Science vs theology.

Scientists and the popular media are claiming that women are fallen, and therefore tempted to sin.  But Christian theologians know that women are innately good, and if they are ever tempted to sin it is because they don’t have enough self esteem.

H/T Vox

This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Serial Monogamy, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

255 Responses to Science vs theology.

  1. Pingback: Science vs theology. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Pingback: Science vs theology. – Manosphere.org

  3. It is truly a sad state of affairs when secular science recognizes something that many modern Christians do not.

  4. donalgraeme says:

    Keep in mind that both parties to this affair have the same objective: to excuse women from their wrongdoing.

    “Science” is trying to say that it isn’t women’s fault- Evolution made them do it.

    “Theology” is trying to say that it isn’t women’s fault- Men made them do it.

    But you are right- their approach is vastly different. One wishes to deny that women do wrong, and the other other doesn’t. I say wrongdoing rather than sin because I suspect that “Science” would argue that it isn’t sin on women’s part, if only because “Science” doesn’t believe in sin as such.

  5. “Christian theologians know that women are innately good, and if they are ever tempted to sin it is because they don’t have enough self esteem.”

    Notice the difference between self-esteem and self-respect.

    I feel proud of my body, no matter how ugly I am, because of self-esteem.

    I eat the healthiest foods that I can, and I exercise as much as I can, because of self-respect.

    These two items are not contradictory. They work together.

    Both are necessary.

    But self-respect is the foundation for self-esteem. Self-respect comes first.

  6. Avraham rosenblum says:

    The fallen nature of man used to be a part of Christian doctrine. Even in the world of Litvak yeshivas where mediaeval ethics is learned, it is a given fact that people have a good inclination and a bad inclination. The idea of natural man being sinless really started with Rousseau. The noble savage. So science has now caught u with Christianity and Christianity has accepted Rousseau in half. That is women are the noble ones, born free of sin.

  7. DeNihilist says:

    LOL!

    Evo psych is not a hard science. It is one of those squishy, sorta, sciences. For every claim made by pro evo psych’s, there is an opposite study from other social scientists.

    The “women dress more sexy when they are ovulating” scenario has been thoroughly debunked by more rigorous studies, yet still lives on in the sphere, as it is a cornerstone of the philosophy of “woman bad, men good” understanding of the world.

    We all are born into sin. We all have the know-how of how to cleanse ourselves.

  8. Bike Bubba says:

    It’s not quite as bad as arguing for a gene for homosexuality or suicide (how are these traits passed down again?), but remembering how men used to treat adulterous wives, it boggles the mind that people really think that this is a trait that would routinely be passed down. What part of “men abandon or even kill adulterous wives, making them extremely vulnerable post-partum” don’t these people get?

    Can’t address issues of sin, I guess. Gotta go for pseudo-science.

  9. Feminist Hater says:

    Well, seems women are unfit for marriage then. Come on ladies, you can’t have it both ways. Either you can control your base natures and thus shouldn’t commit adultery, at which point this study is moot, or you follow your biology and commit adultery and are thus not fit to get married.

    Hell, one could commission a study that proves that humans are biologically programmed to kill one another when the need for resources arises. Thus, murder is now acceptable and should be condoned… study is bull, just another cover for women who cannot control themselves.

  10. Gunner Q says:

    A pet theory of mine is that fields like psychology and economics are “soft” only because they come too close to exposing our fallen natures. The descriptive aspect of psychology doesn’t play well with the prescriptive side. It quickly produces the result that humans should behave one way and often prefer to behave differently, like monogamy vs. hypergamy. Similarly, a rigorous economist can mathematically prove that the tax & spend politician he works for is destroying his society through greed. So, the most common results of honesty in these fields are unemployment and Christianity. That’s how we end up with Keynesian economists and pill-pushing shrinks. They know better but confronting the darkness inside and out requires moral courage that most men don’t have.

    Physicists don’t often struggle with the morality of thermodynamics.

  11. Fiddlesticks says:

    @Bike Bubba
    it boggles the mind that people really think that this is a trait that would routinely be passed down.

    This is a shocker, I know, but it appears that whoever was ruthless enough to steal the wife also tended to be ruthless enough to make sure hubby wasn’t in a position to get even.

    https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d

  12. It’s funny how hardline Christians love to crow about “God’s design revealed” when science confirms something that aligns with the Bible or creationism, but refuse to accept scientific confirmations that challenge them.

    Evo-psych is one of the most highly scrutinized and peer reviewed of the developing sciences of the past 70 years:

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/06/09/in-defense-of-evo-psych/

  13. Perhaps more than other social scientists, evolutionary psychologists use an incredible variety of research methods, ranging from self-report surveys and behavioral field test experiments, to investigations involving genetics, hormones, and neuroscience, to cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons, to ethnographies of foraging societies and computer modeling of artificial intelligences[2] [3] [4]. To be aware of contemporary evolutionary psychology requires broad and deep knowledge of many scholarly disciplines, and a lot of evolutionary psychology’s critics simply do not know what they do not know about the field as it is practiced today.

  14. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    The one big difference is that other beliefs about Christianity such as the six-day creation and so on are actually found in the Bible. The whole “marriage manual in her heart” nonsense or “women are innately aroused by godly men” tract is neither scientific nor biblical. It’s a perverse combination of two contradictory belief systems.

    Hardline Christians aren’t opposed to evo-psych studies like this because it contradicts the Bible. It contradicts their belief that women are innately good and are corrupted by outside influences.

  15. ayatollah1988 says:

    Note the headline says “lock up your wives!” Just imagine how triggered a typical feminist Christian would be over the notion that husbands should exert some kind of control (lock up) over their woman for the health of the relationship. I know they are just being toung-in-cheek with the “lock up your wives” part, but still. Feminized Christians would consider it not merely old fashioned, but completely transgressive and disturbing.

  16. Pingback: Science vs theology. | Reaction Times

  17. Easttexasfatboy says:

    The Bible never says that women are inherently good. Far from it. In fact, it says most are not faithful. It points out that women are easily fooled, thus they should have no position of authority. It also points out that women as rulers are a malediction from God. Nope, there’s no authority at all to be found in the Bible for what we see now. Feminism started with Eve. It’s not anything new.

  18. Cane Caldo says:

    @Rollo

    It’s funny how hardline Christians love to crow about “God’s design revealed” when science confirms something that aligns with the Bible or creationism, but refuse to accept scientific confirmations that challenge them.

    Many are confused. Christians ought to already know everyone really is really sinful.

    The trouble that happens with Christians and evo-psych is that while data sometimes collected and used by psychologists is (or is not) true, evo-psych is but a theory–a scheme of thought–which is not true. So Christians can take full advantage of the data to show the glory of God and His revealed truth, but it is foolish to use evo-psych itself because it is vapor.

  19. justdoit says:

    @Bike Bubba

    >>It’s not quite as bad as arguing for a gene for homosexuality or suicide (how are these traits passed down again?),

    The gene for homosexuality is simple to explain, and it has the following function: A woman’s body knows how many times it has been pregnant. It can therefore treat different fetuses differently. A woman’s body in fact tends to masculinize the 1st fetus and feminize the 2nd fetus, but with some randomness involved. With some luck, the first child is a boy, and the second is a girl, and everything is well. But if the 2nd child is a boy, too, there is STILL evolutionary advantage to feminizing also that 2nd boy, because it reduces the chance that the two boys will be rivals for the resources of the father, leading to strife, lack of resources for a mate, violence and sometimes even murder (just look at sons of kings and emperors that killed each other as known historical examples). The lack of physical strife between two sons has turned out to be a significant evolutionary advantage, and that is why homosexuality exists, and has a genetic basis.

    As a consequence, we may also observe hat, yes, it is the mothers fault that their son is a sissy (sister). It just isn’t because she made him this way by feminizing him as a child, as men seem to have believed for centuries. She had already done the deed while the boy child was in her uterus.

    Note: I have no hard scientific evidence for the above, but I would be VERY surprised if it is not indeed the correct explanation for why homosexuality exists, and is indeed genetic.

  20. Oscar says:

    @ justdoit says:
    August 23, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    “I have no hard scientific evidence for the above…”

    Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

  21. DeNihilist says:

    “…Gray et al. discuss the latter two issues in more detail but essentially the second claim is problematic given the lack of discrete boundaries for certain traits and they use Lewontin’s7 example of the “chin” to demonstrate this. They also extensively dissect the third criterion but a successful rebuttal of this is perhaps exemplified by Rosen’s8 suggestion that the only two constraints on adaptive explanations are the inventiveness of the author and the gullibility of the audience. It is important to note that I am not suggesting that we should abandon attempts to describe behaviors using adaptive explanations, nor am I saying that all behaviors are spandrels or the result of obscure evolutionary processes, but rather I am highlighting the fact that a plausible story is not evidence in itself. This position is described by Williams9 thusly:
    The ground rule – or perhaps doctrine would be a better term – is that adaptation is a special and onerous concept that should be used only where it is really necessary.”

    From here – http://thelastbehaviorist.blogspot.ca/2012/12/debunking-evolutionary-psychology.html

    Read that last line twice – “The ground rule – or perhaps doctrine would be a better term – is that adaptation is a special and onerous concept that should be used only where it is really necessary.” ”

    My favourite quote – “The latest deadweight dragging us (evolutionary biology) closer to phrenology is evolutionary psychology, or the science formerly known as sociobiology. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly. – Jerry Coyne1.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

  22. DeNihilist says:

    Just entering 2 words into google gets this –

    https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=debunking+evolutionary+psychology

  23. paleopaleo says:

    @ justdoit
    Homosexuality is not genetic but (true) homosexuals were indeed born that way. It is the hormonal milieu of the mother’s womb that is the cause. This environment is caused by the hormonal residue of previous male pregnancies. An high correlation between ring finger to index finger ratio is one indicator.
    Not genetic, but also not learned.

  24. Jeff says:

    Justdoit,

    Homosexuality= same sex attraction
    &
    Peodophillia= attraction to youth. Where does that fit in?

    Rollo,

    Christion: “apples are good”
    Scientist: “and good for you”
    Christian: “yes”

    Scientist: “donuts taste good, but are bad for you”
    Christian: “yes, they taste good and I knew and agree they are bad for us.”

  25. Jeff says:

    Justdoit,

    How do you explain pedophilia? Just curious…

  26. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “Lock Up Your Wives! Women Are Programmed To Have Affairs So They Have a ‘Back-up Plan’ in Case Their Relationship Fails, Say Scientists.”

    I actually don’t think that this reality has escaped the church leadership — but like most issues involving women’s sin, they want to rationalize it and if possible, explain it away as a reaction to the men in her life who are sinning against her. Surely she wouldn’t have these temptations if only her husband would lead her as Christ leads the church!

    In fact, reading this article made me think of a video post that Matt Chandler and his wife put up a while back where they were asked about mistakes made in their marriage — and his wife pretty much admitted to doing exactly what that article in the Daily Mail describes.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9tlF2TaAw

    The link is above; The key admission comes at about 2:40. Her words:

    “I would say my worst mistake . . . . it would be creating a ‘Plan B’ in my head, which really came out of — ironically before Matt had brain cancer — when I was pregnant with my first child and I don’t know, I just had this fear that Matt would die — and I would be left alone, a single mom, and who would take care of me? And so this fear turned into a list of men where I thought, okay, they would take care of me. It wasn’t even like — it wasn’t sexual, it wasn’t romantic, it was ‘How will I know I’m secure?’ So that planted a seed that I didn’t uproot of just kind of having this ‘second life’ for me . . . What if this didn’t work out and he died? What might this ‘other life’ look like. . . ?”

    I’ll give her credit for at least admitting it, though it’s at least a little unnerving that she’s already starting to explain it away before she’s even finished her confession: “I just had this fear,” “It wasn’t romantic,” . . . . yadda, yadda, yadda. But even after all that . . . do you think that the response of the collective pastors who hear this will be to warn the wives of their congregation not to entertain these thoughts of straying? To tell them that in creating a list of backup suitors to replace her husband they’ve robbed him of the devotion and care that they promised to him alone when they entered the marriage? Or are they more likely to use the moment to remind the husbands that this is why they need to make sure she never feels afraid or insecure, lest she start making a list of her own?

    I’m no atheist, but at this point I’d say that there’s more grace to be found in cold science than in modern evangelical theology. The husband will still get dumped and divorce-raped, but at least evo-psych isn’t going to follow that up by giving him a sermon telling him that, you know, she’d never have even thought of doing this if he’d truly been providing her with the sort of headship that Christ expects of all husbands.

  27. Cane Caldo says:

    @DA

    I’m no atheist, but at this point I’d say that there’s more grace to be found in cold science than in modern evangelical theology. The husband will still get dumped and divorce-raped, but at least evo-psych isn’t going to follow that up by giving him a sermon telling him that, you know, she’d never have even thought of doing this if he’d truly been providing her with the sort of headship that Christ expects of all husbands.

    Brutal.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Bike Bubba

    remembering how men used to treat adulterous wives, it boggles the mind that people really think that this is a trait that would routinely be passed down. What part of “men abandon or even kill adulterous wives, making them extremely vulnerable post-partum” don’t these people get?

    This would be the “Cheaters never prosper” doctrine. I don’t think it has any basis in either theology or science.

  29. greyghost says:

    It is truly a sad state of affairs when secular science recognizes something that many modern Christians do not.

    That is why they are referred to as Churchian

    Cane Caldo
    Maybe the christian church needs to quit being so nice and use the f-word. A preacher just needs to tell the wives Fuck you bitch go home and fuck your husband and then make him a sandwich served with a beer. Something like that will clear a lot of hysteria out of those female minds and give clear focus. Way too much effort is spent wasting logic and reason on women.

  30. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Rollo Tomassi

    It’s funny how hardline Christians love to crow about “God’s design revealed” when science confirms something that aligns with the Bible or creationism, but refuse to accept scientific confirmations that challenge them.

    It’s probably even worse than that. There’s no new information in that article Dalrock linked that should really clash with what for most of history was accepted as classical Christian doctrine. Hell, I’d always thought that a key part of the faith was supposed to be a recognition that all of humanity has the capacity for sin and will be tempted to take part in it — including the women. It’s not even like you have to look too hard to find accounts of females chasing dick for nothing more than kicks and giggles right in the Bible.

    If the modern church wants to claim that women’s desires are innately pure before men corrupt them then they’ve gotten to the point where they’re no longer teaching Christianity, but rather a sort of folk religion that borrows from Biblical lore to create a system of values that pays tribute to what used to regarded as “God’s Law” — right up to the point where it starts to look a bit too out of sorts in contemporary society.

    In short, only as good as their times and culture will allow them to be.

  31. feeriker says:

    do you think that the response of the collective pastors who hear this will be to warn the wives of their congregation not to entertain these thoughts of straying? To tell them that in creating a list of backup suitors to replace her husband they’ve robbed him of the devotion and care that they promised to him alone when they entered the marriage? Or are they more likely to use the moment to remind the husbands that this is why they need to make sure she never feels afraid or insecure, lest she start making a list of her own?

    Given the bizarro world we now exist in, one that has contaminated every aspect of Christianity as well as the world at large, it would surprise me not one iota to hear some brainless pastard thunderously belch from the pulpit a blamestorm sermon castigating the memory of husbands who had the unmitigated gall to die on their wives, especially before the age of 40.

    I can almost guarantee you, it’s coming soon to a funeral/memorial service near you.

  32. feeriker says:

    Maybe the christian church needs to quit being so nice and use the f-word

    That does seem to be just about the only thing left untried that would at least get people’s attention. Being nice indeed hasn’t done any demonstrable good.

  33. DeNihilist says:

    6 more ep myths debunked –

    http://www.livescience.com/16594-busted-gender-myths-bedroom.html

    The truth shot – “”Psychologists – including me – always have to be looking beyond their own biases. They need to avoid getting so attached to a particular theory or perspective that they go out of their way to protect the theory,” Conley said. “Data should be the guide, and you have to look at data in every way you can think of to see if the story you are telling is really the best one.” “

  34. feeriker says:

    It’s not even like you have to look too hard to find accounts of females chasing dick for nothing more than kicks and giggles right in the Bible.

    But who reads the Bible anymore? If it’s not mentioned in the latest churchian Oprah Book of the Month Club offering that is the focus of most churches’ “Bible” studies these days, no one is ever going to know about it.

    To be honest, it’s amazing that one of these glorified novelists HASN’T authored a book delving into Biblical Whoredom*, as that would guarantee runaway sales, especially among churchian women, which is pretty much the sole motivation of churchian “book culture” authors. Of course any such book would be very light on the condemnation of such female fornication, probably contain scant reference, if any, to any actual Scripture…

    (* For all I know, maybe someone HAS written such a book. If anyone is aware of one, please feel free to bring it to our attention)

  35. Feminist Hater says:

    This would be the “Cheaters never prosper” doctrine. I don’t think it has any basis in either theology or science.

    Surely it fits under the ‘Cheaters shouldn’t prosper’ doctrine? The whole point of marriage is to create a family unit that sustains itself. If cheaters prosper, no families. Just a thought.

  36. SirHamster says:

    It’s funny how hardline Christians love to crow about “God’s design revealed” when science confirms something that aligns with the Bible or creationism, but refuse to accept scientific confirmations that challenge them.

    Evo-psych does not challenge the Bible or creationism. Humans have a design, and there is a biological element to our behavior. Bible says we have a sin nature – the biological urges we have for injustice and self-harm correspond to it, though sin nature is more than just biology.

    Evo-psych is one of the most highly scrutinized and peer reviewed of the developing sciences of the past 70 years:

    Which isn’t a very high bar at all, when all sorts of junk science is pushed and fails to be challenged. Publish or perish does not promote removal of junk. Peer review is overrated.

    Already have a religion. Don’t need to revere Sciencism.

  37. DeNihilist says:

    Marcus, I predict one and gone for that film.

  38. SirHamster says:

    The trouble that happens with Christians and evo-psych is that while data sometimes collected and used by psychologists is (or is not) true, evo-psych is but a theory–a scheme of thought–which is not true.

    Evo-psych is more of a rationalization of data than a predictive model.

    “We observe women have hypergamous behavior, so here is a story that explains why that might have worked in a hypothetical past society.”

    The story came after the data and so will always fit, but that it fits is nothing special. Different data would just trigger a different story.

    In contrast, the Bible is set in stone, could be falsified by scientific observations … and it isn’t.

  39. White says:

    Hi,

    I was red pilled myself back in 2009 by reading articles written by Pook himself. I spent the next few years being very confident in myself, found myself many women to choose to spend my time with, and became very popular in my social circles. (not that i cared back then)

    In 2013, I converted to Christianity. I began to become very involved in my megachurch, one which held much political ties in my country. I was taught to believe in feminist values, and that all human wisdom pales in comparison to Biblical wisdom. Everything I do should be backed up by the Bible. I can no longer be a competitive man, because “love”. Whenever I even entertained any red pill thoughts and spoke out about it, I will be told why the Bible doesn’t agree with me, usually quoting 1 Corinthians 13 or something above “love”. And the whole church will be notified of my “misogynistic tendencies”. And then I made a mistake. I began to tell myself to unlearn everything I have ever learnt. Because God knows better. I began to tell myself that its not wisdom unless the Bible says it is, and since the Church has been studying the Bible longer than me, therefore what the Church says is true, most likely is true.

    By 2015 I was spewwing feminist and traditional conservative rhetoric from the pulpit. I genuinely thought I was fighting for God and His kingdom. I was much loved… if I said the right things. I was fast tracked to become the next pastor, and also “highly recommended” to marry a woman who is so obviously an Alpha Widow, that before 2013 I wouldn’t have touched her with a 10 feet pole. I was even invited to participate in certain political arenas, obviously on the side of feminism.

    Earlier this year 2016 I told myself to screw it all. I left the megachurch. I completely ignored the woman (who isn’t even my girlfriend but somehow we’re talking marriage?!) I left social media too and just disappeared. I got off the hook… but quite clearly… I am a damaged man. I am a shadow of my former self. I still believe in God, but I don’t know what to believe about Him. So much of the Bible just seems to contradict with redpill truths. How can I be an Alpha/winner in life if I have to always be selfless? To sacrifice myself? To never judge? To always obey God given authority? Or as 1 Corinthians 13 puts it “not self-seeking”, “It always protects, always trusts”? The list goes on.

    Obviously I can always go back to Pook or other red pill sources with a click of the mouse. But what does mere men know when compared to God? What is truth?

    Now that I met your blog, it is the first time I began to even entertain the thought that the Bible and red pill could be one and the same thing. I apologize if I sound desperate, but that’s because I am. I was even more surprised to realize that this blog is still updated regularly. Most of the great manosphere writers of a decade ago has retired, to do great things. While i… well…

    I have only read a few of your writings so far, and I have no idea if you are a Christian or not. It doesn’t matter. Its clear you have an understanding of the Bible I have never even heard about. But still, the contradiction remains. And as a Christian isn’t it my job to always place the Bible first where there’s a contradiction?

    So I don’t know if you’ll read this, I don’t know if you’ll reply, I don’t know if you’re a Christian, or even care, I don’t care what people here who see this will think…
    But if you do see this… please rewire my mind again. Please red pill me again.

  40. White says:

    And comments cant go through. Haha. Ahh well

  41. Lost Patrol says:

    “…because they don’t have enough self esteem.”

    How are they still managing low self esteem when everything in western secular society, as well as the church, has been harnessed to give them primacy in all things?

  42. Major Styles says:

    Bible = Men are sinful (Women: Yes, we agree)
    Bible = Women are sinful (Women: Whoa!! Whoa!!! Hey there, buster!!! Aaarrrgh!!!)

  43. Major Styles says:

    The fervency with which they cover this up speaks to the truth of it.

    Now ask yourself, how many other subjects do they not want me to know about?

  44. Gunner Q says:

    Rollo Tomassi @ 11:13 am:
    “Evo-psych is one of the most highly scrutinized and peer reviewed of the developing sciences of the past 70 years”

    And despite all that work, evo-psych still cannot see (or admit) the damage it causes and justifies. It’s peer-reviewed denial of morality, much as economists come up with new terms like “quantitative easing” because “robbing everybody” is too uncomfortable. American behavior has never been closer to our natural, “highly evolved” instincts yet the unquestionable result is a schizophrenic landscape of damaged children, male suicide and women jabbing sharp pieces of metal into their bodies. Birth rate, the only evolutionary measure of a population’s fitness, is way down as a direct result. Disproof by counterexample.

    With full respect for your first-rate observations, the reason you never talk about what people SHOULD do is because you don’t want to make the same moral decisions that have left us Christians self-consigned to Incel Hell or trying to square the circle of Marriage 2.0. Evo-psych says you don’t have to and that’s what you want to hear.

    The things people should do are not the things people want to do. This has always been the greatest proof and burden of Christianity.

  45. Lost Patrol says:

    @White:

    “I have only read a few of your writings so far, and I have no idea if you are a Christian or not. It doesn’t matter. Its clear you have an understanding of the Bible I have never even heard about. But still, the contradiction remains. And as a Christian isn’t it my job to always place the Bible first where there’s a contradiction?”

    There is no contradiction my friend. Stay close by here and Dalrock and the commenters will show you that quick, fast, and in a hurry. You have become a guerrilla. Welcome aboard. We now operate inside churchianity, and extract young people from it. Read Dalrock’s old posts. Read the comments.

    You’re not here by accident brother. You’re here because you’re ready to fight.

  46. JDG says:

    I have no hard scientific evidence for the above,

    Neither is there hard scientific evidence for evolution yet people keep throwing it out there like its undisputed fact.

  47. JDG says:

    Already have a religion. Don’t need to revere Sciencism.

    Yep. The “hallowed” halls of academia are filled with the priests of humanism and materialism.

  48. greyghost says:

    White
    believe or not your red pill self was closer to the biblical way than that church. Red pill truth is as close as man can get to the bible. A good indicator is have well your life was and those that came in contact with you were in response.

  49. Gunner Q says:

    White @ 2:54 pm:
    “I began to tell myself that its not wisdom unless the Bible says it is, and since the Church has been studying the Bible longer than me, therefore what the Church says is true, most likely is true. … I still believe in God, but I don’t know what to believe about Him”

    That’s why it hurts. All these professional clergy are authorities on Christianity yet betray us worse than our enemies would even think about. Surely not ALL of them can be wrong… but they are. The people we should be able to trust most are our worst enemies.

    Christ had to deal with this Himself in John 5:37b-40. The Pharisees were experts in the Law, to the point where some of them could claim to be legally perfect, yet they never knew Christ because they treated Scripture as an end in itself. Similarly, most clergy today will happily go through the motions of worship for a paycheck. They look wise but they are loyal to this world. Not God.

    The problem isn’t you. It’s them. You acted in good faith and loyalty to Christ. They lied to you, used you, secretly hated you. They lied to us, too. Still do. Believe in the Bible, God’s Word. Men will lie to you but God has kept the Bible intact for two thousand years so we can have a trustworthy reference point. Dalrock’s blog is an excellent place to practice using it. Look though the comments for the theological discussions we’ve had, the false leaders Dalrock has unmasked. THAT is what Christianity looks like.

  50. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    it would surprise me not one iota to hear some brainless pastard thunderously belch from the pulpit a blamestorm sermon castigating the memory of husbands who had the unmitigated gall to die on their wives, especially before the age of 40.

    Remember that he will also extol all the 35+ sluts who are 4s and 5s as being ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’. He will say ‘beautiful’ three times.

    This is not just over-the-top manginatude, but worst of all, is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.

  51. Anon says:

    That is why they are referred to as Churchian

    It might be funnier and more provocative to instead start calling them ‘Quistian’.

    That word might be more apt, and create more of a Streisand effect from the provocation it will generate over time.

    Quistians are not Christians, but rather cuckservative feminists.

  52. SirHamster says:

    So much of the Bible just seems to contradict with redpill truths. How can I be an Alpha/winner in life if I have to always be selfless? […]

    Now that I met your blog, it is the first time I began to even entertain the thought that the Bible and red pill could be one and the same thing. […]

    But still, the contradiction remains. And as a Christian isn’t it my job to always place the Bible
    first where there’s a contradiction?

    As a Christian, your job is to follow Jesus Christ.

    The red pill is not the Bible. The red pill is seeing reality as it is – recognizing truth even when it is ugly and it hurts. The Bible is God-given Truth – that Jesus is the Son of God and that He brings eternal life to sinful man.

    Winning in life and obeying God are not the same thing. Yes, the greatest shall be the servant to all. Just as Jesus, King of the Jews, humbled himself to death on the cross at the hands of the Jews.

    Some parts of your story smell off, but this response will focus on the most important issue you raise.

  53. Spike says:

    So science tells us that women are prone to affairs. That’s because “its a back-up strategy”, not because they aren’t in control of their lusts.
    All of these articles fail the sex-reversal test: “a man is genetically designed to cheat because, you know, he wants a back-up reproductive strategy. Lust has nothing g to do with it.”
    Unfortunately for theologians, there is only on truth: that complete consistency between the claimed and the observed. Science attests to it, and Christians need to understand that God isn’t the “God of the gaps” – the parts science doesn’t explain. Rather, He is the God who made the laws that run the universe.
    In the case of the nature of women, the consistency between the observed and the actual would put science – statistics – on the side of Gods Word. Seriously: a million abortions per year, ‘Fifty Shades’ being a best seller, the epidemic of child abuse- the list could go on.

  54. Ryder says:

    Off topic, but this popped up in my Facebook feed today. Do you notice what I notice about these ferociously brave firefighters? Funny that, of everyone in their crew, they were the ones with time to pose for a photo.

  55. Understanding the root mechanics and fundamental (albeit uncomfortable) truths that evo-psych presents to us is still not a license to sin or behave anti-socially. The concern has always been one that evo-psych will provide us with some valid excuse from personal volition and personal responsibility – it does not.

    https://therationalmale.com/2012/11/06/people-are-people/

    The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

    A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

    Presently we have an active debate on SoSuave all sparked by a woman decrying the evils of ‘men behaving badly’ (i.e. not in accordance with the feminine imperative), and her presumption that those men find a convenient absolution for that behavior in blaming how nature has made men ‘the way they are.’ This of course is the inconvenient flip side to the War Brides phenomenon, but the basis of her argument is rooted blank slate individuated equalism.

    Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is. So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.

    People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors. We like the idea of personal responsibility, because it implies order in an otherwise chaotic world. In fact, due to this, people are far more likely to attribute their failings to their own personal decisions. It may be a confession of a lack of their own control, but it still implies that they once had that same control to lose and can again regain it.

    I’ve written in the past that nature trumps conviction, and I still hold to that estimation. People have called me to the carpet over that assertion, but I don’t think they really understand what I mean by it. The nature is the environment in which we live in, the nature is the condition. Conviction, freewill or even notions of morality cannot exist if ‘nature’ isn’t the dominant, operative environment we exist in. It’s not that we can’t rise above our natures, it’s that we should have to in the first place.

  56. Ryder says:

    Image referneced in post above: http://i68.tinypic.com/124eyy9.jpg

  57. Junkyard Dawg says:

    White,
    I enjoyed your comments. I am guessing your country – with the megachurch – is Brazil, but, in any case, you were correct about the red pill truths. Including Pook himself. You encountered Churchianity, not Christianity. You encountered people in church who were interpreting the Bible from a blue pill point of view. I am also reconciling red pill truths with the Bible and it is worth the effort. Don’t give up. It’s a good thing you did not marry the alpha widow.

  58. BubbaCluck says:

    @Ryder,
    I’m amazed that they would consider this an “amazing” photo. Extreme hyperbole.

  59. Lost Patrol says:

    @BubbaCluck:

    “Extreme hyperbole.”

    Yes. “Ferociously brave!” They have to a level of brave above the men. We assume men are there, though none are shown.

  60. DeNihilist says:

    Bubba, you did notice that these women are not at all dirty right? Even their boots are clean!

  61. Dave says:

    The problem I have with all these one-study-apply-it-to-everyone-in-existence approach is that, in reality, it is not reliable at all. Rarely can any reliable conclusion ever be made from one study, no matter how long the study is, and how many subjects were used. Several independent studies, conducted in different parts of the world, are often needed before sweeping conclusions can be made, particularly when it comes to human behavior.
    A police officer who stays on the highway in a rural town with a radar gun on Sunday morning might erroneously conclude that all the drivers obey the speed limit. All he needs to do is to move to downtown in a large city on Monday morning and he is likely to get a different result.

    And this gem of a conclusion is really attention grabbing:

    …if a man is in a relationship with a woman and she becomes pregnant, he can never be sure if that child is his, or has been fathered by someone else – barring a paternity test…

    In contrast, women never face the problem of maternal uncertainty, because they can be sure that the child they are carrying is theirs.

    Of course, we can also do a study to help us conclude that water is wet.

  62. Oscar says:

    So, it turns out that when a dude fights chicks, he beats them to a pulp. Even though he has breast implants and calls himself a she.

    http://louderwithcrowder.com/mixed-martial-arts-fighter-fallon-fox-shouldnt-allowed-beat-women/

  63. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “Understanding the root mechanics and fundamental (albeit uncomfortable) truths that evo-psych presents to us is still not a license to sin or behave anti-socially. The concern has always been one that evo-psych will provide us with some valid excuse from personal volition and personal responsibility – it does not.”

    It’s why here’s no reason these studies should bother anybody who has actually read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. God didn’t put marriage rules in place because people were predisposed toward monogamy.

    People are free to argue over how exactly mankind developed their psychological hard-wiring but there’s nothing fundamentally contradictory about the idea of female predisposition toward infidelity and what the Bible says – unless of course you believe women are innately monogamous and it is men who must have their baser instincts restrained by the feminine. But that is a part of mainstream church belief that has as much basis in Scripture as Tetzel’s indulgences.

    Chateau Heartiste did a blog post a while back quoting some letters written by Tolkien to his son stating in very frank terms that monogamy is not the natural predilection for men.

    The truths revealed by evo-psych studies may shock the typical churchian today, but to the typical learned Christian scholar a generation or two ago it would have merely confirmed what they already knew by wisdom, research or their own life observation.

  64. mmaier2112 says:

    Nearly everything in the Bible says that human nature is opposed to God’s will.

    Our pathetic glories lie in OVERCOMING that nature and doing what is demanded of us.

    I am so sick of the world excusing weakness. I almost want to pray for cleansing flames.

  65. They Call Me Tom says:

    @The Question-

    It is funny that in the early renaissance (Chaucer and Boccacio), even a hundred years ago (GK Chesterton)… at various points in history, piety comes with the acknowledgement of weakness. It’s one of the paradoxes of God’s creation, you cannot do better, if you cannot first admit that you are less than your best. Corollary to that paradox, relativism does not free us from our weakness, but entangles and blinds us with the weaknesses we continue pretending not to see.

  66. Anon says:

    So, it turns out that when a dude fights chicks, he beats them to a pulp. Even though he has breast implants and calls himself a she.

    This is awesome, because whiteknight cuckservatives get incensed by it, only to be attacked by the Trans crowd. Women, too, get what they deserve for voting for this.

    More trannies invading female sports is good, for it will expose the farce for what it is, and occupy a lot of cuckservatives for a lot time.

  67. Anon says:

    I can’t believe I am actually going to side with a Trans M-to-F, but that Crowder whiteknight is too much.

    He talks about men who ‘get to beat up chicks’, as if every man has a seething urge to assault women, and this trans man found a way to attain this highly-desired goal. He says ‘beats up chicks’ (with no mention of it being official MMA matches), and says ‘gets to beat up women’. Crowder triggers all the whiteknight=predator red flags that we usually see.

    I want more trannies invading and disrupting female sports. The agony it causes whiteknights is reason enough.

  68. OKRickety says:

    Crowder says about Fallon Fox: “With a record of 5-1, none of Fallon’s female victims have even made it past two minutes of the first round.”

    Crowder is outright lying or totally ignorant. One of Fallon’s wins came in the 2nd round, and another win came in the 3rd round. On top of that, what about “female victim” Ashlee Evans-Smith who beat Fallon Fox with a TKO in the 3rd round?

  69. Anon says:

    Crowder is outright lying or totally ignorant.

    When a whiteknight cuck wants to fly off the handle, pesky facts are not about to get in the way…

    When a whiteknight goes into full apeshit mode, imagine the biggest hammer searching desperately for the smallest nail. That is why trannies invading women’s sports is awesome from an anti-misandry perspective.

  70. UK Fred says:

    I find it sad that too many denominations of the church are more concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age than with transforming the societies in which they are placed, and accordingly do not teach the unpopular doctrines that are in the Bible. I shudder when I think of how many times I have heard in Bible Study Group a comment to the effect, “I didn’t know this was in the Bible. I have never heard this read at church.” from people who have been attending church for decades.

  71. Ilíon says:

    Gunner Q:It quickly produces the result that humans should behave one way and often prefer to behave differently, like monogamy vs. hypergamy.

    Do you even know what the term ‘hypergamy’ actually denotes? Of course you don’t, because you’re allowed yourself to be bamboozled by the evo-psych bullshit known as “Game”.

  72. CEO Nikolic says:

    Christianity is a boring religion, with a badly written book. Like all the monotheistic religions, it makes a halfhearted attempt at controlling women — for some men, religion must primarily be a cunt-clamper-downer — but Islam was a much more nurturing pool for the suppression of the inferior gender. At least in Islam it talks about how when you have a daughter, as a father, you wail and gnash your teeth. The values of the respective sexes is put in place in that religion.

    Because Islam is a late religion, it must be viewed as an evolutionary advancement on Christianity in its treatment of females, just as + is an advancement on Judaism. (I am a non-believer, in case you care).

    The ideal religion would have women hating themselves for being women, and offering a judicious mix of physical punishment and humiliation, at the discretion of the men, for when women “sinned” against their lovers. THAT would be a religion I could get into. I might even make myself a high priest.

  73. feeriker says:

    I find it sad that too many denominations of the church are more concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age than with transforming the societies in which they are placed, and accordingly do not teach the unpopular doctrines that are in the Bible.

    As I’ve said before (others here dispute it, but evidence before my own two eyes leads me to stand by the assertion), when a church’s primary concern is the contents if its collection plates and the sensibilities of its tithing congregants are rooted in the world and its contemporary culture, no church is EVER going to teach the WHOLE, UNVARNISHED truth as contained in the Bible and demand that the members of the body “walk the talk” or be gone.

    I shudder when I think of how many times I have heard in Bible Study Group a comment to the effect, “I didn’t know this was in the Bible. I have never heard this read at church.” from people who have been attending church for decades.

    In addition to what I said above, rare is the church these days (IME) whose “Bible Study” consists of studying the actual Bible rather than some best-selling feelgoodz-inducing book from the Churchian Oprah Book-of-the-Month Club’s Top Ten list, books that rarely ever contain any substantive focus on the Bible and what it actually says. It also occurs to me that Bible colleges and seminaries these days spend relatively little time on careful study of Scripture and more time than anything else on “church management.” Thus more and more pastors these days are as ignorant of the Bible as their congregations, which explains why so many of them avoid studying it directly (why would they willingly risk exposing their own biblical ignorance to the people they’re misleading?).

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    @feeriker

    It also occurs to me that Bible colleges and seminaries these days spend relatively little time on careful study of Scripture and more time than anything else on “church management.”

    You’ve misunderstood the purpose of a seminary. A seminary is not a place to learn the Bible because knowing the Word is not exclusive to pastors. Every Christian should know the Word. A seminary is a place to learn to pastor a flock. Obviously, there should be some testing of that knowledge and thereby confirm a candidates readiness. It still isn’t the primary job of a seminary.

  75. Lost Patrol says:

    “Preachers Who Are Not Believers” – Evolutionary Psychology
    http://www.epjournal.net – 2010. 8(1): 122-150

    https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/Preachers_who_are_not_believers.pdf

    A tiny sample, now six years old, but it got wide traction. I wonder how widespread something similar might be today.

    From the Abstract:
    There are systemic features of contemporary Christianity that create an almost
    invisible class of non-believing clergy, ensnared in their ministries by a web of obligations,
    constraints, comforts, and community.

  76. ray says:

    Cane Caldo – “A seminary is a place to learn to pastor a flock. Obviously, there should be some testing of that knowledge and thereby confirm a candidates readiness. It still isn’t the primary job of a seminary.”

    Seminaries and bible colleges are part of the problem, not the solution. They turn out kids barely wet behind the ears, who then expect to automatically be prepared to ‘pastor’ a church, or other people. Which they can’t. I’ve tried telling them this before, that serving God is not a career. You don’t go to school for it. They will not suffer to hear. Instead, I’m the problem.

    The modern denominational system utilizes these ‘religion colleges’ much like the broader culture uses secular education: as a vetting process, to ensure that all ‘pastors’ produced by the (very profitable!) system are well under the control of Professional Christianity — which is under control of American females, like most everything else. Thus hundreds-of-thousands of young men are led to believe they are anointed to pastor for the LORD, when in fact they have no anointing whatsoever, except the anointing that other men (in fact, their wives) bestow upon them. Later they’ll tell King Jeshua about all the fancy churches they built and pastored, all the flock they led and counseled, and his response will be something like “Never heard of you. Didn’t ask for you.”

  77. sipcode says:

    Cane and Ray: Pastors and churches [of the real Christ] as we have known them for 500 years are a thing of the past and steadily dying off [God is pissed at them as a group for leading the church astray]. They are being replaced by the new church made up of an army of ordinary men that actually embrace the Word, lead their families, and interact in smaller associations — mind you, with elder positions, but not paid, and w/o buildings — mostly underground, as we see persecution increase – much like in hostile areas of the world now.

  78. ray says:

    sipcode — Yes the church is underground, has been for decades. The final (Kingdom transitional) Temple is not built by hands, or hands alone.

    Like Roman Catholicism, congregational Christianity (churchianity) is a type of idolatry, mostly based in human pride and vanity. But both structures provided a temporary stability supporting nuclear family, shared socio-legal values, and so forth. Heck they even taught some Scripture occasionally! :O)

    Kind of place-markers or necessary evils, because civilization needed to be bandaged sufficiently to produce the true church, that’s only now emerging. This is the child/church mentioned in Revelation 12:4.

    For example, the Mariolatry and man-made ritualisms of the RCC are idolatry; but Catholic churches were the cultural bulwarks of thousands of towns in post-WW2 America. Men, not women, ran those churches, and despite the theological errors, much practical good was done, and albeit unwittingly, the ground was prepared for the eternal church that followed.

  79. Mad Kalak says:

    Finding the underlying firmware that makes us tick, as evo-psych purports to do, is a good thing; using it as an excuse for bad behavior is another.

    Game, and by extension, evo-psych devotees, have a saying, “my sexual strategy is amoral.” By implication, what they do to get laid, or with whom, doesn’t matter. They feel that they shouldn’t be judged for sexual behaviors. After all, if evolution is amoral, than tactics used to procure women to breed with is by extension amoral.

    There’s always two problems with this, first, getting sex is different from breeding. Modern science has separated the act of sexual release from the act of procreation. Secondly, what make the realm of sexual conduct off limits from moral judgement? No one would say “my business strategy is amoral.” We all would be outraged at a tycoon that poisoned the water to make a quick buck. Just because sexual passions are so strong, it does not mean that they enter another moral universe. In fact, because they are so strong, they should be subject to increased scrutiny.

  80. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ray & sipcode

    I can agree that many seminaries and bible colleges contribute to the decline of the Church.

    Other than that: Do you have any evidence for the rest? Who revealed these things to you which you say as if they are true? Most of what you say isn’t even sense.

    In what way are Roman Catholic churches and seminaries under the control of those pastors’ and teachers’ wives? RC clergy don’t marry.

    The “denominational system” isn’t a system at all. It’s like saying families are a system. Families occur organically. So have the denominations.

    There has never been a “non-congregational Christianity”, and there never will be. Christianity did not, does not, and will not arise from no one or nowhere.

    Who decides which people are “old church” and these other people are “new church”? Without some continuity, what is the standard? Ordinary men have always made up the Church.

  81. Kevin says:

    @Rollo

    Regarding Eco psych, you are confusing popular for rigor. Really popular topics produce more articles and more peer review. That is not the same as reproducibility, predictability, external validation, and randomized experimentation which are the signs of rigor. In pychology human experiments are rarely repeated, but when repeated only 30% produce the same result or any positive finding at all. The fact that Evo psyche and psyche can point to hard sciences and claim validation is not the same as validation. I am not disputing Evo psyche but we should put even less faith in it than psyche.

    As far as how this gene or any other would be passed down that’s not a tricky question. There is a model for how a gay gene would function – this is trivial by comparison. We are all fallen – the mechanism this fallen nature is manifested in us has not been revealed.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    “Like Roman Catholicism, congregational Christianity (churchianity) is a type of idolatry, mostly based in human pride and vanity.”

    No, we’re supposed to be social with fellow Christians. Public, dedicated meeting places are practical infrastructure. Persecution may require an underground church movement but even during the Roman Empire, it was a temporary measure.

    “Kind of place-markers or necessary evils, because civilization needed to be bandaged sufficiently to produce the true church, that’s only now emerging.”

    The true church has been here since Christ. We are no better and no worse than all the Christians who have come before.

    “Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is. … Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures.”

    I agree. If you then combine this with hypergamy being a failure as an evolved species-survival schema then you reach my position: if we embrace the instincts that have been carefully selected over millennia to ensure our survival then we self-destruct. Our species’ need for artificial constructs like morality and lifetime monogamy is proof that we are not an evolved species.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin, in the real world results count. The original fluffy article points to an evolutionary-psych reason for why women cheat – it’s not new, monkey-branching has been discussed for years in the androsphere – and Dalrock compares & constrasts it with what the churches teach.

    Churches teach that women are naturallymonogamous. The divorce rates, and the fact that 65% to 70% of divorces are filed by women but not for adultery, abandonment or abuse refute that teaching. Do you need an explanation how that refutation works, or can we stipulate it?

    So we have on the one hand a fuzzy sorta science that we can use to make predictions, and on the other hand we have church teachings that don’t come out of the Bible that are just false.

    A 20-something churchgoing man who plans to marry, which should he pay attention to, evo-psych with all its flaws or standard churchian teachings that are simply not true?

    38% of marriages in Evangelical circles blow up before the 10 year mark, 70% of them are filed by the Daughter of the King who decided her unhaaaaapiness trumped those silly vows. Men need to know how and why this happens – monkey-branching due to hypergamy is one reason – and the churches do not have a clue.

    So what’s your suggestion? Your solution? Your advice to the 25 year old man I know who would like to marry, but who saw his own churchgoing parents divorce just a year back, and who frankly just isn’t sure the risk of marriage is worth it?

    Well?

  84. tsotha says:

    What part of “men abandon or even kill adulterous wives, making them extremely vulnerable post-partum” don’t these people get?

    You’re assuming, of course, the man in question knows his wife has been adulterous. Before DNA testing you didn’t have any way to know for sure unless you weren’t having much sex with your wife or the child was very different genetically, e.g. a different race.

  85. ray says:

    Gunner Q — “No, we’re supposed to be social with fellow Christians.”

    No, we’re supposed to love fellow Christians. Nothing in Scripture requires (nor recommends) ‘socializing’ with other Christians. When other Christians commit apostasy (and, e.g., Mariolatry is an apostasy) we are to correct them — not go along with them under the Pope’s big tent. Or anybody’s big tent. Not be social with them. Not ally with their deceived churches.

    “Public, dedicated meeting places are practical infrastructure”

    Nothing in Scripture about ‘practical infrastructure’ nor is their ever any requirement for a physical structure for worship of Father or Son. This requirement was instituted by churchians, not King Jeshua and not God’s Scripture.

  86. ray says:

    “In what way are Roman Catholic churches and seminaries under the control of those pastors’ and teachers’ wives?”

    Same as influence in the prot demoninations. Via feminine influence in the laity and culture, duh. Priests not marrying was an attempt to limit female power in the RCC, a tactic that failed. Also, in practical terms, most Catholics worldwide worship Redemptrix Mary, not Christ. Catholicism in Mexico, for example, more resembles an ancient pagan goddess-rite than an offering to praise God.

    “There has never been a “non-congregational Christianity”, and there never will be.”

    It’s already here. Sorry you ain’t.

  87. Looking Glass says:

    @ray:

    Technically, celibate Priests was actually about Nepotism and limiting the power of Nobles. You couldn’t “install” the local Bishop, as a result. It also works as an anti-Simony method. (Which it accomplished rather well, it should be noted.)

    Doesn’t mean massive amounts of other corruption didn’t exist in other areas, which caused both Schisms, but at least for the particular issue that it was implemented, it worked extremely well. And for 1000 years there wasn’t a shortage of Priests. Think about that one.

  88. feeriker says:

    Also, in practical terms, most Catholics worldwide worship Redemptrix Mary, not Christ. Catholicism in Mexico, for example, more resembles an ancient pagan goddess-rite than an offering to praise God.

    It is truly amazing, beginning with the pagan tyrant Constantine’s faux “conversion” and subsequent co-opting of the church by the Roman State, how quickly the institutions, customs, and practices of pagan Rome were grafted onto the church and how completely and thoroughly they swallowed it up and irreversibly corrupted it. The original Apostles have no doubt been churning in their graves for the last 1,700 years (and no, the Protestant “Reformation” did nothing to substantively reverse this corruption, but merely changed its fundamental nature and added a few new abominations).

    It also boggles the mind to think that the body of believers in the early Fourth Century apparently didn’t have even half a clue amongst themselves that anything was amiss. They seem to have rejoiced at the idea that “Hey, hallelujah! Caesar is one of us at last!” Apparently they never heard (or forgot about) the whole “if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” bit (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23). Constantine never heard of that either, but being an unregenerate pagan, at least he had an excuse. Christians at the time didn’t, however, and should have woken up to the scam when it became apparent that “Christian” Constantine remained identical in every way to the old pagan model (so much for rebirth in Christ).

    On the plus side, we can at least pinpoint the birth of churchianity to a fairly exact point in history. Of course true, undeceived believers, though probably relatively tiny in number, still continued to worship in accordance with the New Testament – and thus underground and under constant threat of persecution, just like the uncorrupted church always has.

    State-sanctioned church = false church

  89. Kevin says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    I don’t have any argument with you. I think the situation is awful and agree with most of what you are saying. I am from a highly religious subculture so things are slightly better for my sons but not much. What can be done? I don’t have solutions. Keep chaste and no rings for sluts.

  90. Dave says:

    Homosexuality is not genetic but (true) homosexuals were indeed born that way. It is the hormonal milieu of the mother’s womb that is the cause.

    Gee, I learned something new today. I used to think that we were all born in sin, but that we had different besetting sins; that our depraved sin nature was inherited from the first Adam. I didn’t know the “hormonal milieu of the mother’s womb” could make us “unable” to obey God’s clear laws.
    Imagine that a homosexual were standing before God on the day of judgement, and his reason for living a revoltingly depraved lifestyle is “..the mother whom you gave me, she carried me in a womb that made me disobey you, and I therefore became a homosexual”.

    Wait, someone used a somewhat similar excuse before, but God dismissed his excuse as untenable. And of course, if God were to accept the “hormonal milieu of the mother’s womb” theory, He must apologize to the former citizens of Sodom.

  91. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ray

    So you can’t actually answer the questions. Thanks.

  92. Looking Glass says:

    @feeriker:

    I think you’re glossing over a lot of the rather insane parts of the outlying Churches during that time period. Though, frankly, they barely made it a few weeks after Pentecost before people tried to mess things up. So this really isn’t new.

    On the topic of homosexuality, there’s the State of the Body and the Temptations. You aren’t tempted to things that don’t interest you. I highly doubt most reading this are tempted to chop off their hand to see what it’s like. But if someone pumped you with enough of the correct drugs, that temptation could suddenly exist and have to be fought off.

    To save a fairly long discussion (that would require me to track down a whole lot of links), the most likely scenario, when dealing with male homosexuals, is an early childhood Endocrine viral infection. This renders the boy far less sensitivity to native testosterone while generally lowering output enough that they are always at a level above noticeable deficiency. The child will, more than likely, also have a weaker immune system in general. (This is why it is variant with the order of the male children of a Woman, as each boy a Woman gives birth to will generally have an increased likelihood of homosexual activity. This is down to a Woman’s immune system response to the XY chromosome.) This is why twins show no likelihood to also be homosexual, even if their genetics are identical.

    Homosexuals aren’t sickly because they lead a lifestyle that causes it. They’re already sickly and lead a lifestyle that rapidly increases their likelihood of incurable diseases. This is why, while steroid abuse is so rampant among male homosexuals, they still always show signs of low-T. It’s the nature of where their body is at and the temptation they’ve given into.

  93. ray says:

    Cane Caldo — “So you can’t actually answer the questions. Thanks.”

    So you have no substantive response to my answers, but instead demand that I answer in the way you wish. You and your resentment are welcome.

  94. ray says:

    feeriker — “On the plus side, we can at least pinpoint the birth of churchianity to a fairly exact point in history.”

    In some instances, as with the Constantinian example cited. Or with specific 20th Century RCC elevations of Mary, e.g. Mary as Co-Redeemer with Christ.

    But much of the apostasies were just continuations of pre-existing cults and religions, because the human urge to ‘reverence’ the feminine is ongoing, in both males and females. Ancient world was no different.

    In the Marian instance, the deifications were just extensions of various gnostic and goddess-worshipping elements spread throughout the nations (as Scripture laboriously reports). Some of these cults were grafted or adapted to emerging Christianity. Heck by the third or fourth century, despite complete absence of Scriptural evidence, belief already was widespread in the ‘Assumption of the Virgin’! The People wanted it, and so eventually decided it happened. :O)From there, it was a series of steps to deify Mary, including the techno-hoaxes at Portugal and Guadalupe.

    Always a process, because satanic forces operate outside time, while regular folks going generation to generation are vulnerable to long-developed deceits. Cheers.

  95. Linx says:

    @CEO Nikolic
    “Christianity is a boring religion, with a badly written book.”

    Christianity isn’t a religion it is a relationship and the Bible is a compilation of – books and letters – written by over 39 authors over a period of 1500 years on 3 continents.

  96. Gunner Q says:

    ray @ August 24, 2016 at 7:01 pm:
    “Gunner Q — “No, we’re supposed to be social with fellow Christians.”

    No, we’re supposed to love fellow Christians. Nothing in Scripture requires (nor recommends) ‘socializing’ with other Christians.”

    ‘Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.’ Hebrews 10:23-25

    “Nothing in Scripture about ‘practical infrastructure’…”

    Jesus’ miracles feeding the crowds don’t count?

    “…nor is their ever any requirement for a physical structure for worship of Father or Son.”

    But there is precedence. The Tabernacle and Temple, various monuments and altars… the cathedrals of Europe still give glory to God even though they’re empty today.

    Hide in your “house church” and socialize with nobody outside your family if you wish but as soon as you give a care about the Great Commission, you’ll discover the drawbacks of inviting endless hordes of strangers into your living room.

  97. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    I see that this thread has turned into precisely the sort of Catholic/Protestant bun-fight of which our gracious host has stated his disapproval in the past.

    Here’s something else for y’all to talk about, instead:Homeless woman now travels the world in luxury for free thanks to dating site.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum (ツ)

  98. Opus says:

    I was surprised to learn that The Bible is a badly written book. In England there is a radio programme that has been running all my life by the name of Desert Island Discs. The idea is that a celebrity has been cast ashore on a desert island with a gramophone and he must choose five gramophone records that he would also like to have made it to dry land. (The tunes are then played). In addition the castaway is asked what luxury item he would like and what book, however, and so as to prevent the celebrity guests from all choosing the same books it is stated that both a complete Shakespeare and a complete Bible (KJV of course) also made it to land.

  99. Dalrock says:

    @Yac Yac

    I see that this thread has turned into precisely the sort of Catholic/Protestant bun-fight of which our gracious host has stated his disapproval in the past.

    This is the Christian manosphere equivalent of Godwin’s law.

  100. ray says:

    Just Another Commenter Just Another Commenter (Yac Yah) — “I see that this thread has turned into precisely the sort of Catholic/Protestant bun-fight of which our gracious host has stated his disapproval in the past.”

    It arose briefly in an exchange about a related matter. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, I won’t criticize your goddess any, make that much, more. I know how uncomfy it makes you boys.

    Stop trying to schmooze Dalrock into censoring someone else’s conversation. Get a life. Go eat a booger or something.

  101. ray says:

    Gunner Q — Hebrews 10 supports my comment, not yours.

    “Jesus’ miracles feeding the crowds don’t count?”

    You’re reaching. It’s not about you, your ideas, or your terminology, Gunner Q. Practical infrastructure heh :O)

    “Hide in your “house church” and socialize with nobody outside your family if you wish but as soon as you give a care about the Great Commission, you’ll discover the drawbacks of inviting endless hordes of strangers into your living room.”

    No idea what you’re going on about. There are more red herrings in that statement than are left in the sea. You didn’t have an answer to my statement about worship, because there is no answer, not the one you demand anyway, which is that everybody needs to keep going to buildings full of fake pastors and priests. So you made up a bunch of stuff about what I do, and then you advise me not to do it, because I’m wrong. LOL

    Adios.

  102. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    Personally, my favorite part was the profile picture with a goat’s head. He couldn’t manage to even be online without cribbing from the boring religion and badly-written book.

  103. Boxer says:

    I always love to see Catholics and Protestants fighting. I mean, it’s not like there are any feminists in the world, so we can afford to waste time insulting our friends over minutiae.

  104. ray says:

    Boxer —

    I am not a Protestant. Stop building boxes for others, there, Boxer. I will decide what I am, and what I am not. And writing the truth is not an insult, except to those who don’t like the truth. You pretend that’s a waste of time. Apparently you were invested enough to comment, though, hm?

    Speaking of the truth, and of friends, my friends are those who follow the One Lord and love his Scripture. You’re against feminism but you’re not in that category? Then you aren’t my friend or ‘family’. Red Pill don’t mean shit.

    Dalrock’s OP is a link to writings by somebody calling themselves ‘Supreme Dark Lord’. No real Christian would ever support or advance such a person . . . except that folks desperately want to be liked and accepted, don’t they? They want to be on the Cool Team with the popular edgy Dark Lord and his Grouplings. So they ally themselves with their sad “Supreme Dark Lord” and pretend it’s all a joke. But billing yourself as Lord in this world is no joke.

    Your beloved Dark Lord is surnamed Beale, which means “Son of Bel.” I don’t think you’re a Christian, so wouldn’t expect you to understand, but any Christian or lover of Scripture knows who Bel is. It is not Jesus Christ. Therefore I’m unsurprised when Supreme Dark Lord Vox, Son of Bel, places the names of Jews in parentheses, to intimidate. He pretends his motivation is nationalism and the health of ‘Western Civilization’, which he will fix — but your Supreme Dark Lord sneaks around the Continent with some very anti-Christian elements. His tactics are overtly anti-Semitic, his political friends are zealously anti-Semitic, and yet ‘Christians’ ignore this, because they don’t have the courage to stand against the Group. They want to be Big Players like their hero, Son of Bel, and get lots of attention. Be Movers and Shakers. And I see that today, their supposed ‘opponent’ is busy giving them exactly what they desire, more publicity for ego-aggrandizement, and for the advancement of their cause, which is not the Christian cause of building the Kingdom of Christ on Earth.

    “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Bel? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6)

    You are either with Bel, or with Christ. There is no in-between, and you cannot promote the works of Bel, and of Bel’s servants, and still pretend obedience to the Lord. I mean the real Lord, not some arrogant, cowardly punk with Little Man Syndrome.

    This site has done many good works, and I have supported it for that reason, and no other. But I have no accord with Bel, nor with his lackeys and partners, no matter how attractive they and their agenda appear, politically or otherwise. And with that, I leave you.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear ray:

    Are you sure you’re not conflating me and someone else? I don’t have a “lord” (dark or not). I don’t worship Bel or Satan or anything else … You’re right, that I’m not a Christian; though I did my undergrad at a Jesuit school, and today I hit the vigil mass a couple of times a month.

    Making a general statement sometimes is just a general statement. I try to be friendly with everyone here, and I try to ignore those with whom friendship seems impossible, with varying success, for the same reason.

    Best to you.

    Boxer

  106. Lost Patrol says:

    Thank you Boxer. Forest for the trees. Soli Deo Gloria.

    Now, I have to move fast before Dalrock preempts me with a new post. I’m pretty sure science and theology meet on this. I’ve been using my new terminology loosely, which is a lifetime habit, but this seems like the place to get some things cleared up. Is there a difference between a white knight and a mangina? Is a guy kind of automatically both, or are there clearly defined camps? I now know the philosophy (The Lift), and the theology (compementarianism), what is the science driving white knight/manginas?

    This guy: https://christianfeministdaddy.com/about/

    He has to be both a white knight and a mangina right?

    “I have two daughters, and I want them to grow up as untainted by hyper-masculine culture as possible. The system of privilege that has given men preference for centuries needs to crumble.”

    I didn’t read all his stuff, but as an example, he has used biblical exigesis to debunk the notion of helpmeet. So his daughters don’t get caught up in any insane notions about helping a man, I suppose.

    Guys like this must be getting “The Lift” to exo-atmospheric levels. He sounds happy enough. His wife must be able to extol him to other women as an exemplar, and look how well she has done for herself.

    What is the scientific underpinning for thousands (millions?) of guys like this?

  107. Lost Patrol says:

    Complementarianism. A surprisingly hard word to type.

  108. Linx says:

    @Lost Patrol
    “Thank you Boxer. Forest for the trees. Soli Deo Gloria.”

    You do realise that he associates with the Frankfurt School which is Marxist in nature and the catalyst to the feminist movement. All he is doing is applying the Hegelian dialect.
    Fraus latet in generalibus.

  109. Lost Patrol says:

    @Linx

    Thanks for that. It’s no secret that I don’t realize half what goes on here (you wrote one short paragraph, I looked up three phrases from it), the water can get deep pretty fast; but that’s why I love the place – free knowledge.

    I thought I could use recent Yac-Yac, Dalrock, and Boxer comments to fashion a redirect. Nothing ventured…

  110. Oscar says:

    Single mom shacks up with thug. Thug beats her 2-year-old boy to death. But married fathers are the real threat.

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/08/23/prosecutor-man-told-toddler-to-put-up-fists-and-fight-before-punching-him-to-death/

  111. feeriker says:

    @Oscar:

    The solution to what happened here, and to prevent it from happening again, is to:

    1) Remove all children under the age of, say, 10 (they’re probably not salvageable beyond that age) from the city and put them up for adoption by intact, two-part families.

    2) Sterilize the entire adult population of Camden.

    3) Build a security wall around the city and make it a sort of “Warsaw Ghetto” for the thug element, keeping them confined inside city limits and banishing others to the city from other urban areas as required. This would be an ideal arrangement for several other American cities too (think Baltimore, East St. Louis [or even St. Louis], Detroit, Newark, etc.] Contain all the sewage in one cesspool …

  112. Boxer says:

    You do realise that he associates with the Frankfurt School which is Marxist in nature and the catalyst to the feminist movement. All he is doing is applying the Hegelian dialect.
    Fraus latet in generalibus.

    Hilarious to see anonymous kooks tell blatant and inflated lies about Brother Boxer, and after a period, issue a general pronouncement about dishonesty being encoded in generalities — in the very next sentence. lol

    One of the great benefits I’ve found in studying the text of the bible is increasing the level of self-awareness in the average student. You guys are in the right place.😀

    Best,

    Boxer

  113. Boxer says:

    Build a security wall around the city and make it a sort of “Warsaw Ghetto” for the thug element, keeping them confined inside city limits and banishing others to the city from other urban areas as required.

    The thug element would probably disappear through a national service scheme. Before its feminization, the military provided young men with a productive outlet for their energies, and it provided them with father substitutes. Not that this will cure all the damage of growing up fatherless, but it does tend to get young troublemakers into their stable thirties.

    Note that this was the status quo until just recently. Judges used to order first time offenders to enlist.

    https://www.thebalance.com/join-the-military-or-go-to-jail-3354033

  114. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    You need to be more specific about these claimed “inflated lies”.
    Fraus latet in generalibus.

  115. Boxer says:

    Dear Linx:

    You need to be more specific about these claimed “inflated lies”.
    Fraus latet in generalibus.

    😀

    You do realise that he associates with the Frankfurt School which is Marxist in nature and the catalyst to the feminist movement. All he is doing is applying the Hegelian dialect.

    You would be more entertaining if you could define some of these big words you use. You clearly don’t know what the Frankfurt School is/was, what is or isn’t “Marxist” and how the “Hegelian dialect” [sic] (fuck’n lol) works.

    In short, you’re a complete idiot, who is trying to weave a kooky conspiracy theory without any background knowledge of the concepts you’re using. Do a little reading, and come back if you need help. I’m qualified to lecture on this stuff.

    Best,

    Boxer

  116. Gunner Q says:

    Lost Patrol @ August 25, 2016 at 5:59 pm:
    “Is there a difference between a white knight and a mangina?”

    Broadly speaking, a mangina is a feminized man while a white knight is a defender of female “virtue”. Many manginas are nonaggressive, for example, while most white knights lack female-level interest in grooming.

  117. Lost Patrol says:

    @Gunner Q

    OK, thanks. It’s beginning to look like I was more or less raised from birth to be a white knight. Probably true of many Dalrock readers. Meanwhile, it also appears that most youngsters these days are increasingly being raised to be manginas.

    I can see where it would be hard to be both things effectively, but also where some overlap occurs (see christianfeministdaddy above). As time goes on, women are going to want these new age manginas to white knight for them, but they won’t be tough enough to fight.

    White Knight is actually a difficult mindset to shake, even after one gets “the word”. This is a significant part of what goes wrong in mixed sex military units, as noted in previous posts; and probably just about everything where loyalty, honor, and continuity of purpose are needed.

  118. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “You would be more entertaining if you could define some of these big words you use.”
    What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

    “You clearly don’t know what the Frankfurt School is/was, what is or isn’t “Marxist” and how the “Hegelian dialect” [sic] (fuck’n lol) works.”
    You know one thing about the Jesuits is that they really make a life of study into the details of a subject. So I find it hard that some one as learned as you claimed to be and who studied under them can make the claim that the Frankfurt School isn’t/wasn’t Marxist and the subtleties of the use of the Hegelian dialect as promulgated by it.

    “In short, you’re a complete idiot, who is trying to weave a kooky conspiracy theory without any background knowledge of the concepts you’re using.” You do realise that this is just an ad hominem.

    “Do a little reading, and come back if you need help.” You know I one heard the saying “A man who believes every thing he reads…. perhaps shouldn’t be reading.” Unlike you I prefer to discern what it is I read with the truth. That means how it relates to the authority of Scripture. What do you use as your ultimate authority?

    “I’m qualified to lecture on this stuff.” And I observed its use by you for some time now.

  119. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    It’s beginning to look like I was more or less raised from birth to be a white knight… White Knight is actually a difficult mindset to shake…

    The idea that pedestalizing women/girls is a mindset or an ideological apparatus is a feminist idea. It goes back to the whole “social construct” nonsense.

    The sad fact is that we (men) are all hard wired to love and protect females. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3749187/If-boy-girl-cat-dog-left-park-rescued-Social-experiment-shows-subject-people-responded-fastest-completely-ignored.html

    It’s a natural artifact, a holdover from prehistory, when babies were scarce and strength was at a premium. Whether you believe in natural selection, or a creator, the reality is that our engineer has endowed us with this trait.

    This is where I delineate between white knight and mangina. The mangina is often driven to metrosexuality or extreme groveling as a sublimated response to the fear of celibacy. He’s basically a pussy beggar. Many PUAs have mangina traits, for example. White Knights are usually married men with daughters, who have a double dose of female worship for more-or-less natural reasons. Most manginas are degenerates, in one sense or another. Most white knights are healthy men without much introspection.

    Boxer

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    I can see where it would be hard to be both things effectively, but also where some overlap occurs (see christianfeministdaddy above). As time goes on, women are going to want these new age manginas to white knight for them, but they won’t be tough enough to fight.

    See: Europe. The vast majority of “refugees” are men between the ages of 18 and 35, in other words, the typical age of military service. Women have been welcoming them.

    So the cycle now appears to be: women rebel, test men to failure, demand ever more submission from men, then invite strange men. It is cuckolding on a national scale.

  121. feeriker says:

    White Knight is actually a difficult mindset to shake, even after one gets “the word”. This is a significant part of what goes wrong in mixed sex military units, as noted in previous posts; and probably just about everything where loyalty, honor, and continuity of purpose are needed.

    All it really takes to “unwire” this psychological programming is for a man to be on the receiving end of the very worst aspects of modern western female nature for a protracted length of time. Eventually that hardcoded human attribute known in ages past as “common sense” kicks in (try as our society might to eradicate it, it ain’t ever going away completely), with the individual man awakening to the reality that sociological conditions of the past no longer are in effect and that prioritizing women as worthy of exceptional, protective treatment makes no sense whatsoever in socioeconomic terms. Indeed, he will soon realize that doing so is decidedly AGAINST his best interests. It is a lesson that takes longer for some men to learn than for others, and still others are so hopelessly broken by our dysfunctional modern feminized society as to never learn the lesson at all. In any case, the majority of men will very soon absorb the hard red-pill truth, whether they admit it candidly or not. .

  122. feeriker says:

    So the cycle now appears to be: women rebel, test men to failure, demand ever more submission from men, then invite strange men. It is cuckolding on a national scale.

    Yep, and this behavior prompts the following strange, yet seemingly logical question: is rape, and a woman’s reaction to it, proof that a man has passed a fitness test?

  123. Gunner Q says:

    “It’s beginning to look like I was more or less raised from birth to be a white knight. Probably true of many Dalrock readers.”

    In California it’s mostly manginas. Spaghetti-armed surfer bums, emo musicians on welfare, fat metrosexual hippies. The best of them are neckbearded pseudo-lumberjacks who give a vibe of wanting to be male without quite knowing how. I try to set a good example… can’t bring myself to get into a debate on masculinity with a MAN sporting a dyed Skrillex.

  124. BubbaCluck says:

    I am thankful that I do not even know what a “Skrillex” is.

  125. Smithborough says:

    Have you seen the latest stunning piece of evangelical woman worship by Glen Staunton:

    https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/why-man-and-woman-are-not-equal

  126. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    The sad fact is that we (men) are all hard wired to love and protect females. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3749187/If-boy-girl-cat-dog-left-park-rescued-Social-experiment-shows-subject-people-responded-fastest-completely-ignored.html

    It’s a natural artifact, a holdover from prehistory, when babies were scarce and strength was at a premium. Whether you believe in natural selection, or a creator, the reality is that our engineer has endowed us with this trait.

    Of course it is biological. That is why when people think it is important to recognize ‘waves’ of US feminism as significant transitions, or when someone thinks ‘feminism’ was due to some event in 1858 America, or due to a group that is just 2% of the population, they really have no clue how deep the problem is, and how an aspect of the human psyche itself is obsolete.

    Among gorillas, beta males routinely die to defend females who will never mate with them. This is normal, and biologically, this makes sense for all non-sentient animals. But sentience changes this (or is at least a step away from it).

    This is also why some have said that artificial intelligence, which will strip out the female-favoring bias in all human decisions and replace it with cold computational logic (such as the equal sentences for equal crimes), is going to be stunningly disastrous for women, given that women will always *think* they are oppressed even though they get an overwhelmingly huge level of special treatment.

  127. ray says:

    Boxer —

    Pretty rich. The ‘Christians’ follow the Supreme Dark Lord while the pagan guy doesn’t. Papa said there’d be days like this there’d be days like this Papa said.

    Apologies, only the first paragraph in my response was directed to you. I should have just written a separate comment for general audience. The balance of the comment was me checking out of this site, and why. I’m glad you don’t know Bel’s servants. They’re full of shit anyway.

    Something must keep drawing you to this site, however, and I think it’s the boss, wearing you down. :O) You do have a Father in heaven, he is real, he made you and loves you. If I didn’t lie about the other stuff, I wouldn’t lie to you about him.

    His king is Jeshua and the king wants you to be one of his confidantes and administrators during his millennium, which technically (though not personally) already has begun. I’m not a ‘believer’ type either, so I hope he convinces you in a way you just can’t deny, as he did with me. Scripture won’t let you down, don’t try to read it like a book, consult it like an oracle. Don’t assume, open your heart, and I think you will experience convincing through it Personally I like the OT.

    I’ve enjoyed this webpage over the years and have directed certain Christians and Hebrews here, mostly because men in the churches cannot face the female-issue on their own. Often they are advanced in Biblical or spiritual understanding, but typical total poofs when it comes to females and female power. This site did a great job filling that gap, the one all the thousands of supposed pastors and priests just couldn’t handle. And still can’t.

    The war’s begun but the king is close, and will show, and rule, just like the Bible predicts. Hope to toss some of you into the fire, and see others in Father’s house. Cheers.

  128. Anon says:

    There is very, very steep competition for the title of ‘World’s Dumbest ‘Feminist”, which also unifies and includes the title of ‘World’s Dumbest Human of Any Age’.

    I submit the latest entry :

    Zoos polluting children’s minds with dangerous gender stereotypes.

    I half-expected a mangina to be the author, but the author is indeed a female.

  129. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Anon sez:

    Among gorillas, beta males routinely die to defend females who will never mate with them. This is normal, and biologically, this makes sense for all non-sentient animals. But sentience changes this (or is at least a step away from it).

    That’s pretty interesting, actually. I found this online…

    The Evolution of Primate Societies (edited by John C. Mitani, Josep Call, Peter M. Kappeler, Ryne A. Palombit, Joan B. Silk)

    but haven’t read it yet. I have to assume that the average beta male gorilla has at least some moderate chance of fathering offspring. I also wonder if the average beta male gorilla who wars on behalf of his tribe isn’t at least laterally related to the average female gorilla beneficiary of his violence.

    Maybe that’s me anthropomorphizing… I would, after all, go to war for my sister, or even for her children. They’re not related to me as closely as biological descendants would be, but they do share a significant amount of my genetic material.

    This is also why some have said that artificial intelligence, which will strip out the female-favoring bias in all human decisions and replace it with cold computational logic (such as the equal sentences for equal crimes), is going to be stunningly disastrous for women, given that women will always *think* they are oppressed even though they get an overwhelmingly huge level of special treatment.

    I bet you’re a big Oswald Spengler fan, aren’t you?😀 Me too!

    ray sez:

    Pretty rich. The ‘Christians’ follow the Supreme Dark Lord while the pagan guy doesn’t. Papa said there’d be days like this there’d be days like this Papa said.

    Apologies, only the first paragraph in my response was directed to you. I should have just written a separate comment for general audience. The balance of the comment was me checking out of this site, and why. I’m glad you don’t know Bel’s servants. They’re full of shit anyway.

    Sorry brother. I assumed it was all directed at me. Thanks for explaining! I understand it better, now.

    I have seen arguments (not flaming, but productive arguments) between Protestants and Catholics that have been very interesting. When you get people who are knowledgeable together, the disagreements become a very rich field of information. Of course, I don’t have a dog in the fight, so I’m over on the sidelines in such things, and I often come back, after the dust has settled, to pick through the midden heap for new things to read.

    Best to you brother.

    Boxer

  130. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    I half-expected a mangina to be the author, but the author is indeed a female.

    The author of the underlying study is David Grazian, a (probably) male sociologist who lives in NYC.

    Oh, look! He’s on twitter…

    Come have some fun,

    Boxer

  131. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I also wonder if the average beta male gorilla who wars on behalf of his tribe isn’t at least laterally related to the average female gorilla beneficiary of his violence.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Since gorillas and chimpanzees live in bands of 50-100, and often war with rival bands, most mating is between apes that are no further apart than 3rd or 4th cousin. Diane Fossey charted a detailed family tree of the Mountain Gorilla tribe she was observing for 20 years, and a lot of mating was between 2nd cousins, sometimes first cousins, and even half-siblings. Since their entire life is in a group of a few dozen, this is normal in their existence, and humans were like this for eons as well..

    So the beta male apes continue to die for female apes that a) they want to mate with, and b) might be 3rd or even 2nd cousins of theirs.

  132. Anon says:

    The author of the underlying study is David Grazian,

    Oh! You are right! The article-writer appropriating the mangina’s research was the woman, Emily Zanotti. Hence, even when what a male produces is preposterous crap, a female wants to appropriate it.

  133. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    What’s your opinion about the anthropological (misanthropological? lol) “cuckface” theories bandied about by gents like Heartiste and Pleasureman?

    I find Mr(?) Grazian’s moonface to be powerfully persuasive in service of such pseudoscientific stuff. Have a gander yourself at his profile pic…

    https://twitter.com/dgrazian

    Is that not the weakest, most punchable mug you’ve seen in a long while?

    Boxer

  134. DeNihilist says:

    Anon, I read the article and was of the impression that the chick was taking the piss out of this study.

  135. Anon says:

    Is that not the weakest, most punchable mug you’ve seen in a long while?

    It is not the worst I have seen, but is up there. Note the similarities to Manboobz Futrelle.

  136. Avraham rosenblum says:

    The soft sciences I do not think are science at all but propaganda dressed in the clothing of science. But for the hard sciences, I do not think they contradict the Torah.

  137. Spike says:

    Avraham rosenblum says:
    August 27, 2016 at 2:52 am
    “The soft sciences I do not think are science at all but propaganda dressed in the clothing of science. But for the hard sciences, I do not think they contradict the Torah”.

    Ayraham: Your post reminded me of my first year at university. I’m an Agriculture graduate. We were a small faculty, and sometimes we shared lectures with other faculties.When we shared with Science, all was good. Arts, though – the bulk of whom were studying Psychology – it was a different story.
    The lecturer would begin, and within minutes an Arts student would start arguing with him. The lecturer would stop, answer the question, and continue. Then another would do the same thing. This went on and on, until a Science student got up and told the Arts students to shut up, because they were there to learn. This created a furore, and it led to Science Agriculture and Arts having separate lectures.
    Psychology, an inexact “soft” science is based on the dialectic. Science, like the Torah or the New Testament is based on the revelatory model – the revealing of truth. They can never be reconciled.

  138. Well, now that evo-psych, The Protestant Reformation, as well as Marxism and The Austrian School have all been covered its free skate comment time. Oh, I almost forgot that I did have a comment about the -true church-. Im sharing this but not in a way that contributes to the upthread debate. Its a tangent.

    I was recovering from appendectomy in 2003 in a Houston area hospital. A man who knew my sis in law via some thin thread of coincidence showed up in my room with moments to spare before visitors would be called away for the night. He came and asked if he could pray. Yes, it is after all a kindness more common in Texas.

    He began to lecture me rather than pray in any way I’d seen before. He laid claim to some type of true church thing and was focused on one particular scripture in Acts. (Many of you fellow believers would agree that the book of Acts brings out some strange characters because of the magnetic pull towards a type of mysticism for the weak minded and weak of spirit. He was jingling the coins in his pocket as he rose to his toes, then back down, over and again saying he dropped out of life for over a year and studied the Bible alone and all this was revealed, and he and a few fellow travelers had the truth while the rest of us were hell bound.

    A nurse caught my eye from the hallway and read the room. She chucked his raving ass so i could rest.

    Now the free skate…..the article below was in the sidebar when i read the Mail article. I kept reading to the end waiting for the “however” segue that would reveal the writer as someone who could see that the photos are not of a woman who ought to be “showing her fab sticks”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3760996/Jennie-Garth-flashes-legs-jersey-mini-dress-steps-day-shopping-husband-Dave-Abrams.html

  139. Hmm, why does a Christian or a feminist need a “back up plan”?

    A Christian believes “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.”

    A feminist believes she can do everything on her own.

    Anyone with a “back up plan” is neither.

  140. ManlyMan says:

    Sticks? Those are tree trunks.

  141. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ray

    Pretty rich. The ‘Christians’ follow the Supreme Dark Lord while the pagan guy doesn’t.

    You wrote similar lies on my blog. The fact is that you earlier wrote–foolishly–that all churches (including Roman Catholic churches) are controlled by the pastors’/priests’ wives. You also some nonsense that Christians are to be in isolation (That’s what it means to not be in a congregation.) not to mention the fact that Christ gave us the ordinary means of spreading and keeping the Gospel via churches.

    The balance of the comment was me checking out of this site, and why.

    […]
    Something must keep drawing you to this site, however, and I think it’s the boss, wearing you down.

    This is double-minded at the least. You say you are leaving because this blog is bad, but you have not left. Then you say the Lord directs Boxer here because this blog is good.

    Ray, you aren’t making sense.

    I am very fond of the Men’s Sphere and this blog in particular because it is a kind of proving ground with both verve and camaraderie. Here iron is always sharpening iron and regularly it is for the good of both. Tomorrow we may both test ourselves against Boxer, or Empath, or Linx, or anyone else. We strive with vigor, but there is also peace. Don’t throw that away and don’t pollute it.

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    Second try; this time with proper tags

    @Ray

    Pretty rich. The ‘Christians’ follow the Supreme Dark Lord while the pagan guy doesn’t.

    You wrote similar lies on my blog. The fact is that you earlier wrote–foolishly–that all churches (including Roman Catholic churches) are controlled by the pastors’/priests’ wives. You also some nonsense that Christians are to be in isolation (That’s what it means to not be in a congregation.) not to mention the fact that Christ gave us the ordinary means of spreading and keeping the Gospel via churches.

    The balance of the comment was me checking out of this site, and why.

    […]
    Something must keep drawing you to this site, however, and I think it’s the boss, wearing you down.

    This is double-minded at the least. You say you are leaving because this blog is bad, but you have not left. Then you say the Lord directs Boxer here because this blog is good.

    Ray, you aren’t making sense.

    I am very fond of the Men’s Sphere and this blog in particular because it is a kind of proving ground with both verve and camaraderie. Here iron is always sharpening iron and regularly it is for the good of both. Tomorrow we may both test ourselves against Boxer, or Empath, or Linx, or anyone else. We strive with vigor, but there is also peace. Don’t throw that away and don’t pollute it.

  143. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    I think Dalrock has it right that the folks at the Daily Mail are masterful trolls.

    HD cameras have not been kind to women, but it is a useful service to pedestalizers.

  144. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Spike: Thank you for that insight. I was trying to make a short comment so I did not bring in issues like agriculture which is obviously very important. I was really just repeating Allen Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind and also Karl Popper’s scathing criticism on psychology but I did not want to go into detail.

  145. Boxer says:

    Dear Avraham:

    Ever hear of a guy named Pareto?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto

    Back in the early days of the 20th century, Sociology and Economics and related disciplines were becoming rigorous. If North American academia was honest or self-aware, they’d quit hijacking the social sciences in service of their kooky projects, and get back to teaching these guys.

    Boxer

  146. Jason says:

    Was at Starbucks yesterday morning……..before going to the barber shop…..just relaxing on the street-view patio enjoying my coffee…………….at the table next to me two men were talking…….both my age (forties) and both were pastors. Both married. One was from the church down the street from me (Methodist). I just listened to their conversation without saying a word or reacting to them…..

    Both claimed to be “liberal” and both talked about how they were both HUGE Bernie Sanders supporters. Both talked about what church means to their respected flocks “community, family, support, affirmation, acceptance, social-justice, tolerance” were the words used. Inside my brain, I was waiting….waiting….waiting for the word “Jesus” or “discipleship” and “regeneration from sin” to be mentioned. In fact, the whole time I was there….I did not hear one scripture quoted. Not one mention of Christ. Not one mention of thankfulness or gratitude of what He did.

    The clincher of the conversation was when one pastor mentioned “We have to make church relevant to women and young people today, because they are leaving and we pastors and leaders need to listen to what they say. Their opinions count and are the future of the EC (emerging church) movement.”

    They both went on a self-congrat rant about what their churches are doing to reach out to women, and young people……and of course the “amazing” work they are doing….yet I am sure on any given Sunday both their churches were probably not even half-full.

    being a pastor is NOT a profession. It’s a passion, and any pastor who cannot be a man and stand for what Christ did and stood for…….well, we all get what we deserve. Weak, limp-noodle, feel-good doctrine. Effeminate, spineless men and self-righteous women………….

    and churches that seem to be growing more gray with zero action and all talk. This goes for the “bold n biblical” ones as well.

  147. @Cane

    In this case I think they deployed FatBooth. Or the two lens phone cameras so you can grab selfies in big plurals. Either you and yer 4 buds, or, Ms Girth, er, Garth

  148. Lost Patrol says:

    @empathologism

    Poor woman looks like a rugby forward in those photos. It must get harder all the time for the Hollywood women as they exercise successive fall-back plans (in accordance with science, not their fault). Yet there is always some guy willing to be next up.

  149. Dale says:

    >Daily Mail are masterful trolls.

    I certainly hope so. Unless the man has a “fat-fetish”, I cannot see any honest person describing such a woman as physically attractive. Especially if he knew how that same woman appeared during her fit and feminine youth. Damn she was attractive in the “BH 90210” TV series.
    Hmmm… I just decided to copy a few of those pictures. They can be used as a warning for any man contemplating marriage to a currently-attractive Western woman. I used to have a crush on Miss Garth. Those pictures would have fixed that problem rather abruptly.

  150. Boxer says:

    Off Topic. DC Just opened it’s first all-boy’s public high school. From the site…

    The Empowering Males High School will be Washington, DC’s only all-male, college-preparatory high school that places significant emphasis on humanities and classical languages, which will ensure that every young man graduates with the skills necessary to be successful in college and career.

    Academic Programs will place heavy emphasis on reading, writing, and classical languages like Spanish and Latin, as well as math and technology proficiency. The school will also place particular emphasis on college and career programming allowing for school counselors to individualize life plans for each student.

    All of the students will receive a strengths-based approach to their educational experience. The all-male, college preparatory high school will have smaller class sizes allowing for lower teacher to student ratios. Additional learning opportunities include community service projects, leadership programs and mentorship programs.

    Media reaction at: http://www.fox5dc.com/news/194829634-story

  151. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dalrock might wish to devote a post to this latest Huffington Post piece: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carina-kolodny/the-conversation-you-must-have-with-your-sons_b_3764489.html

    Core message: Boys are beasts. Girls are victims.

    So let’s take a quick look at these “creepy men.” Who are they, really? Who are the creepy men that are making it unsafe for your daughter to go solo to a party on campus? Who are the creepy men that are catcalling her or slut-shaming her or intimidating her with their words? Who are the creepy men that are stalking her? Harassing her? Attacking her?

    Who are these “creepy men” and where did they come from AND who in the hell raised them?

    The answer, unfortunately, is YOU.

    We have too much information to continue blaming the anonymous man lurking in the shadows. We have more than enough data to conclude that the majority of perpetrators aren’t “others,” they are peers and classmates and ex-boyfriends and friends.

  152. feeriker says:

    classical languages like Spanish and Latin

    Spanish is a “classical” language? LOL (well, I suppose I should remember that we’re talking about D.C. here, where anything other than ebonics is a foreign, exotic, incomprehensible language).

  153. feeriker says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    August 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    It’s a shame that we feel compelled to even dignify fountains of verbal vomitus like HuffPo with anything like serious attention.

  154. feeriker says:

    Jason said:

    …both my age (forties) and both were pastors. Both married. One was from the church down the street from me (Methodist).

    After hearing indications that that pastor was of that particular denomination, the rest of their conversation should’ve been perfectly predictable. In fact, the only surprise here is that they apparently didn’t mention reaching out to gays and lesbians (in supportive celebration of their lifestyle, of course). American Methodists are big cheerleaders for sodomy, along with every other aspect of Modernist Progressivism.

  155. Boxer says:

    Spanish is a “classical” language? LOL (well, I suppose I should remember that we’re talking about D.C. here, where anything other than ebonics is a foreign, exotic, incomprehensible language).

    I assumed they had a classics program that taught them concurrently, which is fashionable these days in some circles; but, you might be right. Spanish as it is read in Cervantes would plausibly qualify as “classical Spanish” — as would a general philological survey of the digression of Spanish from common western vulgar Latin.

  156. infowarrior1 says:

    Although many of the causes are accurately identified there are those who pin it on protestantism but that’s not true:
    https://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/does-progressivism-grow-out-of-protestantism/

  157. JustDoIt says, “The lack of physical strife between two sons has turned out to be a significant evolutionary advantage, and that is why homosexuality exists, and has a genetic basis.”

    A simple google search renders all Gay science claims, including genetic homosexuality, as fake.
    http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Fake+Gay+Science+Twins

    Just stop this bullshit, you’re embarrassing yourself.

  158. Anon says:

    Oops. I failed to close the hyperlink html properly..

  159. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Wow! Good find.

    The fiance dodged a bullet. Big time. If he takes her back, he deserves the poverty that will eventually befall him.

    Note the photo and description of the affianced, “Paul” age 48, who was supposedly set to marry our featured ho’ Louise age 24. I would assume that Brother Paul had absolutely no real intention of wifing up Louise, with her skin littered with low-rent skank ho’ tattoos, her piercings, her permascowl and her (see bottom photo) still barely manageable but clearly expanding girth. He was simply getting the cunt from a desperate woman whose options grow more limited by the day.

    Jamaican grifter probably started out merely as a cheap ploy to get him to commit on the vacation. I expect he laughed it off, and skanky princess decided to bang her dusky interloper (as well as giving him access to the bank accounts) out of spite. Despite what the story says, I’d bet my entire salary that there was more than just kissing going on at the ol’ beach party.

    White Nationalists will see this same issue and see the woman as a victim, rather than someone who brought this on herself. They will simultaneously insist that no white woman actually wants a black man, despite this. Such whiteknights are a huge part of the problem, and should lose money to such women who in turn lose it to such scams.

    I have no problem with my WN bros here and elsewhere, but yeah. Many (not all, but many) of them seem entirely preoccupied with worshipping women, rather than bettering themselves and making meaningful contributions toward the advancement of humanity, or otherwise showing off the excellence of white folks. In fact, some WN seem to live lives that are remarkably similar to those I find in the black ghetto or the reservation, full of drugs and alcohol, street crime, and wasting time being an asshole.

    Boxer

  160. feeriker says:

    Inre the young Brit skank who dumped her middle-aged fiance for a Jamaican gigolo, Vox has that under a microscope today over at Alpha Game.

  161. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Boxer: I was not aware of that fellow but I know some people way back when were trying to get some rigor into those subjects and apparently did some good work. I myself on occasion quote from some of the best thinkers. I even had a book once on Self Analysis by some prince written at the turn of the century which was amazing and puts to shame everything written later on that subject.

  162. The mirror article reads, “Meanwhile, she also suffered the agony of a miscarriage and the disapproval of her family.”

    Did you read that? She suffered… That bitch “suffered”… uh huh.

    “White Nationalists will see this same issue and see the woman as a victim, rather than someone who brought this on herself. They will simultaneously insist that no white woman actually wants a black man, despite this. Such whiteknights are a huge part of the problem, and should lose money to such women who in turn lose it to such scams.”

    I don’t get that. For a movement that intends to invigorate the strength of the White race or whatever, there’s a lot of SIMPs there.

  163. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Winona Ryder “hits out” on people for shaming women: http://www.fansshare.com/news/winona-ryder-hits-out-at-people-shaming-women/

    Ryder explained, “I’m so sick of people shaming women for being sensitive or vulnerable. It’s so bizarre to me. I wish I could unknow this, but there is a perception of me that I’m supersensitive and fragile. And I am supersensitive, and I don’t think that that’s a bad thing. There’s a line in the show where someone says [of her Stranger Things character], She’s had anxiety problems in the past.”

    She added, “A lot of people have picked up on that, like, ‘Oh, you know, she’s crazy.’ And I’m like, ‘Okay, wait a second, she’s struggling.’ Two kids, deadbeat dad, working her ass off. Who wouldn’t be anxious? Even that word, anxious. It’s a bad word. And so like all of these words — it’s kind of what I tried to do with Girl, Interrupted, and why I was so invested in that book and trying to get it made [as a movie]. My whole point was, this happens to every girl, almost.”

  164. feeriker says:

    Winona Ryder “hits out” on people for shaming women:

    ***YAWWWWWWWN***

    Winona WHO? Is she still alive? Wasn’t her career over, like, 25 years ago?

  165. Dave says:

    Winona Ryder…was she not the convicted thief who stole from a department store?

  166. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Celebrities are trying to “normalize” abortion. Pro-abortion concerts are planned for 30 cities: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439392/abortion-concerts-culture-death

    Every day someone chooses to have an abortion. We are not alone in this decision, however, due to stigma, we’re often made to feel isolated and shamed. Our stories remind us and those around us that we’re not alone. We testify as experts to our experiences. We testify that our spirituality and abortion are one….

    Female celebrities have started to embrace this trend of depicting abortion as natural, even pleasant. Most recently, Naya Rivera, an actress from the television show Glee, wrote in her forthcoming memoir, Sorry Not Sorry, about having an abortion on her day off from filming the show, without telling the child’s father … I hope Josey [her son] will read it one day. I hope it gives him a better perspective on the issues women face.”

    Joey will realize that it’s sheer luck that his mother didn’t abort him too. Had he been born at the wrong time (unlike his unlucky sibling), he too would have ended up in an abortion pan.

    According to the Washington Post, Rivera is not alone: “More female celebrities have been openly discussing their reproductive health. . . . Such actresses as Amy Brenneman and Girls star Jemima Kirke have shared their abortion experiences in the hope of normalizing the procedure.”

  167. Lord Rofl says:

    “Most white knights are…” dangerously permissive men.

    Treating the women of your tribe with care and forbearance is normal. Treating antisocial, hostile, out-group women with care and forbearance is idiotic.

    (The question is, which women comprise your tribe? It’s getting harder to tell.)

    This tendency towards pathological altruism, with all the negative externalities it generates, is the signature, the cuckoo call, of white knightery.

    As for manginas: An otherwise masculine man can occasionally act against his and other men’s interests by endangering himself for unworthy women. This makes him a white knight. His pandering self-abasement may be contemptible, but he is not yet a mangina.

    A male feminist can habitually do the same, or at least threaten to do so on some single mother THOTs Facebook between feverish five-fingered dalliances with cuckold porn. He is man in name only. No dignitas. This makes him a white knight mangina.

  168. American says:

    There is no actual dichotomy between actual science and genuine orthodox Christian epistemology. In fact, they compliment each other providing a dual harmony to us modern humans. The lie they contrast was invented by atheists like Voltaire who also fabricated a dark age so they could position their own ideology in a better light or enlightenment. They were liars and those who continue the apostate tradition today are too.

  169. Anon says:

    I don’t get that. For a movement that intends to invigorate the strength of the White race or whatever, there’s a lot of SIMPs there.

    They happen to have nothing in common with successful whites, yet cannot see why, and identify the specific traits they lack. They want heavy intra-white socialism (of both wealth and females) because they would be total net recipients of both.

    Nonetheless, race nationalism is the most sausage-fest ideology of all. For an ideology 100% dependent on white women having more white babies, they are stunningly unsuccessful at recruiting any women to this cause. The MRM has a lot more women than white nationalism does.

  170. Lord Rofl says:

    “…they are stunningly unsuccessful at recruiting any women to this cause.”

    Because they are powerless and ineffectual. This is glaringly obvious to everyone, even to the precocious princesses who wife up characters like Tsarnev or Manson.

    [Sad trombone.]

  171. Lord Rofl says:

    That should have been “give themselves to cretins like…”

  172. Bob says:

    You’re speaking a lot for all White Nationalists for something that is not even a sizable trend among them. You have a bizarre frankenstein of 2 diametrically opposed groups that while I’m sure has more than 0 people who hold those beliefs at the same time, they are an absurdly small exception to the rule.

    White Nationalists by and large = Financially successful men who favor the free market of capitalism. Like all men, some of them struggle with finding a quality white woman to raise children with. The temptation to turn to women of other races can be tempting for them, especially when looking at statistics like white male + black female which has the lowest divorce rate of any male/female pairing. But with IQ being largely an inherited trait that regresses to the mean, as well as half-ethnicity children struggling significantly socially to feel like part of either race and suffering a host of medical problems, this choice isn’t taken up very often.

  173. Anon says:

    White Nationalists by and large = Financially successful men who favor the free market of capitalism.

    Spend a few days at Heartiste among the race threads and see if you can verify that. It is pure Neo-Nazi ideology with a huge does of goddess-worship :

    a) Jews are root of evil (and somehow not white)
    b) Free trade is bad. Protectionism is good.
    c) Successful whites should share their resources with WNs.

    suffering a host of medical problems,

    Wrong. Greater genetic diversity actually cures many defects. By your argument, inbreeding between first cousins would have the lowest rate of defects.

  174. Kevin says:

    This thread has been everywhere.

    @Anon
    Closely knit genetic groups that interbreed have very little genetic defects – after about 2 generations. Lots of problems when it starts, then rate of genetic defects goes way down.

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    Even Bill Clinton wanted safe and rare – now we will celebrate it! Oh man, we are much closer to the goddess death cult than I would have guessed. A sick sick culture.

    @Just a Regular Guy
    One of the guys who did the gay gene research that hit all the new magazines in the 1990s was proven to have falsified his research. I did a paper on it in college. Every single news source in the world covered the first story, I think I found one that covered his being a fraud. May have it wrong – I am getting old.

    @Lost Patrol
    That feminist dad is just sad, but even most men who think they are not feminist act the same. All their daughters need to play sports, be tough, and get their college degrees.

  175. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Wrong. Greater genetic diversity actually cures many defects. By your argument, inbreeding between first cousins would have the lowest rate of defects.

    That doesn’t make any sense. By your logic, the whole science of animal husbandry would have been abandoned millennia ago. We should perhaps start breeding collies with chihuahua, quarter horses with clydesdales, until there’s no specialization anywhere.

    Boxer

  176. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    By your logic, the whole science of animal husbandry would have been abandoned millennia ago. We should perhaps start breeding collies with chihuahua, quarter horses with clydesdales, until there’s no specialization anywhere.

    That is not the same thing at all. A domesticated animal bred for specializations by an overlord species (humans) that does not care if the descendant creatures have astigmatism or relatively lower intelligence, is completely different from the fact that human inbreeding multiplies genetic defects that are considered medical disadvantages in humans. Maybe a Clydesdale does have a lower intelligence than a wild mustang, but we don’t measure it nor does it matter for human purposes.

    Plus, the claim that ‘interracial’ breeding causes defects should indicate that the entire populations of Latin America, the Caucasus, and Central Asia have these defects, because those entire regions are filled with ‘mixed-race’ people based on the US definitions of race (which are of course very US-centric). They have been ‘mixed-race’ for centuries.

  177. Boxer says:

    That is not the same thing at all. A domesticated animal bred for specializations by an overlord species (humans) that does not care if the descendant creatures have astigmatism or relatively lower intelligence, is completely different from the fact that human inbreeding multiplies genetic defects that are considered medical disadvantages in humans.

    We are domestic animals, and we bred ourselves for thousands of years. There’s really very little difference.

    Plus, the claim that ‘interracial’ breeding causes defects should indicate that the entire populations of Latin America, the Caucasus, and Central Asia have these defects, because those entire regions are filled with ‘mixed-race’ people based on the US definitions of race (which are of course very US-centric). They have been ‘mixed-race’ for centuries.

    Be careful that you don’t strike down any straw men. Quote me if you think I’ve made such an argument.

    You seem to be alluding to hybrid vigor. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) The dudes that know about such stuff keep the genetically original races of tomatoes and cattle around for reference, even when they use it, and for good reason. All the benefits tend to disappear in the second generation, and what you get with a repeatedly mixed specimen is the lowest common denominator.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=nAOYB6MNkQQC&pg=SA3-PA62&lpg=SA3-PA62&dq=hybrid+vigor+disappears+in+subsequent+generations&source=bl&ots=AlQVglcgLh&sig=R_dFSAfOECVgcYCntgSSO2n68_s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixzZiq1uXOAhVL4iYKHXATA8kQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=hybrid%20vigor%20disappears%20in%20subsequent%20generations&f=false

    Best,

    Boxer

  178. Anon says:

    Be careful that you don’t strike down any straw men. Quote me if you think I’ve made such an argument.

    That was more for Bob, rather than Boxer.

    Bob is making an absurd claim, simply because there are entire regions, full of many nations of people, who are mixtures of two or more races (that too based on US definitions of race, which themselves often change).

    The notion that an interracial offspring is full of defects would imply that entire nations like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Spain, Greece, etc. have genetic defects across their entire population.

  179. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Thanks for clarifying…

    Bob is making an absurd claim, simply because there are entire regions, full of many nations of people, who are mixtures of two or more races (that too based on US definitions of race, which themselves often change).

    Such claims are founded upon the silly notion that human beings have no mating preferences. In fact, we’re hard wired to breed ourselves into specialization — the evidence of this is extant around the world.

    I mean, really… isn’t this whole area of the internet dedicated to the subversive notion that women won’t have sex with just any and everyone?

    The notion that an interracial offspring is full of defects would imply that entire nations like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Spain, Greece, etc. have genetic defects across their entire population.

    Such regions, filled with mixtures of two or more races, eventually become specialized into a single homogenous race. Even an area filled with lowest-common-denominator humanity will eventually breed itself into something unique.

    History suggests that the British Isles were full of all manner of different people at the collapse of Roman influence. By the 1600s, there were basically two genotypically unique peoples there. It’s also clear that all the “races” people hold up as examples today are mixtures of various prior races of people (including non-human species, like Neanderthal and Denisovan).

    As a hardcore race-mixer (Brother Boxer likes black chickies, though not exclusively) I suppose Bob will find me a lost cause, and discount everything I say, which is fine, but a basic knowledge of biology and history will suggest I’m right, if he cares to do a bit of reading.

    Boxer

  180. Anon says:

    Such regions, filled with mixtures of two or more races, eventually become specialized into a single homogenous race.

    Yes. New ethnicities form in relatively short times. ‘Mexicans’ are a new ethnicity, comprised of 4 difference ‘races’ (based on US definitions of race) : Whites, Amerindians, blacks, and Arabs (the Spanish being a mixture of Franco-Europeans and North African Arabs). Are we to believe that Mexicans as an entire ethnicity suffer from ‘a host of medical problems’, as Bob claims?

    Is the same true for Cubans? Brazilians? Colombians? Turks? Armenians? Russians (who are most assuredly not ‘white’ in an Anglo-Saxon sense but rather a hybrid of whites and Mongols)?. Basically, there are wide bands that don’t fit into the tight little buckets of American race definitions..

  181. “Science” and theology have similar issues in that so often their practitioners stray so far afield as to be self-contradictory.
    Thus, “scientists” no longer practice Science, and “theologians” no longer practice Theology.

  182. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “We are domestic animals, and we bred ourselves for thousands of years.”

    Hey, monkey, want a banana?

  183. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Hey, monkey, want a banana?

    We’re all aware that you’re incapable of understanding the weightier concepts that are bandied about. Try not to let your inferiority complex interfere with the productive discussions others are having. lol

    Best,

    Boxer

  184. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “We’re all aware that you’re incapable of understanding the weightier concepts that are bandied about. Try not to let your inferiority complex interfere with the productive discussions others are having. lol”

    Inferiority complex? Says the guy who claimed that we are all animals.
    So Boxer what type of understanding of weightier concepts can an animal have other that its base instincts?

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin

    Even Darwin could not answer this one so I would like to hear your point of view.

  185. Boxer says:

    Dear Linx:

    Even Darwin could not answer this one so I would like to hear your point of view.

    Well, we inherit things from our parents, you know? Like, for example, how you’re incapable of understanding abstract concepts, but that you’re capable of typing, and of seeking attention online. That puts you somewhere around IQ 85.

    I would guess that both your father and your mother are around the same level of cognitive ability. Basically your mom was an omega female, and she could only attract a substandard man like your father to sex up, which resulted in her children being similarly substandard.

    It’s also possible that your mother was a prostitute, and your father was a retard who paid her. You’ll tell me which…

    In any event, this is how human breeding works. It’s been going on for thousands of years, and ends up producing specialized subspecies. We pass on our traits to our children, who pass them on to theirs. Neat, huh?😀

    Best,

    Boxer

  186. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Red Pill Latecomer [August 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm] shared a report about some drivellous project currently underway to “normalize” abortion:

    We testify that our spirituality and abortion are one …

    Actually, I can totally believe that.

    What difference is there, really, between cutting your newborn child’s throat by moonlight in some woodland grove, to propitiate vaguely-identified heathen “gods” — on the one hand — and slicing up your almost-but-not-quite-yet-born child into just so much fetus-burger by fluorescent light in some euphemistically-named “clinic”, to propitiate an oblivious sexual “convenience” — on the other hand?

    Meanwhile, hasn’t “free” access to abortion been The Law (i.e., by definition, normative, hence “normal”), everywhere in the West, since the mid-1970s?

    Curiously, the word they are looking for is almost certainly “legitimize”.

    Gosh, it’s almost as if they understand, however dimly, that there might Higher Laws in operation here that don’t give a rat’s @$$ what The Law of The Land™ might be on any given day.

    Call it Divine Law if you want, or call it “No Civilization Can Survive By Systematically Murdering The Next Generation”, instead, if you think religion isn’t worth anything more than a bucket of warm piss, but, hey: there it is.

    Unfortunately for them and for their “let’s sing our way to moral legitimacy” normalizing strategy, Higher Law doesn’t go away. Ever.

    Nah, whom am I fooling here?

    Of course they’re right:

    Obviously, if through song and flashing lights you can convince enough people that mass abortion is ‘normal’, then that will mean that it no longer has any moral, demographic, economic or civilizational consequences. Obviously.

    </sarc>

  187. Linx says:

    @ Boxer

    Wow. You took all that time to write that whole ad hominem for little old me. Not only that you dragged my parents into it as well. Getting desperate are we?

    To bad that you didn’t you actually try and answer the simple question.

  188. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Wow. You took all that time to write that whole ad hominem for little old me. Not only that you dragged my parents into it as well. Getting desperate are we?

    That’s another big word you use without understanding: ad hominem. It would be against the man if it were untrue. As we both know, it’s not.

    It is a fact that you are motivated not by the desire to have an authentic dialogue, but merely angst. Your every bitchy comments say 1. that your life sucks, and 2. that you’re not very intelligent.

    To bad that you didn’t you actually try and answer the simple question.

    If you read my responses with a dictionary, it might help.

    Best,

    Boxer

  189. Linx says:

    @Boxer.

    “That’s another big word you use without understanding: ad hominem. It would be against the man if it were untrue. As we both know, it’s not.”

    Well how do you know? You are yet to explain to me how your views differ from those of Darwin.

    “It is a fact that you are motivated not by the desire to have an authentic dialogue, but merely angst. Your every bitchy comments say 1. that your life sucks, and 2. that you’re not very intelligent.”

    All I did asked you a question which you have hard time answering.

    “If you read my responses with a dictionary, it might help.”

    Seems you might have missed it so I will ask again
    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin

    What type of understanding of weightier concepts can an animal have other that its base instincts?

  190. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Well how do you know? You are yet to explain to me how your views differ from those of Darwin.

    I come here to have serious discussions with people who can teach me something. You have amply proven, in this thread, that you’re a liar who enjoys libeling people for attention. Your responses also suggest that you don’t even understand the topics you want to argue about (lol).

    There is a reason that you’re generally ignored, both here and in real life. If you took the time to read your own material and introspect, you might be able to change that; but, I don’t think you’ve got the balls.

    Best,

    Boxer

  191. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “You have amply proven, in this thread, that you’re a liar who enjoys libeling people for attention.”
    You just made a moral statement with” liar”. Where in the animal world is morality found?

    “Your responses also suggest that you don’t even understand the topics you want to argue about (lol).”
    Since when is asking a question an argument? Seems you don’t understand the difference between the two.

    “There is a reason that you’re generally ignored, both here and in real life.”
    Aww Snap!!!
    I really didn’t know that this some or other popularity contest blog. You know this being a male and not a female site it never crossed my mind that we need group approval for validation. With me having an inferiority complex I and all really need to pay attention to these things. My bad.

    “If you took the time to read your own material and introspect, you might be able to change that; but, I don’t think you’ve got the balls.”
    Like you being unable to answer a question by me based on a statement you made?

    So should I then take it that you can’t counter the quote by Darwin?

  192. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    You do realise that [Boxer] associates with the Frankfurt School which is Marxist in nature and the catalyst to the feminist movement. All he is doing is applying the Hegelian dialect.

    I wish I could append this as a signature to all my posts here. It’s probably the funniest lie anyone has told about me since ol’ Rob Fedders had his epic kook-fest here.

    Keep yapping. I’ll be back later to see your fine work on my behalf!

    Best,

    Boxer

  193. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    And I will be here waiting for your answers to my questions.

    ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’ – Wily Munzenberg
    Was Eric Fromm also not an advocate of matriarchal theory?
    How about
    “First, that the influence of home is obstructive.
    Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten.
    Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.
    Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
    Bertrand Russell

  194. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    And I will be here waiting for your answers to my questions.

    You’ve spent two days obsessively interrupting meaningful conversations, begging for my attention by telling (ever more outrageous) lies about me.

    Do you really think I’m going to waste any time with a scumbag like you, other than to point and laugh?

    Boxer

  195. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    “Keep yapping. I’ll be back later to see your fine work on my behalf!”
    That was fast.

    “You’ve spent two days obsessively interrupting meaningful conversations, begging for my attention by telling (ever more outrageous) lies about me.”

    You started talking to me Boxer. And again you are making moral statement of something that you claim is a wrong without any authority of where it is found in the animal kingdom. You are arguing science and borrowing from theology. Also you might want to read the works of the people I mentioned in my previous post🙂. The one who was lied to was you my dear friend.

    “Do you really think I’m going to waste any time with a scumbag like you, other than to point and laugh?”

    Might that be because you can’t answer the questions? This is a tread about science and theology.

  196. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    @ Linx (misc. times vs. Boxer):

    Our resident Jesuit-trained, lapsed-LDS PUA is being, I think, a little cruel to you. Sort of like a cat toying with a mouse it has caught.

    Perhaps you will understand why he won’t take the worthwhile things you might be saying seriously, if you take a look at this link: dialect; and this link: dialectic, and also probably this link; and then consider whether or not some of the things you are saying might — just maybe — be having their seriousness contaminated by the less credible things you are sometimes writing.

    Also, the Hegelian Dialectic is meant to be descriptive, whereas the Marxist tw@ts who expropriated it use it as if it were proscriptive, which it ain’t, and so “Marxists” are Hegelians in approximately the same sense that scorpions are animals. Scorpions have a poison sting in their tails, therefore all animals are poisonous? I think not. In fact, probably “plastic scorpion”, since Marxists are heretical within Hegelian thought — … But probably I am getting well ahead of the conversation with this final paragraph.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  197. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Might that be because you can’t answer the questions? This is a tread about science and theology.

    Yes, of course. It’s about science and theology, until you want to libel people as being feminists.

    Incidentally, Yac-Yac has given you a pretty cogent starting point for you to learn about the things you’ve been pretending to lecture on. I hope you’ll take this bit of graciousness seriously and pay attention to the details. I wouldn’t want to think you were just here to sow discord and waste time. That’s what feminists do, when they show up, after all.

    Best,

    Boxer

  198. Linx says:

    @Yac Yac
    Thank you for highlighting my mistyping. Being multilingual does have its drawbacks sometimes. However I doubt that that is why he isn’t answering my questions.

    Is this your issue Boxer?

  199. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    Where did I call you a feminist?

  200. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Is this your issue Boxer?

    You’re trying to personalize things again. Since it’s clear you don’t want to talk about meaningful stuff, but are only here to make personal attacks, I have to wonder as to your motivations.

    Are you here for attention, or is it something about this blog and its content that you disagree with?

    Best,

    Boxer

  201. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Where did I call you a feminist?

    Apparently you forgot what you posted 24 hours ago? No matter. It’s right here:

    You do realise that [Boxer] associates with the Frankfurt School which is Marxist in nature and the catalyst to the feminist movement. All he is doing is applying the Hegelian dialect.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/science-vs-theology/#comment-217056

    Again, since you seem to only enter conversations around these parts to personally attack people who are discussing stuff, I wonder if you could explain your motivations. Is it just that you want to bicker with strangers, or do you have some agenda to disrupt the blog?

    Not that I care, mind you. I’m just curious.

    Best,

    Boxer

  202. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    Read again.
    I said you associate with the Frankfurt School, which you do [not a lie]. And IT was a catalyst to feminism [not a lie]. So where did I say “Boxer is a feminist” ?

  203. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    Read again.
    I said you associate with the Frankfurt School, which you do [not a lie]. And IT was a catalyst to feminism [not a lie]. So where did I say “Boxer is a feminist” ?

    Setting aside the fact that “Frankfurt School” hasn’t existed for about thirty years, in any iteration, the real question (which I note with amusement you refuse to answer) is why you showed up to tell these odd lies.

    Again: Why do you interrupt men who are discussing meaningful stuff, sowing discord and mistrust into the conversations here? What motivates you to behave this way?

    Best,

    Boxer

  204. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    You can’t show it then? So no lie!

    “Setting aside the fact that “Frankfurt School” hasn’t existed for about thirty years, in any iteration, the real question (which I note with amusement you refuse to answer) is why you showed up to tell these odd lies.”

    Are you sure? So the Institute for Social Research (ISR) doesn’t ring a bell for you. Might want to do some more reading then.

    “Again: Why do you interrupt men who are discussing meaningful stuff, sowing discord and mistrust into the conversations here? What motivates you to behave this way?”

    This is a blog where men talk with each other is it not. Dalrock thus far has not asked me to leave so who are you to dictate what I can or can not talk about? Btw how is calling others animals meaningful?

  205. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    This is a blog where men talk with each other is it not. Dalrock thus far has not asked me to leave so who are you to dictate what I can or can not talk about? Btw how is calling others animals meaningful?

    LOL! Nice attempt at a red herring!

    My question remains: what motivates you to try to sow discord and confusion here? That is all you’ve been doing, and it’s very curious, no?

    Boxer

  206. Linx says:

    @Boxer

    “My question remains: what motivates you to try to sow discord and confusion here? That is all you’ve been doing, and it’s very curious, no?”

    No, your question does not because you are yet to prove that I sowed discord and confusion. Your personal opinion does not equal fact.
    My question however is based on a statement that you made and you have not answered it by using a raft of red herrings to avoid it.

  207. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky Linx:

    No, your question does not because you are yet to prove that I sowed discord and confusion. Your personal opinion does not equal fact.

    So, you disrupted my conversation with ray, yesterday, by telling funny lies about me; but, you didn’t do it to sow discord and confusion. You did it for some other reason, which you refuse to explain or expound upon.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/science-vs-theology/#comment-217056

    Then you appeared again, today, to repeat the process with my conversation with Anon.

    Tomorrow you’ll do it again, probably to someone else, since you’ve been spanked pretty hard. You won’t tell us what your motivations are, but you can assure us they’re pure, and anyone who questions them is an idiot.

    Sounds, like, totally legit.

    Boxer

  208. Linx says:

    @Boxer
    “So, you disrupted my conversation with ray, yesterday, by telling funny lies about me; but, you didn’t do it to sow discord and confusion. You did it for some other reason, which you refuse to explain or expound upon.”

    What lie?

    “Then you appeared again, today, to repeat the process with my conversation with Anon.”

    Are your statements beyond reproach? This is a blog after all.

    “Tomorrow you’ll do it again, probably to someone else, since you’ve been spanked pretty hard.”

    By whom have I been spanked?

    “You won’t tell us what your motivations are, but you can assure us they’re pure, and anyone who questions them is an idiot.”

    Motivations? All I did was ask a question? Why do you have such a problem with my question. It is based on a statement by you. Or are you statements not to be questioned in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable?

  209. Hmm says:

    Dal – about time for a new post, no? Let Boxer and Lynx have what’s left of this meta.

  210. Boxer says:

    Off Topic:

    Here’s a prize catch of a (wo)man, looking for love. May be of interest to some in this comments section. (lol)

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/hes-looking-for-love/

    The sexual marketplace becomes more interesting by the day, I sweartagawd.

    Boxer

  211. Anon says:

    Dal – about time for a new post, no? Let Boxer and Lynx have what’s left of this meta.

    Dalrock, like many people with school-age children, may find this season to be among the busiest fortnight of the year. He’ll be back when he can…

  212. Hmm says:

    “Here’s a prize catch of a (wo)man, looking for love.”

    Not quite sure why (s)he moved to Texas – seems like one of the least congenial states for a transsexual. Except maybe Austin.

  213. Boxer says:

    Dear Hmm:

    Not quite sure why (s)he moved to Texas – seems like one of the least congenial states for a transsexual. Except maybe Austin.

    As someone told me recently, Austin is full of Californians, and they refuse to assimilate.

    That aside, I can possibly see a route of appeal. Texans are very friendly, but they’re also very respectful of privacy and boundaries. Such people probably wouldn’t get all upset at such a freak in public, provided he didn’t make a jackass of himself in the same sphere. He just wouldn’t get invited to any of the usual parties (to which he’d never want to go anyway).

    Boxer

  214. DeNihilist says:

    What a screwed up country. Bringing in thousands of rapists and conversely trying to help cucked husbands.

    My head is spinning!

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/29/berlin-require-mums-come-clean-milkmens-kids/

  215. Anon says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/29/berlin-require-mums-come-clean-milkmens-kids/

    What is wrong with that? It appears some legislators in Berlin actually think cuckolding is wrong (and will thus incur the wrath of ‘feminist’ butt-sluts). What is there to oppose in this law.

  216. DeNihilist says:

    Anon, nothing is wrong with THAT law. But is this country schizo or what? They are importing thousands of rapists on one hand, then are trying to protect the cucks on another.

  217. Anon says:

    But is this country schizo or what? They are importing thousands of rapists on one hand, then are trying to protect the cucks on another.

    As opposed to America, where they import thousands of rapists on one hand, and legalize and normalize cuckolding on the other.

    I fail to see how America is better.

  218. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anon and DeNihilist

    From the article

    The measure would allow men who were duped into paying to support a child to demand compensation from the biological father for a period of up to two years.
    […]
    It was not immediately clear what penalties a woman who refused to unmask the biological father would face.

    Well as long as it a man who pays for her lies…

  219. Feminist Hater says:

    And only up to two years? The charade can and does often go on for far longer than that.

  220. Opus says:

    It would seem that the readers of the Mail agree with the Theologians rather than the Scientists. I tend to agree with the scientists but then it is always easier for women to garner male interest. I am thus reminded of the wife of one of my friendly acquaintances (was she trying to line me up?) who told me that she had never since the age of fifteen been so much as one day without a boyfriend/partner/husband. Her latest Facebook photo – plunging neckline – suggests to me that she may once again be lining someone up indeed there is one Mangina cooing that it is a ‘lovely picture’ to which she in turn thanks him mentioning his christian name as she does so. He is married with children however so perhaps she needs to try something even more dramatic.

    For myself I have come to the realisation that I believe very little of what Scientists pronounce upon, and thus although I am not exactly a believer in Theology either the theologians do have less to be wrong about – and on a far more challenging subject.

  221. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Cuckolding is in fact very serious. It comes under the category of ניאוף. The definition of adultery in the Torah is sexual intercourse with a married woman or a betrothed woman by anyone other than her husband. It makes the woman forbidden to her husband. The children are ממזרים bastards, [and can not marry an Israelite woman]. If the act is done in front of two witnesses there is the death penalty for both the adulterer and adulteress.

  222. Ken says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/29/germany-to-force-women-to-disclose-if-children-are-from-an-affai/

    Germany to force women to name biological father of ‘cuckoo children’

    Women in Germany could be forced to reveal the names of the biological fathers of their children under a proposed new law.

    The controversial [why?] measure will force women to divulge acts of adultery or infidelity during a relationship.

    It has already been dubbed the “Cuckoo Kids’ Law” by the German press, after the German phrase for children concieved in adultery, Kuckuckskindern — the equivalent of “milkmen’s kids” in English.

    Heiko Maas, the justice minister, said the law, which will be presented to Angela Merkel’s cabinet on Wednesday, would make it easier to resolve who was responsible for paying child support.
    “We need to offer more legal protection for ‘sham fathers’’ fathers to seek recourse”Interior minister Heiko Maas

    Women will be obliged to name “the man who was present at the moment of conception” on request of a partner who is paying child support, according to a draft released by the justice ministry.

    “We need to offer more legal protection for ‘sham fathers’ to seek recourse,” Mr Maas said.

    “The mother should only have the right to remain silent when there are serious reasons for her not to name the biological father.”

  223. Boxer says:

    Well as long as it a man who pays for her lies…

    I think it’s a healthy and necessary legislative move back toward sanity. I’m sure I’d find it amusing to read future manosphere stories about the weird cuckold fetishists, who occasionally show up bragging about banging married hoes.

    “The mother should only have the right to remain silent when there are serious reasons for her not to name the biological father.” … A court would determine if the reasons sufficed for her to keep the father’s true name a secret.

    Unfortunately, this line renders the whole thing a farce.

    Boxer

  224. DeNihilist says:

    Well Boxer, politico’s are above all laws, right?

  225. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Dropping another link for a story idea.

    This one, I will be writing a post on. Somebody needs to slap these people, hard.

    http://family-studies.org/the-legacy-of-the-libertarian-sexual-ethic/

  226. PuffyJacket says:

    Yep, it’s a “do nothing” law as Boxer notes. And not just due to ambiguity in the wording.

    The mother has about as much incentive to find the real father as OJ has to find the “real” killer (since she is not held accountable for arrears). She may become hysterical or spiteful, employ the ostrich defense, etc.

    And that’s assuming the victim has rolled the dice and somehow drew a non-mangina judge. In other words, the number of men likely to be helped in any significant by the law is approximately zero.

  227. ProperlyBasic says:

    Hey Dalrock, long time lurker, first time poster, yada yada yada. Friend sent the following to me and it is right up your alley (Focus on the Family and First Things no less!)

    https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/why-man-and-woman-are-not-equal

    Thanks for your measured and insightful critiques on our culture. It has helped me immensely as a man brought up in a secular, liberal femminist home and living in a religious, conservative femminist Christian culture.

  228. Boxer says:

    The mother has about as much incentive to find the real father as OJ has to find the “real” killer (since she is not held accountable for arrears). She may become hysterical or spiteful, employ the ostrich defense, etc.

    Present company aside (love you Opus – nohomo) this is yet another reason I feel comfortable adopting the Shakespearean attitude toward practitioners of the legal arts. There are always these weasel-scented “outs” in most good legislation.

    The strict abortion law in Louisiana had to be modified in the Bill Clinton era (circa 1990s), to allow for abortion on demand due to “health of the mother”. The mangina governor only lifted his veto after that rider was jammed in there. That law is still on the books, and abortions actually have increased in the 20 years since it passed. All princess has to do is get a note from a quack, apparently, and she gets a pass to kill her kid, which isn’t practically any different from the abortion-on-demand law that existed prior.

    This crap happens so often that it’s become a weird sort of comedy.

    Boxer

  229. Anon says:

    This crap happens so often that it’s become a weird sort of comedy.

    Oh, it is essential grease to keep the cuckservatives lubed up.

    In 1996, welfare was replaced with something far more abusive to the father – child support with no custody guarantee AND income imputation. Cuckservatives hailed this as a victory for the right, since ‘welfare ended’. In reality, even more money is flowing to irresponsible sluts, except that it is at gunpoint through imputation from the father. The taxpayer STILL subsidizes this, since CS is not taxed as it flows to the mother, while it is drawn from the after-tax income of the father.

    This is what the cuckservatives call their greatest victory against big government socialism – something far more cruel and redistributive than what was there before.

  230. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The strict abortion law in Louisiana had to be modified in the Bill Clinton era (circa 1990s), to allow for abortion on demand due to “health of the mother”.

    The physical health of the mother is a legitimate exception.

    The problem is that “health of the mother” has been interpreted, in most (all?) jurisdictions to include the emotional, mental or psychological health of the mother. A loophole big enough to guarantee abortion on demand.

  231. mrteebs says:

    OT, but in the headlines…

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/30/dr-keith-ablow-why-do-men-like-anthony-weiner-keep-sexting-even-when-it-destroys-their-lives.html

    Guaranteed that this entire article is going to draw a firestorm of shrieking about victim-blaming, with #3 getting special hysterics.

    Guaranteed.

  232. Boxer says:

    Dear RPL:

    The problem is that “health of the mother” has been interpreted, in most (all?) jurisdictions to include the emotional, mental or psychological health of the mother. A loophole big enough to guarantee abortion on demand.

    That’s exactly right.

    Mind you, I’m one of the liberal ones (by our standards). I’d not look askance at a woman who gets an abortion because she might have legitimate emotional distress or mental illness. I’d also not care if a woman aborted a baby that was going to die anyway, or one that was going to be retarded, or one that was going to have a painful deformity or chronic illness. All these things are legit, in my view.

    It only takes a bit of research to uncover the truth. The vast majority of abortions don’t fall into any of these categories. They are given to irresponsible idiots who don’t want to be inconvenienced. Killing a healthy and viable baby is preferable, for these scumbags, to missing out on a few months of random, drunken, no-strings bareback sex.

    Moreover, most of them have no remorse after the fact. There are youtube videos of these degenerates celebrating and boasting about it.

    http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/

    And that, my brothers, is the sad reality, behind all the shitlib doubletalk.

  233. Gunner Q says:

    Mr Teebs,

    I like #1 too. “We are only now beginning to understand just how little restraint many people can exercise over electronically communicating in ways they should not…”

  234. Anon says:

    Oh, the CS laws are so horrendously akin to slavery, that abortion by the mother becomes the better choice for the father.

    If the child is not aborted, the man will be enslaved for 23 years under penalty of imprisonment, and with imputation of income. If he falls behind even the imputed level, he is jailed. He cannot see his child, and the mother does not spend the money on the child either.

    Cuckservatives have made the choice between abortion and slavery of the father. Sadly, that means many abortions did in fact prevent enslavement of the father.

    Hence, due to cuckservative misandry, they have ensured that to be anti-abortion is to be pro-slavery, at least as the Bradley Amendment and other laws exist. So opposing abortion is inseparable from being pro-slavery of the biological father.

  235. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Hence, due to cuckservative misandry, they have ensured that to be anti-abortion is to be pro-slavery, at least as the Bradley Amendment and other laws exist. So opposing abortion is inseparable from being pro-slavery of the biological father.

    You’re correct in theory; but, is pro-slavery for irresponsible morons a bad thing?

    Of course, I’m not speaking here about married men who got divorce raped, despite doing their best. I’m talking about the cuck fetishists who occasionally show up on manosphere blogs, boasting about having bareback sex with married sluts, and letting a good man father their offspring. I’m also talking about playas who don’t have the foresight to protect themselves.

    How many women have you had sex with? I’m guessing 1000+. Do you have any illegitimate kids? I didn’t think so. Neither do I. I also don’t have AIDS, Herpes, HPV or drug resistant chlamydia. It ain’t rocket science.

    Why should I care any more about irresponsible men, than irresponsible women? In a healthy society, they wouldn’t be allowed to have kids in the first place, but we’re not quite there yet.

    Best,

    Boxer

  236. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Why should I care any more about irresponsible men, than irresponsible women?

    I guess we don’t know what proportion are irresponsible men (who are still not as irresponsible as their female interlocutor), vs. what proportion are men who are the victims of a deliberate oops pregnancy. There are a huge number of women who fake pregnancy tests as well, just to get a 23-year income stream.

    41% of all babies in America are born out of wedlock now (and even ‘wedlock’ can mean later divorce). Some may be irresponsible men, but surely not the majority.

  237. feeriker says:

    Of course, I’m not speaking here about married men who got divorce raped, despite doing their best. I’m talking about the cuck fetishists who occasionally show up on manosphere blogs, boasting about having bareback sex with married sluts, and letting a good man father their offspring. I’m also talking about playas who don’t have the foresight to protect themselves.

    The problem is that the law doesn’t recognize any distinction between these two types of men.

  238. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A man is financially liable for the child till age 23? I guess I wasn’t paying attention. Last I heard, it was only until the child was 18.

  239. Anon says:

    A man is financially liable for the child till age 23? I guess I wasn’t paying attention. Last I heard, it was only until the child was 18.

    It varies by state, but the limit is 19-23. The mother needs money for longer, you know. There is still no standard that requires the mother to prove she is spending the money on the child.

    Obamacare has started the process of getting CS extended up to age 26 (since age 26 is the definition of ‘dependent’ now).

    Yes, women having the right to vote is simply not compatible with a free, just, and prosperous society.

  240. Boxer says:

    A man is financially liable for the child till age 23? I guess I wasn’t paying attention. Last I heard, it was only until the child was 18.

    In the USA, such things vary widely by state. In the American state where I used to live, it was quite common for child support to be extended past 18, to include the years in which such a child went to college – up to the child’s mid 20s.

    The question immediately arises as to why, when the child has moved out of the mother’s house and is off at college, the father would be paying his ex-wife anything, given that her adult child now doesn’t even live with her. It’s sadly typical that the father will be paying his ex wife *and* his kid, out of his own pockets during this period – actually increasing his bill, while leaving his child worse off (the money wasted on ex-wife could be going to the kid, after all).

    I’ve asked that question of divorce attorneys and politicians myself, and always got a lot of hemming and hawing with no good answers. The real answer, as we all know, is because it made mangina legislators feel special to pass this stupid law.

    Best

    Boxer

  241. Micha Elyi says:

    The title of this post, “Science vs theology”, makes no sense. Theology is a science.

  242. Micha Elyi says:

    The “women dress more sexy when they are ovulating” scenario has been thoroughly debunked by more rigorous studies…
    DeNihilist

    Show your work. Identify these “more rigorous studies”.

  243. Original Laura says:

    @Boxer

    Some states allow child support to continue into the 20s if the child is enrolled in college full time, but in other states child support usually ends when the child turns 18 or graduates from high school, whichever comes later, as most people turn 18 before graduation.

    “Child support” for the college years makes no legal sense. You are forcing one able-bodied adult to support another.

    As to the new law in Germany, the exceptions are definitely going to swallow the law. Paternity tests have gotten fast enough and cheap enough that they should be performed routinely before either party signs the birth certificate. Even with better precautions in place, hospitals still sometimes hand a baby to the wrong family.

    My cousin’s husband signed up to a DNA testing website that allows you to find other people who share a lot of your DNA. He had quite a bit of fun with it. It will soon be very difficult for certain secrets to be kept. Adoptees in particular are going to be able to find their birth families even if the birth parents don’t desire a reunion.

  244. Anon says:

    Paternity tests have gotten fast enough and cheap enough that they should be performed routinely before either party signs the birth certificate.

    Expect ‘feminists’ to fight tooth and talons against this, despite how thoroughly their position destroys the fabric of society (indeed that is their favorite part). Expect cuckservatives to sheepishly align with them.

  245. Gunner Q says:

    “The title of this post, “Science vs theology”, makes no sense. Theology is a science.”

    Science is observation and experimentation. God rarely cooperates with that. Not all truth comes from science; the classic example is the study of history.

  246. Some Rain Would Be Nice says:

    Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Naturalism is “observation and experimentation.”

    Theology and history are both sciences, while biology, chemistry, physics, etc, are in the sub-set called natural sciences. Naturalists do not own the term “science”… that lets them pretend that they are dispassionate searchers for “truth” while religious people are mired in non-falsifiable superstition. (In my experience it’s usually the other way around, but by yielding ownership of “science” to those who specialize in the natural sciences (by restricting it to those things that may be observed), naturalists get to act like macro-evolution is not the article of faith that it is – although it has never been observed either.).

  247. feeriker says:

    There is still no standard that requires the mother to prove she is spending the money on the child.

    I wonder what the law would say/do if, at some point during the child’s adolescent years, Dad opened up a bank account for his child and began having the CS money deposited to that account. While I’m sure that the law varies by state, if the CS money went into an account that only Dad and junior had access to (NEVER allow Mom access unless the courts demand it in a writ), Mom’s thieving mitts are kept off of the money and it actually goes to junior himself for junior’s benefit.

  248. feeriker says:

    Expect ‘feminists’ to fight tooth and talons against this, despite how thoroughly their position destroys the fabric of society (indeed that is their favorite part). Expect cuckservatives to sheepishly align with them.

    It goes without saying that that is exactly how things will play out.

  249. Siafu says:

    @ White

    this is not the place to be red-pilled. Go to SouthernIsraelite’s youtube channel or his blog and read his books and watch his videos. It will change an honest man’s life, whether you need a red pill for women, science, christianity or politics.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s