations, and they share an ethnicity), the one to whom God breathed his Spirit, have inherited a spirit of God.
That's what Christ is talking about when he says one must be born of above (not "born again", which is not in any Greek manuscript).
One must be born of the water (meaning descended from Adam by the flesh) and of the Spirit (meaning an inheritor according to the covenants, the Spirit, God's Word, given to that line; and--who knows?--possibly meaning having some quality (an actual spirit we don't have the ability to see). What is flesh is flesh, what is Spirit is Spirit (meaning that being a descendant of the line is not enough ("what is water is water")--one must be be a continuation ("what is Spirit is Spirit")).
A river is a line of water. Another river crossing and feeding into the first river downstream forms something that is no longer that first river. Being of the first river is one thing (the third river is of the first), but being of the first river alone--which is the same as being the first river--is another thing.
This is why Christ tells the Pharisees they are not his sheep. They perhaps were descendants of Abraham, but they were definitely of the Edomites (who in turn were of Adam, but only in part). They were born of the water, but not the Spirit. They were not "born above." They were not made in God's image.
When he raises us, it will be by the Spirit. (And we will be clothed in bodies, not these. Who knows what?)
You've no doubt heard we are "in Christ." This is what that means:
(The following sounds schizophrenic if one doesn't follow the procession of fathers and sons in Genesis and doesn't register the verses about "Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness" and "Enoch, seventh from Adam" in the NT and doesn't know "Melchizedek" is just a transliteration of "Righteous King".)
That God came in the flesh put God in the procession of "the righteous king" (the order of Melchizedek), that procession from father to eldest son upon the father's death, starting with Adam. Since God/Christ is of Adam according to the flesh but Adam's father by the spirit--and living!--he is now forever the priest-king, the head of Adam's descendants according to God, the one by whom we are to be found righteous or not. Before Christ, we were in Adam. Now we are in Christ. Paul writes about this. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 12:19:15 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>Sumerian
Throwing a fun gee whiz:
Today they say the Sumerian language is an isolate language, unrelated to any after.
Funnily enough, the timing of its fall aligns around the time of the tower of Babel, if you go by the older Septuagint timeframe (different than what the 6th century jewish sect of Masoretes "helped" Christians to have by their Masoretic Text, the current basis of all OT translations). -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 12:19:15 JST
Ash Kvetchum
The Middle East was White, man. (And now Anatolia is Turkey, for example.)
Similar to how Detroit is now a concrete nigger jungle. London is Pakistani. So on, so on.
"Arab" means "mixed." -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Monday, 29-Dec-2025 21:11:15 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Only morons would believe that
[discordantinfographic.png]
[noclearconnectionpic.png]
[victorydeclaration.png] -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 21-Dec-2025 16:15:17 JST
Ash Kvetchum
She keeps clapping like a nigger. Insufferable for that alone. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 21-Dec-2025 06:07:20 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Say you're a father. You tell your children to love one another. They argue with one another. They even mistreat one another at times--often. You tell them to do well, look past one anothers' faults--not to the point of tolerance but toward the goal of being able to grow together despite their faults, to love one another as you love them. (i.e "Love *your* enemies" is "Stop in-fighting". An adjacent idea is present when Paul asks the Corinthians whether they handle disputes or must go to others.)
Your children (who already mistreat one another) are being mistreated by others.
You confront these others (who have seen your children benefit from you--and so claim they are your children, as well--after all, you have made big promises you're going to deliver to your children).
Some of your older children have kicked them out before. (Nehemiah. Ezra.)
Your older children have warned the younger children about them before. (Malachi.)
You yourself even tell these others, in front of your children, that they are not yours. ("You are not My sheep, therefore you do not hear Me.") Your children write down your words.
And this remains true even as some of these "fellow children" are truly, physically children of your wife (as she was unfaithful and had children outside of your marriage). They are not yours.
When you flip tables, you are not contradicting what you taught your children.
You are not in-fighting. You are defending your children from an outside adversary--even if one invited in by your children.
This is only as confusing as "Who's an American? Isn't it anyone who swears to uphold our ideals and follow our laws? Why do you want to kick out even the legal? What do you mean they don't treat us well and have never been us? Don't you want them to be an American too and enjoy our freedoms? What do you mean don't punch Right?" -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 18-Dec-2025 14:23:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Are you really going to post that this close to Christmas? Are you aware Santa has a list?
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 13-Dec-2025 05:33:13 JST
Ash Kvetchum
A Reddit-rot fool I know irl told me "Getting to kiss Zendaya is, like, a superpower 😏" -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 13-Dec-2025 05:33:11 JST
Ash Kvetchum
tl;dr
Nah, it's not a social media problem. Zendaya's overexposure is a completely different beast. Any overexposure of other actors of current social media or pre-social media days had a different arc. She's a token/commercial.
-----
>Movie stars were quite elusive in pre-social media days or they would've been under fire too
>It's overexposure
No, there were stars back in the day who had eras when they were in dozens of movies, just as some stars have an era now.
The difference is the star actor/actress, whether back then or now, launched from a lead role received well by audiences, and their era is an arc *from that point* of feeding that audience response--and that may end or stall from overexposure.
The key is the star's era arc, whether back then or now, began *after* they were a popular lead.
Zendaya has never been some adored lead from anything, yet she is handed this era now (so not from an audience demand, not a response *from* favor of the public, but *to form favor* in the public). The favor is being developed (shallowly) by waving her everywhere--*before* popularity--*despite*.
Having a reaction to this is not due to / dependent on some social media.
One could have 0 social accounts and be put off by this.
Though one could argue Zendaya has overexposure in the sense of being in too much too quickly (a la Pedro Pascal), there isn't overexposure in the sense of social media snippets putting off the public due to some behavior of hers (a la Pedro Pascal). And neither of these forms lf exposure would be sufficient explanation. Her overexposure is having an in-everything era *without* the initial spark that start the eras. She's a dim torch no one remembers lighting--because no one did.
Again, the eras start due to the actor/actress having been a popular, successful lead in the first place (think Pedro Pascal, Mandalorian).
Instead we have Zendaya, the side character, monotone, still-faced (Gen Z stare, an occasional Gen Z condescension glance), "not too pretty" and--importantly--a mixed, light brown girl. Carroted like a commercial in every movie she "stars" in.
In contrast, Jennifer Lawrence had an era of being in everything (Hunger Games, X-Men, Passengers, American Hustle, Mother) and was adored to (nearly?) a point of overexposure. But it all launched *after* she was Katniss Everdeen.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the