Merry Christmas

I’ll be turning on moderation in a few hours.  I’ll be back some time with a new post next week.  Merry Christmas everyone!

12/29:  Moderation is now off.  I don’t know when I’ll have a new post up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Merry Christmas

  1. Pingback: Merry Christmas | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Cane Caldo says:

    Merry Christmas, Dalrock.

  3. Merry Christmas to one & all!

  4. Ben Sake says:

    Merry Christmas, Dalrock + All. God bless you all.

  5. feeriker says:

    Merry Christmas to you too, Dalrock, and to all who gather here!

  6. Lost Patrol says:

    Missed again! I’m putting it here. Merry Christmas Dalrock and all the Merry Gentlemen.

    Giorgio Tozzi – God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen – no vid

  7. Gunner Q says:

    LOOT! I mean, Merry Christmas!

  8. pukeko60 says:

    Merry Christmas, D.

  9. Pingback: Merry Christmas | Reaction Times

  10. BillyS says:

    A very Merry Christmas to all!

  11. Feminist Hater says:

    Merry Christmas! Praise be to our Lord and blessings on your family this season. Have a great day, Dalrock, and thank you for a blog that allows us to continue our debates, disagreements and outright rants but always is on point. Thank you for being a genuine Christian that stands for God and his word, even if we disagree on other issues.

    Take care!

  12. Spike says:

    Merry Christmas to all. Thanks Dalrock for another year of Red Pill, Godly Truth

  13. desiderian says:

    Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

    Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

  14. MarcusD says:

    Merry Christmas, everyone!

  15. Damn Crackers says:

    Hope all had a good Christmas. See you on Three Kings Day!

  16. Gunner Q says:

    Spent some of my Christmas cash on a private lesson at the fighting gym in my relatives’ town. I’m in good shape from my kickboxing but new perspectives are always interesting. “Here, swing this heavy rope for a minute.” Forty seconds later and *puke*. Just when I get the ability to kick vegans in the face while standing, I discover whole new sets of muscle groups to work on. Fun times!

    It’s better to give than receive (this must be why fruitcakes are a thing) but best of all to be grateful for what you have. How are you guys doing with your gifts?

  17. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/12/25) - Social Matter

  18. Gunner Q says:

    Spectacular find, Wood Chipper! From Piper’s article:
    “…I think she was talking at Urbana when she said this, “Miss Aylward talked to the Lord about her singleness. She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.” I can’t forget the next line. Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”

    Hahahaaa! Dear God, I an a no-nonsense, very direct and straightforward woman who submits to you. Therefore, I demand you fly an English husband out here to China and propose marriage to me as if he had a choice. Oh noes! He DID have a choice and preferred porn to me! How DARE that little man disobey me! I mean, disobey you, God, because I believe you do what I tell you to. I must now reluctantly turn to my noble savages for comfort. It’s all my husband’s fault for not being my husband!

    If only I had his name, I would call him out on his sin during my public speeches!

  19. Chinco says:

    Dalrock, you have to check out Bridget Jones’ baby. Wow! Not even divorce porn, it’s spinster porn!

    43 year old singleton Bridget Jones gets pregnant and doesn’t know which of 2 one-night stands is the father. The two men, one a billionaire(!), the other a barrister she has long loved, compete for her. They compete to see who is more beta, who can judge her promiscuity less, who can support her pregnancy harder, and who would be most willing to cuckhold himself and raise the other man’s child!

    I am one of the most red-pilled guys I know. And yet…the culture has influenced me. I found the movie funny and charming!

    I understand the desire for fantasy. I understand that the woman choosing between two men plotline is an old one.

    But the propaganda woven here is shameless to the point of ridiculousness (to me). But noxious to women…designed to mislead women into self-destructive thinking.

    I would love to read a post from you on this movie!

  20. DeNihilist says:

    Elder Carter speaks –

    “I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.”

    Der – Patriarchy!

    Seems he has left the Southern Baptists..

  21. Scott says:

    Merry Christmas!

    Anyone craving some reading during the Dalrock Christmas break:

  22. RichardP says:

    @DeNihilist: re. your link to a Carter article

    I think conversations about the “role” of women would be more productive if folks were made more aware of the two different topics that get confused as only being one topic:

    1. God created the wife to be a proper and fitting help for her husband.
    2. God created every woman to be the proper and fitting help for every man.

    I think you can find evidence in the Bible that Point 1 is true. I think you cannot find evidence in the Bible that Point 2 is true – although it seems that some folks insist that it is. They seem to think that, because Point 1 is true, that means Point 2 is true also.

    I think Carter’s article was an attempt to make the distinction between Points 1 and 2. I think it would have helped had he actually stated both of those points there like I am doing here, and then defended Point 1 while showing that the Bible doesn’t support Point 2.

  23. thedeti says:

    Merry Christmas and Happy and joyous New Year to us all.

  24. Opus says:

    Inspired by Chinco’s post I checked to see whether by chance Bridget Jones’s Baby was up on YouTube and to my amazement in wide screen and colour (but without 3D or stereo sound) it is and so I have just watched it for free!!! – I too would be interested in what Dalrock might think of it – I might add it was a massive box-office hit in England ($60 Million) but not so in America ($24 Million). Despite its charm and the wonderful photography it strikes me as morally bankrupt or in the alternative dishonest as two exceptionally handsome well-heeled men fight over this middle-aged slut. The, to my mind, telling line was Bridget’s confession to D’arcy that she had been in the habit of traveling EatPrayLove-style to distant (long-haul as she puts it) foreign locations to get laid. D’Arcy naturally saying he knows and is entirely unconcerned.

  25. Lost Patrol says:

    Spectacular find, Wood Chipper!

    Concur. So many things embedded there that are going right past Mr. Piper. I can relate.

    Equally spectacular link to the article by James Earl Carter Jr.

    Piper and Carter. The Old Guard.

  26. Dale says:

    Merry Christmas to all. May God bless Dalrock, for his work, and for providing a place of community.

  27. Mark says:

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you Mr.’D’ and to everyone else at this blog.

  28. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sorry to break the happy mood, but as it’s four days past Christmas, I figure it’s okay to get back to posting regular news items.

    Here’s yet another story about a boyfriend/stepfather who hooks up with a Strong, Independent Divorced Mom and kills her child:

    A Michigan man sat on his five-year-old stepdaughter’s chest and stabbed her to death before setting her on fire because she kept asking him for food…. McClellan is then alleged to have covered her body with sheets, poured vodka on it, and set it ablaze in the bedroom.

    Victoria, who is married to Thomas McClellan, said she was at work when her daughter was killed, and that she had argued with him prior to going to work.

    Prior to the Red Pill, I used to blame the man entirely, and see the mother as a victim. Since taking the Red Pill, I now think to ask, Why was the child’s father absent? Did the mother dump a loving, but boring, beta father, so she could hook up with this Bad Boy Thug?

  29. Lyn87 says:


    I read that article, and there’s nothing surprising about it, nor the comments that follow it.

    The story gives no details about the girl’s real father, but a little digging unearths some clues about Luna McClellan’s short life – made drastically shorter by her mother’s (Victoria McClellan or Holt, Michigan: name-and-shame time) bad decisions. Luna’s father is a man named Aaron Younger, but the current state of the internet doesn’t tell us much about him, although his Facebook page shows a guy who looks like a hippy transported in time from 1967. He does not appear to have gone past high school. At the risk of judging a book by its cover, at first glance he seems like a harmless kind of guy who could tell you where to score some good weed… and has terrible taste in women.

    A fund site was set up for Victoria McClellan of Holt, Michigan before Luna’s body was even cold, and several of the givers left comments on the site along with their donations. One of the givers named Jen Brown knows the family and wrote, “…I delighted seeing her when Robb and Paula brought her to Church…”. According to Luna’s obituary, the “Robb and Paula” she’s referring to are Robb and Paula McCay, who are Luna’s 80-something great-grandparents (apparently on the father’s side, but that’s not as certain).

    Given what we know we can make some assumptions based on probabilities. Aaron is probably a low-earning goof-ball who loved his daughter, but was ejected from her life by Victoria McClellan or Holt, Michigan so she could be with someone who gave her superior tingles. Enter one Thomas McClellan: Bad Boy.

    The same Michigan judiciary that will try Mr McClellan for Luna’s murder gave custody to Victoria McClellan of Holt, Michigan and told Aaron to stay away from her unless it’s during his scheduled visitation (as if the court has any right to tell a father when he may or may not see his own child), under threat of arrest if he – Heaven Forbid! – is there to protect 5-year-old Luna from the parade of losers her mother Victoria McClellan or Holt, Michigan brings to her bed. Apparently being stabbed to death by “this week’s daddy” – rather than being safe under the protection of her father Aaron – is “in the best interest of the child” according to Michigan family law.

    So another data-point for the statisticians reveals itself as yet-another woman persuades yet-another judge to banish yet-another father from yet-another child’s life so she can sleep with yet-another bad-boy… and yet-another tragedy ensues, triggering yet-another wave of outrage at the man and yet-another outpouring of sympathy (and donations) for the woman.

    The only things missing from the story or the comments is blame for the father…

    … and I guess that may be the one good thing: in the past people would have piled blame on the father for “not being there to protect his daughter,” but even the sheeple aren’t buying that anymore. Although the fund site was overflowing with sympathy for Victoria McClellan or Holt, Michigan, several commenters to the Daily Mail article blamed her for bringing Thomas McClellan into Luna’s life (and now death), and nobody pointed a finger at Aaron (although I didn’t see any sympathy for him, either: although his daughter was stabbed to death by his ex-wife’s current man).

    I guess it’s a start.

  30. Lyn87 says:

    Friggin’ cut-and-paste:

    Should say Victoria McClellan of Holt, Michigan.

  31. We liked to use “tragedy” for these types of events. Sadly, they aren’t. Their the statistically inevitable consequence of Evil. May the Lord rest poor Luna’s soul and that she rests in a better place.

  32. @Lyn87:

    I match your Cut & Paste prowess with my utter inability to catch homonym errors on my editing stage. *They are*.

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    TV movies — on the Lifetime, Hallmark, and even SyFy Channel — are full of Strong, Independent Single Moms who, after divorcing, find True Love with a Great Guy who loves his new stepchild as his own.

    I’m sure romance novels and chick lit are full of similar messages. Don’t like your current husband? No worries. Lots of Great Guys out there seeking an Instant Family to love as their own. Divorce your Boring Beta and find True Love and Hot Sex and a Great Dad on the second go-around! It’s easy! Happens every day!

  34. feeriker says:

    @ Joe:

    Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but I noticed this:

    I hear this stuff all the time, and my husband hears it, too.

    Followed later by this:

    He will argue with his partner (me) about whose turn it was to buy the pull-ups

    OK, woman, which is it? Is he your husband or merely your “partner?” The distinction is important in this day and age when marriage is being tossed into the trashcan and people are creating bastard children in short-term, disposable relationships in which dads are considered interchangeable props, if they’re even considered at all.

    Then again, this is HuffPo we’re talking about, so I guess we should be grateful that this article was published at all. I couldn’t access the comments, which is probably just as well.

  35. Gunner Q says:

    I saw Rogue One the other day because friends and family were all going. It was painfully obviously designed for the Asian markets. Like the parasites they are, Hollywood is looking for a new home after fouling its original one.

    But every other guy in our party liked it. Most of them aren’t even liberal. Sucks to be the only Red-Piller in the neighborhood. How did we ever end up such Philistines that a little CGI and a chick with off-the-chart Daddy Issues is a box office record-breaker? It’s like there’s a Plague of Unbelief upon the West, not just affecting politics and religion but good taste as well.

  36. Lyn87 says:


    They’re just riding the wave. The Star Wars franchise had balls when it first came out when we were kids (well, when I was a kid – I don’t know how old you are), and it was a huge hit. [NOTE] Even then we knew it was ultimately supposed to be a trilogy of trilogies with three prequels and three sequels to the original trilogy, but then it fell off the radar for a couple of decades until Episode 1 came out.

    By that time it was “nostalgia” for my generation and “new” for the next one, so they struck box office gold by doubling their target demographic (smart marketing on their part). Now all they have to do it keep phoning it in to make big bucks: geek is chic, and geeks are loyal to their superheroes to a fault.

    I didn’t intend to see it, but the other day my wife reminded me that she’s never seen any of the Star Wars flicks. We may just end up renting the whole lot of them and watching them in order of the episodes (as opposed to the order they were released). We’ll see: I’m in no hurry to watch Rogue 1.

    [NOTE] By the way, when the original movie came out it was going to be a while before I got to see it, so I read the book in the meantime. I liked the movie, but the book was better. It seems to me that once it became obvious that the movies were driving the popularity of the franchise the emphasis flipped – the movies became the tail that wagged the literary dog, and the lore became a tool to build CGI and SJW plots around.

  37. Gunner Q says:

    Nostalgia could explain it but that’s part of my attitude, too. I remember how the Death Star plans were stolen. It was Operation Skyhook, involving a non-Dindu ex-Stormtrooper named Kyle Katarn who would have made an absolutely kickass action movie hero with an auto-sequel for the Dark Trooper Project. Now, that’s been retconned into “my Daddy built the Death Star because they shot Mommy in front of him”. Gak me with a hokey religion.

    Krennic, next time use the stun setting on your blasters for negotiations, yeah? Before Vader Force-chokes you for killing too many people. That would be a sad epitaph.

  38. They Call Me Tom says:

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  39. Star Wars is about selling toys. It has been since Episode 6. Which is why Jedi is the worst of the first 3, but the the one most watched by Children. Hey, Ewoks are cool until you’re 12.

    Though a lot of its enduring popularity among the geek set comes from the extended universe and the fact that movies 5 & 6 are Vader’s story. So it keep cultural revelance among the geeks while the movies were able to bring in the “normals”. It’s a line no other media property will ever be able to ride.

    But I think there’s something to remember when it comes to Media: there are products that, as a larger cultural point, that people want. Whoever can provide it can ride that one product to untold riches. Star Wars still sort of sits in that realm, which is why they put so much effort into it. Though with the need to appeal to so many “markets”, the true rockstar hits are going to be less & less when it comes to movies.

  40. Opus says:

    I have been thinking about (and rewatching Bridget Jones’ Baby) further: One should not criticise a movie just because one disapproves of the behaviour of the characters, characters whose existence and behaviour does not stretch the grounds of credibility; there really are men like Alpha-Gorgeous Bad-Boy Daniel Cleaver, repressed English Silks (Queen’s Counsel) like Mark D’Arcy and corporate Spinster-Sluts like Ms Jones. The pro-Homosexual, pro unwed-Mother propaganda of the movie was being layed on rather too thickly I felt – had it been written in the current year then surely a Transsexual using the wrong ‘bathroom’ would somehow have been incorporated into the script – and yet the Progressive narrative is used to offset the unspoken traditional cultural denoument that the movie aims towards: ultimately Jones decides to marry and rejecting the allegedly well-off New-Age touchy-feely American (sorry about that;)) marries the English Barrister, thus achieving the Status she had all along craved, namely being married to a successful, respectable and good looking man English-man with the right accent – socially a class-up from her parents: this emphasised by way of dressing Bridget’s mother in Thatcherite Blue. The movie might have been called One Funeral, One Christening and a Wedding for these three events, all in Anglican churches are the events around which the plot is propelled. The Funeral (actually a memorial service) is for Daniel Cleaver and it is his demise that finally allows Miss Jones to decide to settle for the boring Mark D’Arcy, however (spoiler alert) it is revealed at the end that he is not dead and thus one can only imagine what will happen, when he finally reemerges.

    I continue to wonder at Renee Zellweger’s perfect English accent, and not just any accent but one exactly appropriate for a lower-middle-ish class woman from the Home Counties. Contrast that with the villain-ess of the movie, – a woman!, her new boss – who propels Bridget into resigning and thus unemployed needing a man to provide for her, and who I take from her harsh and abrasive accent is a Mancunian; that is to say from Manchester some 250 miles or so north of London. White Nationalism always has great difficulty taking off in England because Southerners regard those born anywhere above the Watford Gap as beyond any pale. Such people are fish out of water in the South and we wish they would go back (taking their accents with them) where they came from. This is clearly the acceptable face of Racism.

    There are anacronisms: the Camera hovers over St Paul’s Cathedral prior to the Memorial Service but the attendants thereto emerge from St Clements Dane – about a mile to the west. Bridget lives in that Concave triangle of train lines at Borough Market – you see the train passing her third story apartment window – yet in another scene she seems to be out towards Chelsea. D’Arcy claims to live out at Ealing (where they have the film studio) and which is about ten miles to the west but his Georgian house is surely not Ealing and no one has ever walked from Borough Market to Ealing as a very pregnant Bridget apparently does in the movie. Bridget, at Borough Market just beside London Bridge (not the iconic Tower Bridge) and thus (we see her crossing London Bridge) is only about half a mile from D’Arcy’s chambers. which as I can tell from an interior shot overlook Middle Temple lawn and are thus somewhere in Temple Gardens (TG) which is the name of the building(s) on their left side as the pair walk up Middle Temple Lane – that at least is spot on. On a note of Canon Law I can’t quite understand how, as D’Arcy has first to divorce his then current wife so that he might marry Bridget, he does so in an Anglican Church, but perhaps the Producers hope we won’t notice as no RomCom is complete without an Anglican Wedding in a Country Church – presumed to be where her parents live, as the tradition in England – I am not sure about America – is to marry in the home church of the bride: the important thing is thus to ensure that you marry a girl with wealthy parents for as such they will live in a desirable spot in the country.

    The movie is thus well written and perceptive, and beautifully filmed. I love the skyline shots of London: London may not have the tallest of the world’s sky-scrapers, but it surely has the quirkiest; the Gerkin, the Walkie-Talkie and the Cheese-Grater – not to mention the beautiful Shard just by London Bridge.

  41. MarcusD says:

    Dating to Marry while in College

    NFP and Grad School

    Does anyone actually believe in the permanence of marriage any more?

  42. Lyn87 says:

    Wow, Marcus, that “Dating to Marry in College” is a veritable fountain of bad advice.

    To set the stage for those who didn’t read it: the guy writing in is a college junior who expects to work at an oil refinery about 3.5 hours from his girlfriend’s college (she’s a freshman). They’ve known each other for a few months and are already banging, although he claims they are both solid Catholics and will practice “Natural Family Planning” (a.k.a.: Vatican Roulette) once they get married, and intend to abstain from now on. They’ve already decided to get married and he wants to know when he should propose (Huh? if you’ve both agreed to marry you’re already engaged), and other details. He wants to get married after he graduates and she wants to wait at least a year beyond that – they’re worried about pregnancy because they’ll only be able to see each other sporadically while she’s still in school, and his visits may not coincide with her “safe” time with regard to her ovulation (which is a problem whether they’re married or not at this point, given their history).

    Got it? Good. Here are some of the responses with my comments in italics:

    One poster advises three years of being a “Celibate Boyfriend” until she graduates, followed by another year or two to allow ample time to experience life abroad. (What could possibly go wrong with that?):

    … This time right now can be so very short. Please slow down and really soak in what a special time this is! One day God willing you’ll be working, taking care of kids, paying bills, and very busy. No one ever complained that they took some time after grad to work and live on their own for a time, took time to travel, visited other countries…

    Lyn87 responds: Well, we know that both of them have shown a willingness to have sex outside of marriage to someone they just met. What are the chances that an overseas trips after she graduates in three years will make her a better wife? Given what we know, she’s likely to come back with a higher notch count.

    Another poster tells our intrepid young horn-dog that:

    … She’s too young to marry or get engaged…

    Lyn87 responds: She’s 19. If matrimony is her plan, how much older does she need to be? About the only things she’s likely to acquire in the next three years are student loan debt for a degree she’s unlikely to use once she gets pregnant, and a spin or two (or three…) on the carousel, especially as they will have an LTR for quite some time.

    Another poster writing in reference to Vatican Roulette (relating the circumstances of her own marriage) tells him to prepare for a life of practically no sex :

    … If those coincide with our “free” time, or if I can’t get three separate confirmations (testing and symptom review) that we’ll be safe, then we can go for two months between safe times. If I get pregnant again, we may have to abstain totally for about twenty years.

    That’s what Catholic marriage can be. It won’t necessarily be like that for you, but it’s a possibility that you have to bear in mind. You may have to go months, years, possibly even decades without having sex with your spouse. If you can’t sign up for that, then you may want to reconsider marriage. I don’t regret for a minute marrying my DH, but I do wish I’d walked into it with my eyes a bit more open about these possibilities.

    Lyn87 responds: DECADES without sex? What’s the freaking point of getting married?

  43. infowarrior1 says:

    A marriage with no sex is no marriage at all.

  44. Dave says:


    It’s like there’s a Plague of Unbelief upon the West, not just affecting politics and religion but good taste as well.

    I think it’s been predicted, that a time will come when God’s Word will become so scarce that people will migrate to various lands in search of it, but they still won’t be able to find it.
    I don’t know if we are there yet, but we sure are going in that direction:

    Amos 8:
    11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
    12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
    13In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.

  45. MarcusD says:


    It is indeed bad advice aplenty, but typical for CAF. Another thread:

    “Why Should People Get married?”

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Here’s a reality show/game show clip I found on YouTube. I’d never heard of this show, but it summarizes everything that’s talked about on blogs like this:

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Often I feel lonely, never having married. Then I see something like the above, and I am reminded that it could have been worse for me.

  48. Feminist Hater says:

    Happy New Year!

    Reading that Catholic Forum answers on marriage, it’s hilarious, the farce that keeps on giving!

  49. Opus says:

    One shouldn’t laugh, but CAF is its own parody: that chick is losing interest in her man and rapidly; now, they don’t even have sexual intercourse. She wants to go EatPrayLove along the Camino to Santiago Compostela; it just happens that I know that city very well – the best way to get there is to fly to La Vacordia Airport just outside the City, but if you must go the pilgrim route, it is pretty obvious that she will be prey to the single guys who do the route starting wherever you like, which is surely her unstated intention. The Spanish are Roman Catholic but not being Anglo they are not (in my experience) and unlike the CAF questioneer, hung up on sex or the finer points of Catholic doctrine.

    …and talking of wrong journeys I wanted to add – though I forgot last night – that in Bridget Jones Baby, Bridget and her female friend meet to travel by train to the festival at Glastonbury. They clearly meet on the Mezanine level at Waterloo Terminus (100 million yearly passengers and thus England’s busiest station) but if you want Glastonbury the Terminus is not Waterloo but Paddington – a much smaller Terminus where one can take an Intercity 125 to Bristol (90 minutes) and then hang a taxi. Americans may wonder why she does not drive (or even fly) but the roads being so congested it makes sense to let the train take the strain and unlike America and despite the infrastructure vandalism of the Beeching cuts of the early 1960s England still has a comprehensive rail network pretty much wherever you want to go. I am not sure what the allure of Glastonbury and the many other outdoor festivals is; downpours are frequent which turns the fields into quagmires and predictably Bridget falls as she put it ‘arse over tit’ – an expression I imagine not common in America – that is to say she falls head-first, into the mud. It is no better at the somewhat more upmarket at Glyndebourne Opera – equally prone to downpours – where in ones Tuxedo and ones partner in her evening dress one picnics on the lawn during the long interval whilst being observed from the neighbouring field by by lowing ruminating cattle. Perhaps in either location getting soaked makes the experience all the richer.

    Continuing the Geographical theme the Land-whale make-up artist at Bridget’s place of work refers to a fictional club in Berwick Street where women provide and freely, felatio. Berwick Street is just north of what passes for London’s red-light district but any salacious activity is well-hidden; if you get out your copy of Oasis album Morning Glory (did they crack America?) the cover shows Berwick Street facing South towards Soho.

    Time begins at Greenwich (pronounced grenidge) specifically at the Royal Obervatory and so I can now welcome all Dalrockians in America to 2017- Happy New Year.

  50. Dale says:

    @RPL: Western women. Priceless*.

    *As in, worth no price, or 0.

  51. Lyn87 says:

    Another good one, MarcusD.

    The commenter Easter Joy (a woman – as will become obvious shortly) totally missed the point and didn’t even realize it. Her answer to why the guy should marry is that it protects his assets and interests.

    No, really… HIS assets and interests. And she wasn’t kidding.


    Default Re: “Why Should People Get married?”
    … society does not give the unmarried the status or advantages of the married. You do not accrue Social Security benefits for each other. You cannot leave an unlimited amount of retirement savings that aren’t subject to estate tax. You cannot “benefit shop” from the insurance and other financial plans you each have from your employer. There are hundreds of advantages like this. It is the reason, other than social status, that homosexual couples have worked so hard to gain access to civil marriage…. [Lyn87 responds: So far, so good.]

    There are disadvantages, too, but those mostly have to do with marrying someone who betrays your trust. One has to wonder why you’d have children, buy real estate, and share a life with someone you don’t trust enough to marry. [Lyn87 responds: Perhaps the question she should be asking is why anyone would sign a legally-binding contract wherein the other party is heavily incentivized to bail out with no penalty, leaving him with all the obligations and none of the benefits: which is what a man does when he marries a woman.]

    Civil marriage laws are intended to encourage couples to commit to each other by giving them certain advantages as an incentive. Those advantages are many and they are very valuable. Marriage laws also guarantee legal arbitration of the terms of a break-up. Those should not be considered to be automatically a bad thing. Yes, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally, but consider that your boyfriend can also leave and take more than his half of everything. The job of getting a just division of assets is much more difficult without a marriage contract. Don’t think that marriage laws aren’t there to protect you from a faithless and vindictive partner. They are, and they can do their job very powerfully. [Lyn87 responds: Here’s where Easter Joy has it exactly backwards: her arguments only apply to the woman, but the question is coming from a man. The danger of a boyfriend taking “more than his half” of the silverware and DVD’s is nothing compared to the ability of a wife to take FAR more than that any time she feels like it. The guy wants to minimize his risk, and Easter Joy’s answer is that marriage is important because it ensures that his future ex-wife’s risk is minimized at his expense.]

    Way to miss the point, lady. And she followed up with this:

    Yes, women tend to live to regret their failure to marry before entering into a domestic partnership more than men do, and the less-affluent member of a domestic partnership usually suffers the inequalities that come out of a breakup of a commitment that wasn’t all that committed, after all, more than the rich one does. [Lyn87 responds: that is probably why the guy is gun-shy, but that doesn’t answer HIS objection.] The wariness of the rich marrying a poor partner who could strip them of property and leave is why pre-nuptial agreements were invented. [Lyn87 responds: But they are barely worth the paper they’re written on when it comes to assets, and they have absolutely NO bearing on child custody or child support.] (By that time, dowries and the agreements that went with them had gone out of style.) [Lyn87 responds: And here’s the heart of the matter: women used to have something to lose if they bailed out of their marriages, because they had to bring something to the table that they forfeited if they left. That has been flipped now: a bride can bring nothing and still leave with everything… a female privilege that, not only will the guy not have himself, but one he will be required to subsidize if she exercises her option to cash out at his expense.]

    Her response is just a long-winded restatement of the feminist talking strategy: “I will use gender-neutral language to hide to fact that men should do X because X benefits women.”

  52. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 12:15 am:
    “I think it’s been predicted, that a time will come when God’s Word will become so scarce that people will migrate to various lands in search of it, but they still won’t be able to find it.”

    That was during the four centuries between the Old Testament finishing and Christ’s arrival. A long time to go without divine guidance; God didn’t abandon Israel that completely even during the Babylonian Exile.

    The prophecy (‘precedent’ might be better) that most disturbs me is how telecommunications might be undoing the linguistic safeguards God imposed at the Tower of Babel. If God confused human language to prevent humanity from uniting against Him… and we no longer have language barriers, or even distance barriers… and hey, U.N. headquarters is now a literal Tower of Babel!

    Interesting that those safeguards were defeated by the same technology that accomplished the Great Commission requirement of preaching the Gospel to every part of the world.

    God isn’t absent, he’s setting the stage for a show. Our part, sadly, is the damsels in distress.

  53. DeNihilist says:

    Regarding my post about President Carter’s remarks, can anyone point me to these scriptures about women being everything, including prophets, before “da men” wrote them out of the Church’s history?

  54. They Call Me Tom says:

    GunnerQ… I think there is always a way for God to knock town the tower of Babel. Language may have been the means last time, but certainly not the only means for God to humble his creations when they get too full of themselves and their accomplishments.

  55. Boxer says:

    I’ve come to believe that CAF acts as a sort of safety valve, where the Cats can quarantine their most dangerous looneys, give them a pseudo-official space to ramble incoherently, and thus keep them from infecting people in meatspace with their stupid and corrosive ideas. There’s just no other explanation (in my opinion) for its continued existence.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    In other news, a Los Angeles councilman tries to ban “adults unaccompanied by children” from city parks:

    And comes under immediate fire despite living in one of the most liberal areas of a Democrat stronghold. Perhaps he needs to tighten the language to exclude “childfree wymyn”:

    For lighter reading, a man unaccompanied by a child vandalizes the famous Hollywood sign.

  57. RPC says:

    I’ve enjoyed catching up with a lot of the comments today. Going way back up to a comment from Gunner Q:

    How did we ever end up such Philistines that a little CGI and a chick with off-the-chart Daddy Issues is a box office record-breaker? It’s like there’s a Plague of Unbelief upon the West, not just affecting politics and religion but good taste as well.

    I’ve often thought that the glut of superhero movies over the past 10 years (seriously, every third big budget movie is comic-book based) speaks to a cultural, spiritual malaise. The movies have a veneer of spirituality and supernaturalism, and use veiled biblical metaphors, but are empty at their core.

  58. Dale says:

    Re Gunner Q’s news article:
    While I do not live in California, I am rather certain that they already have laws against illegal drug dealing, regardless of whether such activity occurs in a public park or not. So they do not need a law for that purpose.
    In addition to the obvious bad guilt-before-the-crime attitude, these people exemplify living in fear. Wait until a crime occurs, then deal with it.

    I am a little surprised actually. After reading the first letter, the original council motion, I assumed they thought any man present was a pedophile-wanna-be, and the law was geared to providing the police with a way to charge any man, simply due to his presence. But the second letter gives the impression that the fear is drug dealers, not men in general. I suppose that is a small silver lining.
    Or maybe I am just being naive, and the “drug dealers” concern is just a handy excuse to ban selected citizens from public parks.

  59. Lyn87 says:

    I’m not sure whether the “No adult (men) in parks is about drugs or pedo-paranoia, but in any case I’m sure it’s driven by feminism. (Why do feminists care so much about getting women into legislatures when so many of the men there advance feminist aims? Compare the budgets for spending that disproportionately benefits women before female suffrage to the budgets after female suffrage to see the folly of allowing net tax consumers to choose how governments collect and spend money.)

    In either case it’s just more police-state nonsense to cater to the fears of women in general and “mombies” in particular. I don’t doubt that there are drug dealers in L.A. parks, but as Dale noted: drug dealing is already a crime, and for another thing, they wouldn’t have this problem is they didn’t have arbitrary laws governing the possession of some intoxicants (but not others). Also, as we all know, “stranger danger” is virtually non-existent, but pretending that it is not is a good way to fan the flames of misandry while pretending that they really care about “teh chilluns.”

    But let us make no mistake: if such a law passes there is not the slightest chance that it will be applied to women anywhere nearly as vigorously as it will to men. A man near a park that his tax dollars pay for is “acting suspiciously” by the mere fact of his presence, while a woman near a park is “presumably caring for a child” even if one is not in her immediate vicinity. The former bears watching (and probable arrest), while the other is heroically doing “the most difficult job on the planet.” Just because there’s no kid with her doesn’t mean anything… it’s not like mothers can be expected to actually watch their kids, after all. Notwithstanding Prov 29:15b, “… a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with making privately-owned areas off-limits to unaccompanied adults, as long as the people who may use them pay the full cost for them out of their own pockets, and allow me to exclude them and their demon-spawn from any space I own as well (such as rental property… don’t get me started). Then again, they would cease to be public parks at that point, and the reason “we can’t have that” is because it would prevent parents in particular and baby-mommas in particular from having the government pick the pockets of taxpayers (in other words: boring, icky, wage-earning, men) for their benefit.

  60. MarcusD says:

    An interesting post from Dr. Peterson:

    Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism. This has been accompanied by the rise of states sufficiently civilized so that women who inhabit them can walk the streets unaccompanied in safety. We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual. Dividing our civilization into polarized ideological camps of female group identity and male group identity is certainly not the answer. We have to be honest, male and female alike, about what we really want, as individuals, and talk it out. We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal. Thus, it’s not a matter of if but how.

  61. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 6:20 am:
    “But let us make no mistake: if such a law passes there is not the slightest chance that it will be applied to women anywhere nearly as vigorously as it will to men.”

    I’m sure that is the cause of the blowback he’s getting… accidentally punishing women for not having kids. The nuclear bomb of anti-feminism.

    Let this be a lesson to my relatives, don’t hoard the comics or I’ll find something else in the paper to read.

    “We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal.”

    If that is what this Peterson guy knows beyond dispute then I hope “Doctor” refers to his medical training. *checks* Nope.

  62. Feminist Hater says:

    I like Jordan Peterson but he most definitely is an egalitarian with a leftist bend. Isn’t a Christian as far as I’m aware and believes in first wave feminism and, probably, second wave feminism too.

    Still, he made a stand against the gender ideologues on their quest to get normal people to use their gendered pronouns, he has previously made videos directly relating to the destruction of men caused by feminism and the laws; and the destruction of masculinity through the school system, university system and the idea of ‘toxic masculinity’.

  63. Lost Patrol says:

    “We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal.”

    If that is what this Peterson guy knows beyond dispute then I hope “Doctor” refers to his medical training. *checks* Nope.

    Given his grasp of mankind’s eternal struggle as shown by the unassailable truth and wisdom contained in that “beyond dispute” comment, I was going to guess Dr. P had a PhD in world history. A sage for our time. But then I remembered my lessons from feminism – there has never been a society that fully emancipated its women from the evil patriarchy – so where is Dr. P getting his info?

  64. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lost Patrol
    ”But then I remembered my lessons from feminism – there has never been a society that fully emancipated its women from the evil patriarchy – so where is Dr. P getting his info?”

    The Mosuo perhaps where Matriarchs rule the roost in the home. But they seem to be poor and uncivilized prior to contact with the modern world.

  65. Boxer says:

    Given his grasp of mankind’s eternal struggle as shown by the unassailable truth and wisdom contained in that “beyond dispute” comment, I was going to guess Dr. P had a PhD in world history. A sage for our time. But then I remembered my lessons from feminism – there has never been a society that fully emancipated its women from the evil patriarchy – so where is Dr. P getting his info?

    The fact that someone has a Ph.D doesn’t mean that fellow is a genius, nor does it mean he’s necessarily qualified to spout off on anything other than his own well defined areas of expertise/interest. FYI I have graduate degrees, and I’m not any smarter than most of the other people here. I got to read Marcuse and study math and 19th century American history. That doesn’t mean I can answer sociological questions. (Indeed, if I am able to do this, it’s cuz I’ve read you guys, rather than any formal research.)

    A graduate degree tells you only a few general things. The guy managed to get along with people for several years, was punctual, handed in work on time. He didn’t rob, beat, grope or rape any of his students. He probably isn’t retarded or mentally ill. He’s also probably got some family money. This is really all you can assume about something with letters behind his name. Nothing more.

  66. Boxer says:

    But then I remembered my lessons from feminism – there has never been a society that fully emancipated its women from the evil patriarchy – so where is Dr. P getting his info?

    He’s got a Ph.D in Clinical Psychology. Honestly, the ones I know often admit to never having read Freud, Jung or Adler. Maybe the good Professor is an outlier, but either way he isn’t really qualified to talk about sociology or sexual biology, on his own authority.

    If ever any of you guys meet someone in meatspace who is talking this shit, don’t be afraid to ask abruptly what his qualifications are. Legit scholars have no problem answering that question, and they also don’t feel threatened by disagreement.

  67. Feminist Hater says:

    I kind of cringe when I see the phrase ‘beyond dispute’ or ‘the science is settled’ or ‘100 percent sure’ or whatever other phrase that states the facts are known completely.

    In Jordan Peterson’s case I would argue that it’s not the emancipation of women that lead to the best society but that those societies lead to womens’ emancipation by becoming well off, thus relaxing the restrictions placed on them whilst they had limited resources. It’s the progression from a society bound by its limitations to one unbound. In other words, it follows not that emancipation of women leads to a more productive and free society but that those societies with a boon of freedom and productivity lead to the emancipation of their women, generally due to the temporary feeling that restricting their hypergamy is no longer needed to conserve resources. Which then leads to the eventual destruction of said society as the boon of resources, productivity and freedom are strip mined to cater to the women’s vote.

    It’s certainly not ‘beyond dispute’.

  68. Lyn87 says:

    FH nailed it. That’s essentially what I was going to write: to the degree that a society harnesses the excess productive capacity of men (by allowing the majority of them to be family patriarchs – see anything written by Daniel Amneus), it becomes productive and wealthy. As it does so, the distance between “red-in-tooth-and-claw” nature and the everyday experiences of the citizens (particularly the female ones) grows. Once women can go about without continuous male protection without being in constant danger of being eaten by jaguars or captured by rival tribesman, they are given additional freedoms… increasing to the point that they gain direct political power, at which point they use that power to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and the cycle begins anew.

  69. Lost Patrol says:

    FH + Lyn

    I’ve read a lot of wide ranging history by good authors over the years. It’s a hobby. All I’ve seen absolutely backs up your explanations of how Dr. P gets it backwards on this one, and that any emancipated-women-peaceful-productivity is short lived in historical terms.

  70. Novaseeker says:

    It’s the correlation vs causation issue again.

    They note that prosperous societies tend to have liberated women. But then they make the mistake of seeing the liberation of women as causal to the prosperity, rather than as a consequence from it, even though in pretty much every single case, very high levels of prosperity directly preceded the emancipation of women — suggesting that if there is a causal link, it is the reverse of what people like Dr. P are suggesting. Rather the cycle suggested by Lyn and FH is a more plausible causal explanation — that prosperity leads to a tendency to spread opportunities to all, including women.

    Even if he agreed with us on that, however, I suspect his politics would disable him from taking the further step of agreeing that this process eventually eats itself due to the problems associated with the liberation of women sexually (which is a pre-requisite for their full participation professionally and economically on a par with men), and what this does to large swathes of society outside of a meritocratic bubble at the top. If that’s true, his entire political belief system crashes with a loud thud, so it *must not be true* for people like that — there must always be another reason, quite apart from the near total liberalization of human sexuality — for the spread of the kind of social dysfunction and alienation that we see on the rise everywhere, and for most people like him that cause will typically be linked to “traditionalism”, “reaction”, “racism” and “misogyny”.

  71. Feminist Hater says:

    …and for most people like him that cause will typically be linked to “traditionalism”, “reaction”, “racism” and “misogyny”.

    I would have to say not for Dr Peterson. He might be egalitarian but his works delve very deeply into the problems we talk about. Societal Psychology would be a good descriptor of what he tries to understand and studies, especially the ideals that religion placed on society and how it molded the human mind towards creation rather than destruction. Unlike SJWs who attribute the underpinning societal conditions we face to rudimentary causes such as racism, sexism and such, he has put the effort in to try to understand the root causes without the political and social interference; and writing his thoughts off as if he were akin to other SJWs is doing him a disservice. He might not be on the same page as us here but not many are. However, he still gets it, and is willing to listen without getting angry and without calling authorities when he hears something he doesn’t like. The University of Toronto debate held against those two liberal, feminists shows just how he thinks. A classical liberal if you will – genuine. Like him or not.

    Long, but worth the watch. You can find shorter versions, if you want to break it up and view at different times.

    Yes, writing something like ‘beyond dispute’ that is still very much in dispute isn’t going to win him awards but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Listen to some of his videos on youtube. His thoughts are intriguing.

  72. Gunner Q says:

    “However, he still gets it, and is willing to listen without getting angry and without calling authorities when he hears something he doesn’t like.”

    Okay, that’s more respectable than most people who claim to be experts in human behavior yet don’t understand why women shouldn’t lead.

  73. Damn Crackers says:

    “We know beyond dispute that societies who emancipate their women are much more productive and peaceful, and that the relationship is causal.”

    They also die.

  74. Boxer says:

    Most of what’s talked about on Dalrock is so close to commentary on this book as to be redundant to a guy with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

    Freud would argue that we are socialized by a system which first gives us a father (someone we both love and fear) and then gradually replaces him with a patriarchal ideal. Disrupting the flow of this process (by, for example, “emancipating” women to kick out the real father and scoff at the ideal) takes us backwards into prehistory. Productivity and peace come through the matriarchal ideal, which causes us to have lots of neuroses (by bottling up our animal instincts) but which leads to a better life for everyone.

    As an aside, thanks to Lyn87 for posting the Amneus link a couple of weeks ago. I read Garbage Generation and was reminded of Uncle Sig the whole way through.

  75. Boxer says:

    ^^ should read: Productivity and peace are a consequence of the patriarchal ideal.

  76. Lost Patrol says:

    Based on my respect for FH’s writings on Dalrock, I started watching the Peterson video despite its daunting length. Almost couldn’t make it past the intro from the stereo-typically flaccid, virtue signalling dean, but it is holding my interest. I will have to watch in two parts due to time, but I have gained some respect for Dr. P so far. He is showing real courage in directly challenging “the system” of the day, which in the case of the once happy go lucky but now increasingly converged country of Canada is no small thing.

  77. Feminist Hater says:

    Thanks LP. Yep, my thoughts as well, that intro was a mouthful of appeasement and over the top groveling. However, the rest of the debate is truly an eye opener into how these Bills are woven into the social fabric of a nation. It’s really quite devious. On Peterson’s part especially, as he explains how they will eventually be used to silence and force people to conform, not by banning words but by forcing you to use their words, thus changing the very thought patterns of your own psyche. The ability he has to discern the nature of that Bill, and also the unintended consequences it will have, are really great to watch and listen to.

    He puts up a good fight, I wish there were more Professors like him.

  78. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, just to clarify, I don’t mean Peterson is devious, haha, but that the points he makes during the debate are especially eye opening.

  79. Novaseeker says:

    I found this yesterday, which is a good, relatively quick read, for people (like me) who lack the time or patience to sit through videos:

  80. Gunner Q says:

    Thanks, Novaseeker. I’m one such guy, too.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.