If you’ve ever wondered what a “complementarian” Southern Baptist marriage looks like, wonder no more. Behold, the Servant Leader:
H/T Cane Caldo
Recent Comments
Durasim on Message heard. Interested on Message heard. BobSutan on Message heard. Hazelshade on Farewell (for now at least), a… TheWanderer on Message heard. 5k40 on Farewell (for now at least), a… Ryder on Farewell (for now at least), a… Dry Holes on Message heard. letusreasonow on Message heard. chokingonredpills on Message heard.
Dalrock 
Hmmmm…That oddly looks like the wife is in charge.
Okay… What did I just see? lol…
Thanks Dalrock!
To get a full picture, follow Dalrock’s link to my post and check out how she complements her other pastor.
I used to not mind manjaws.
Pingback: A picture of Southern Baptist marriage. | @the_arv
Will she be addressing the SBC convention? Maybe as a warmup act for Beth Moore?
Sad. From the looks of her house, he provides well for her. No respect, only condescension. As if she is the only adult in the room, and he is a kid.
His Father’s Day sermon should be interesting…
Sure honey! I’ll help.
I’ll cut the grass and change the oil while you mop the floor.
Then I’ll go fishing! While you eat Bon Bons.
Deal?
^^^trying to agree and amplify.
No equality with shoveling snow, cutting grass, cutting up firewood, fixing cars, and fixing the house though. Those jobs are male privilege.
For those readers who don’t pay much attention to pop culture, this is riffing off of Meghan Trainor’s vidja “no” which was pretty popular with 30-something women a couple of years back.
Not safe for all workplaces.
I’m wondering if this Baptist vid isn’t already making the rounds in Facebook?
I went to this woman’s YouTube channel and found a very vulgar feminist-friendly video she made celebrating pregnancy. Had to click away after 30 seconds… consider yourselves warned.
this is what joint house cleaning should look like – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJ9zYu10yQ
@Cane,
Complements AND compliments. As I mentioned chez toi, I actually spent cellular data watching that. Talk about dirty bits.
Sad, sad, sad. Did a church produce this? Because both the content and the production quality look exactly like what you’d see in the pre-sermon announcements at your nearest megachurch, with yet another hipster preacher scolding the simp husbands in his congregation for failing to remember who their betters are.
Brad Paisley, by contrast, knows the proper response to give when his woman wants him to put an end to his fishing:
Men, go and do thou likewise.
Caspar Reyes
I actually spent cellular data watching that.
Huh? Didn’t watch your connectivity, or what?
Watching vidja is what “free WiFi” is for.
Well, women’s blogs all assure us:
* the number one reason why women lose sexual desire for their husbands is because their husbands don’t do enough chores.
* the most important way, by far, for husbands to restore their wife’s libido is to do more chores.
* the main reason for most wives falling out of love with their husbands is that he didn’t do enough chores.
* the husband most always strive to do half the housework, regardless of how many more hours he works than his wife. After all, household chores are far more demanding than any paid work, which is a relaxing holiday in comparison.
All Southerners have a marriage that works like that. Don’t let the posers on the Internet fool you, ALL Southrons believe in “Happy wife, happy life.”.
SBC U R DONE HERE
Pingback: A picture of Southern Baptist marriage. | Reaction Times
One of the greatest tricks feminists have pulled is convincing people that housework is some kind of ‘full-time,’ hefty burden that the world needs to hail. It’s not. No one is factoring in the machinery at all when they gush over how great they are for simple, satisfying tasks that take a few hours a week max. It’s their house and their life anyway. They don’t deserve credit for taking care of it. It’s their quality of life. I take care of my body with exercise but I don’t think the world owes me some kind of stunned admiration. I don’t get in people’s faces and lay a guilt trip on them because I deadlifted the evening before. It’s my body that I’m taking care of so it’s no one’s business. But that’s what many women do over the 6 hours a week they put in taking care of the house while hubby works his seventies. They expect to be lauded for it.
If they bullied their 70-80 hour work week hubby into a 5000 sq foot home (adding to their workload) then that was their choice. If they let their o.c.d run rampant to facilitate a daily haranguing of their husband for a toothbrush standing crookedly, that doesn’t count. That’s o.c.d on their part, not toxic masculinity.
Dishes take 10-20 minutes a day for a family of four. Laundry is an hour or two a week. What are we up to? Three hours? Add in vacuuming, mopping, cleaning and that’s another 10-15 hours a month maximum. So all in about 15-20 hours a month for a very, very well-kept, large house. A house fit for a king only 80 years ago. No one talks about. Of course the kingly mansion that American women have as a birthright is not appreciated. But the 4 hours a week it takes to care for it…oh boy, watch out. You had better venerate that.
I clean my house (no family) every Saturday morning. I love it actually. Very satisfying stuff. It takes me about an hour and a half all in. I go to the laundromat and rip through 5 bags (I’m a clothes horse) in about and hour and a half every three weeks. BFD. You wanna see my rap video haranguing the world for not kissing my $#% over the 70 i.q. task of doing laundry?
Whelp, here’s the new SBC leader. It’s as bad as you would expect.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/13/new-southern-baptist-convention-president-cultural-change/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_medium=Social
I heard some disturbing things about the new SBC president on Hagmann and Hagmann today. This is seems to be inline with the Daily Caller article above. Looks like the SBC is about to be SJW converged. I saw just one website raising the alarm to save the SBC. I guess most of the believers are also zombified cucks that will go with the flow and bend over to their dominant wives.
The funny thing is most modern-day women, a vast majority are straight-up slobs, or worse, hoarders and packrats. Word up, yo.
I formally resigned my SBC church membership 9 mos ago. Never felt better. Now on the Orthodox journey.
Never felt better.
Honey can I go to shopping mall? Sure can you help with the roof repair job? Can you powerwash the driveway? Build that fence? Guess I’ll have to write a song about incompetent you are in these matters, tut tut.
Looks like the SBC is
about to bebeing SJW convergedFIFY.
How many years before enough individual churches are ready to split off to form another Baptist group? I will guess at least 2 but not more than 5. Not gloating, nor suggesting, just observing.
This result is partly due to those ‘women’s studies’ degrees in the Baptist seminaries that CBMW were so eager to set up years ago.
CSI
Well, women’s blogs all assure us:
…there is a critical shortage of fried ice.
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
Here is a short video picturing a different sort of marriage, one where headship is practiced and the community supports it.
If you haven’t seen the whole movie, it is the antidote to Fireproof.
Geez, Dalrock! Put a !@#$% warning on this post! I’ve been trying to gain weight, but the first 30 seconds of that video made me lose my lunch!
It’s not really about the drudgery and hardships of housework…they’d hate to see their husband’s have some relaxing fun time without them.
A while back J.D. Greear had a post on his website about advice for a 15 year old boy. If I recall the advice included a lot of ways that he could reverence/respect his future wife and be a servant/helper to her. I posted a well reasoned argument why the young men of “generation snowflake” most likely didn’t need to be further feminized with misguided advice. My post never appeared. Apparently patriarchal philosophy is not approved of their website.
Next time you do this, take a screenshot before submitting it. If the recipient is too ball-less to let it appear, I’ll put it up on my blog, and we’ll make fun of him on twitter.
BenFrank says:
June 15, 2018 at 5:43 pm
No equality with shoveling snow, cutting grass, cutting up firewood, fixing cars, and fixing the house though. Those jobs are male privilege.
***************************************************************************************
My wives friggen LOVES to mow. She says she finds it satisfying. When we met, she mowed yards and babysat to make extra money…. But I do the yard 90% of the time.. But if we’re in a hurry to go somewhere, I edge and she mows.
A couple of weeks ago, she threw down two entire pallets fo grass. I then arranged them in there final spot.. Then she unloaded all of the 40lb bags of sand out of my trunk and put them where i wanted them when I laid the new pavestone walkway. All in 100 degree+ heat. Not bad for a skinney little girl! I am always impressed by her ability to work like a horse in the Texas heat. It’s really very impressive.
I didn’t get lucky. I watched her very closly when we were dating to make sure she would be a good wife and mother. I noticed how she loved to do physical work. She ‘s a very physical person. She has a good heart too.
She affects African-American (c)rap to lecture her gelding. The dreaded Double Cuck: snips him sexually AND racially.
Who is the object of worship for this delicate belle of the Christian Traditional South? Why, it’s . . . herself! Whoda thunk, another Christo-feminist woman spreading her wings of sovereignty and freedom. Not white wings, either.
These men couldn’t defend their country from an invasion by Peru, much less someone of consequence. With Christian warriors like this, satan would rule another few thousand years. At least.
I didn’t get lucky. I watched her very closly when we were dating to make sure she would be a good wife and mother. I noticed how she loved to do physical work. She ‘s a very physical person. She has a good heart too.
AMOG, is that you?
she attends GREEAR’s church….
can’t believe her husband has no spine…
She does not look like someone with a gentle quiet spirit…
This is enforced among the younger people.
even with people who appear good
https://www.instagram.com/katieinuganda_/
Her husband- washed her feet during the proposal and promised to serve her all his life
now he is a house husband that also mentors the local men in the the village…
He looks after the cooking, cleaning, breakfast and the children while she
runs her mission, travels and preaches multiple times a week….
He was praised in our church as a model for husbands to follow in this age where women are “achieving” ( her books are sold in all conservative churches)
I really don’t know what to say.
But men want this
the video DAL shared would not have been published without the man wanting it…
He obviously commands no respect so his wife rules him and expects him to do everything…
so sad
They do not realize that housework is hardly any work and they are privileged…
Men serve by working hard and battling the world to provide…
A man expected to do housework was seen as a sign of a lazy selfish unorganized wife…
She has no respect for her husband.
@sharkly
https://jdgreear.com/blog/happy-husband-advice-15-year-old-son/
this is the article
not it tells men to sleep on the floor to prove their love…
@PokeSalad
”I formally resigned my SBC church membership 9 mos ago. Never felt better. Now on the Orthodox journey.
Never felt better.”
Consider the OPC. And think through the theology 1st too. Is it biblical?
@Sharkly
”A while back J.D. Greear had a post on his website about advice for a 15 year old boy. If I recall the advice included a lot of ways that he could reverence/respect his future wife and be a servant/helper to her. I posted a well reasoned argument why the young men of “generation snowflake” most likely didn’t need to be further feminized with misguided advice. My post never appeared. Apparently patriarchal philosophy is not approved of their website.”
It seems only interpersonal relationships is the only way we can reach young men like him. Hopefully there are ways of helping people like him find ways to the truth.
as Ann Voskamp says
real men exist purely for women and to do whatever women want
http://annvoskamp.com/2018/05/why-now-is-the-time-to-teach-our-sons-our-churches-our-communities-to-respect-women-endmisogyny/
Just watched the old Russo-Finnish movie “Jack Frost” MST3K version. The heroine: a gentle, pretty, hardworking girl; the bad guy: a wicked step-mother and lazy step-sister who take advantage of a weak father; the hero: a manly man who needs to learn compassion but retains his ability to crack skulls. All cheesy of course and ripe fodder for Mike and the bots but it was blessedly free of the unrealistic sex roles portrayed in pop culture today. It was refreshing. If you can find an original remastered version and have little kids, especially daughters, it would be worthwhile for a movie night.
I found your Jack Frost on YouTube. Alas, a poor copy and no dubbing or subtitles.
A more famous Jack Frost is the American horror film series.
Now that the SBC has strode boldly into heresy, what to call them?
The Barbarian Hon’
Chickens and Waffles
Lagniappists (like Trappists, except non-Christian)
The SBC might want to ask the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians what happens to the membership/attendance levels once a denomination decides to go Prog and adopt the beliefs and habits of the World rather than the Scriptures.
@ferriker…
What is attractive about the church is that it should go against what the world speaks. When it goes along with it…what’s the point of going to church anymore? You can go out anywhere in the world and get the same message.
“This has been a WineMom + Facebook production.”
That was painful to watch.
feeriker says: The SBC might want to ask the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians what happens to the membership/attendance levels once a denomination decides to go Prog and adopt the beliefs and habits of the World rather than the Scriptures.
earl says: What is attractive about the church is that it should go against what the world speaks. When it goes along with it…what’s the point of going to church anymore? You can go out anywhere in the world and get the same message.
Exactly!
Why go to church on Sunday to hear a sermon pushing tolerance, when I can just turn on the TV.
Hollywood will deliver the exact same message those churches will preach in the next decade or two. Go straight to the world and hear what the god of this age is saying now. Why wait for the compromised churches to catch on? Hollywood preaches the antichrist message more acceptably too. The worldly church shows up late to the party and then presents the dogma in an overbearing way that turns men off.
Hollywood preached it first, and better:
(Jerry Maguire 1996 romantic comedy/sports drama)
Jerry Maguire a sports agent has a moral epiphany, and he is fired for expressing it. Jerry puts his new philosophy to the test as an independent agent with only one athlete and his former secretary who remain loyal to him. Jerry and the single mother fall in love. Jerry “mans-up” as she helps him follow his dream.
The church makes the message unworkable and unbearable by forgetting the part where she is ever a loyal helper to him, and instead makes him the sidekick, the loyal helper, and house maid while she keeps her old job, where Jerry’s former agent competitors mock his failure and descent into servitude in front of her, making her disrespect Jerry and giving her the divinely inspired vagina tingles for their alpha-cocks instead. After years of “servant leadership” wiping her children’s noses while she chases the alphas at work, She finally ejects Jerry from “her home” and divorce-rapes him, bringing in another newly under-employed alpha bad-boy to babysit her children and get broken down to beta. Rinse and Repeat.
Hey Dalrock, have you heard how bad things are in Spain? http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/02/18/spain-gender-laws-a-country-against-men/
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite:
John Wayne must have been doing something right, because Maureen O’ Hara signed up for that gig twice:
She looks like a barrel of fun.
@R.O.B.
Notice that in both scenes the townsfolk cheered the disciplining of the shrew. Once upon a time society understood what was necessary to sustain itself. A “kick-ass” girl was a girl who needed a swift boot in the bootie. Now what was once seen as establishing proper order is called abuse. Also, at least in McClintock booth women who were spanked responded by swooning over her man, the man who was man enough to do what she needed done. How would John Wayne respond to a shrew telling to mop and vac before he had her permission to go fishing?
Look at how mannish and inelegant the ‘wife’ in the video appears. She has zero in the way of female elegance.
This goes to show that American women can be androgynous even if they are thin and have long hair.
LOL gotta love how in the video both the like-counter and the comments are disabled. Looks like they know how most people feel. That in itself is encouraging.
I literally lost count of the “No”s.
That’s certainly a Proverbs 31/Peter wife, no?
(I will write a short post one day. I will.)
@pariah (June 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm)
“Hey Dalrock, have you heard how bad things are in Spain? http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/02/18/spain-gender-laws-a-country-against-men/”
Things are bad in Spain on multiple levels.
They had an unemployment rate for both men and women aged <25 which sat above 40% for 7 years straight (Mar 2010-Mar 2017), and there were even three years in a row in the middle of that where the rate was over 50% (Feb 2012-Feb 2015):
– https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/Spain?sector=Unemployment+less+than+25+years&sc=LAB-25-&year=2017
– https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate
– https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/upshot/spains-jobless-numbers-almost-look-like-misprints.html
And I bring that up because the primary cause of that issue in Spain is the same as the cause for those horrible gender laws:
Government meddling, and a unified voting demographic willing to sell its vote in exchange for that meddling being in their favour (at least as far as they perceive it).
Or, basically this quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/01/election/
(I'm focusing on the overall picture of things, so for specific info about the employment contract side of things in Spain, view this video – it's very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EcOUfvmliU&t=714s)
A job is a contract between two parties.
A marriage/relationship is, in an economic sense, also a contract between two parties.
At all times in the past, the terms of those two contracts were entirely hashed out and defined by the two parties involved in them – what the pay and hours were, who was responsible for washing the dishes, etc. There were standard best-practices in both cases, but people were free to negotiate the specific terms themselves.
Now however, the government and its politicians have assumed total power and control over defining what "a job" /is/, or what "a relationship" /is/: You don't decide with your partner on a case-by-case basis, the government simply hands you a pre-fab 'relationship' that you just have to live with the terms of if you want to be able to have one at all.
A wife being allowed to use no-fault divorce against you is non-negotiable: The government has decreed that it is part of the terms of all marriage contracts.
So too are the cash and prizes that go with divorce in your particular country or state. So too are the unjust laws surrounding child custody after the divorce. It's all "baked into the cake" when you agree to be in a legally recognised relationship with a woman: Like a deal with the devil signed in blood, these terms are what you're signing up for when you jot down your signature – whether you comprehend it or not.
The government does this because people vote for it to do so: In the case of the employment contract, it is workers themselves and well-to-do people who want to naively support workers no matter what. In the case of the marriage/social contract between men and women, it is women themselves and woman-supplicating/AMOGing men who want to naively support women no matter what.
It's the same root phenomenon in both cases.
Each legal "victory" (whereby the now-rigidly-defined contract gets another unfair term added to it in order to privilege one side of the trade over the other – see: VAWA, etc.) is just the government pressing its thumb down on one side of the scale just that tiny bit more.
In the beginning this is tolerable, because the things which get added are "common sense" (define that one for yourself). However, as time goes by, each additional term and provision becomes necessarily more and more outlandish, and the whole thing starts to snowball into one big pile of onerous hassle for the party who actually has to work to comply with and pay for all this imposed bullshit.
Eventually the terms which are now inherent to the contract as it is legally defined become so absurd, and so risky, that the party which has been victimised in order to implement these terms enters into a realm where there is no longer any positive benefit to engaging with the contract at all:
The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
The cost-benefit analysis now displays a negative reading.
He's dead, Jim.
This creates two logical outcomes: Men go MGTOW (by not cohabiting with or marrying women), and employers go EGTOW (by not hiring any employees at all, or moving outside of the country).
It's simply the only path where the disfavoured trade-partner doesn't risk utter destruction under the current legal setup.
All of this applies to basically every western nation as well, it's just that Spain is so far ahead of the game when it comes to implementing tyrannical, unjust laws which unfairly target men/employers that they get to enjoy crushing unemployment and economic downturn as well as openly crumbling social relations all at the same time! Hooray!
And it's no surprise, really: I mean, one of their main parties going back decades is the Socialist Worker's Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party) – they were formerly Marxist, but even just tack a "National" on the front and you've got yourselves a winner, eh.
And sure enough, Spain is no exception when it comes to the modern trend of plummeting marriage rates, skyrocketing divorce rates, and more and more unmarried defacto couples: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Marriages_and_births_in_Spain
—–
Now obviously I'm ranting and spouting off my views like anyone cares, but I did have a relevant point I wanted to make which all of that goes to support:
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite (June 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm)
"@R.O.B.
Notice that in both scenes the townsfolk cheered the disciplining of the shrew. Once upon a time society understood what was necessary to sustain itself. A “kick-ass” girl was a girl who needed a swift boot in the bootie. Now what was once seen as establishing proper order is called abuse."
I agree with you here, but why do you think it's called abuse now? And why are modern men so often cowed over this, unlike John Wayne was?
(Those are sincere questions – the rest are rhetorical in service of my own point.)
If the shrews all banded together, do you think there would be more of them these days than there are people who think like you? What implications would that have under a democratic legal system where women have the right to vote the same as you or I? Would the shrews – if presented the choice – vote and petition to make it illegal to rebuke them? Would the shrews care if your life was ruined as a result?
Part of the general (read: not talking about you) bluepill worldview is that women's negative behaviour today is abnormal, and that the causes they engage in (slut walks, Women's march, etc.) and the laws they help to pass are simply due to them being lead astray, rather than their own personal failings.
No, women are women – they are how they've always been. What's changed is that the modern uber-government and the spineless cretins who comprise it increasingly cater to and indulge (at men's expense) every single one of women's worst behaviours for votes, even if it means that society will continue to crumble away into hedonism and debauchery as men's authority and autonomy is stripped away ever more so by the state's jack booted thugs – as more children grow up without a father to influence them onto the right path in the way that women cannot.
We live in a modern culture where publicly critiquing women for any of their negative behaviours is a risk to your livelihood and future well-being: This is built on the groundwork that the laws and policies the government imposes in women's favour have laid out, and it is this government-backed, top-down oppressive culture of fear which serves to paralyze men into inaction and allow women to get away with things that would've been inconceivable just in the recent past alone.
Women use their influence as their weapon, and today the average woman has historic levels of influence with the modern state and its agents – but just on their own, women are still largely powerless.
When I watch the video this post was about, I see a shitty and unbearable music video– but I also see something artificial: A relationship which flies in the face of that which is natural and good and optimal.
I see a man who – while he has a bit of a weak chin – is obviously much taller and physically stronger than his wife (and obviously the harder-working of the pair). There is nothing physically stopping him from backhanding and telling her to show some damn respect and appreciation for what he's provided for her, and to knock it off with the singing. His wife could do nothing to stop him from imposing his will upon her in the service of correcting her bad behaviour.
That's how things are naturally, as a simple result of what men and women /are/ as we exist in this world.
But such a thing is simply not an option today: If you try to do it, then there are police who will arrest you, judges who will sentence you, and wardens who will jail you.
That's the issue. That's what's causing the problem: The government suppressing men's ability to do what's right for their families, and rewarding men's wives for calling the cops on their lippy hubby for his "mental abuse of not keeping the bathroom clean or his clothes drawer tidy" and then divorcing him – and other such crap.
It's an artificial problem with an artificial cause.
Any focus on minor negative behaviours and general disrespect the modern woman gets away with is just feel-good whingin', really – most of it's just her feeling emboldened due to having Big Brother on her side anyway.
most western women are androgynous
Western Christians have no logical reason to oppose gay marriage.
The video is pathetic.
On a more uplifting note, Happy Father’s Day men!
This video is trash. However, and stressing that I am no one’s idea of a white knight, I think the husband in the video might get more respect if he was a better provider. Did you notice the tattered, torn to shreds jeans the woman was wearing? If it were my daughter, I would be sad that she was forced to go out in public dressed in rags and hand me downs.
That’s actually new…I was there a few days ago and some new comments (possibly from here) were springing up. The first two from a couple years ago were positive.
Off Topic:
Wishing all the fathers on Dalrock a happy day, today. If you’ve lost contact with your dad, or your son, I’m at that magic age where I can be either, so allow me to stand in and tip my hat. Fine cigars and single-malt scotch to all of you.
Boxer
“LOL gotta love how in the video both the like-counter and the comments are disabled. Looks like they know how most people feel. That in itself is encouraging.”
She was also getting a lot of negative comments for her “2 Legit 2 Quit” video celebrating Greear as the new SBC president–with guest appearances from Russell Moore, Beth Moore (unrelated to Russell but equally distressing, etc.). I haven’t checked lately, but she may have disabled comments for it, too.
Anon says:
June 16, 2018 at 10:26 pm
American women today take extreme pride in advertising to the world just how repulsive they are.
feeriker says:
June 17, 2018 at 10:14 am
American women today take extreme pride in advertising to the world just how repulsive they are.
If men like it, it’s “objectifying.”
If men hate it, it’s “empowering.”
“American women today take extreme pride in advertising to the world just how repulsive they are.”
Yeah, at work, the burping, proud overeating, bathroom humor, playfully or seriously violent trash talk, terrible clothing. All just so gross.
Even the sex symbol celebrities, whose job it is to be appealing, have opted for those hideous, bleached ten-year-old boy hairstyles. Miley, Scarlett J, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Watson, Anne Hathaway, Taylor Swift. and of course the nutters Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan and on and on. All of those women were (physically) attractive at one point and now are basically flying the middle finger at males with their hairstyles. Their JOB is to be attractive and they’re all about “NO, NO, NO.”
Imagine the Mr. Olympia contestants refusing to lift weights and just going couch potato with their terrible diets. Then they go up on stage in their speedos built like Seth Rogan. This is how our ‘sex symbol’ women are behaving.
Something is so wrong with their voices too. Miley and Scarlett J have voices that make my gear just go into hibernation. Their voices could end the overpopulation issue any time we need them to.
What you guys are talking about and seeing is what full scale rebellion…promoted and encouraged…does to both women and men. It turns women ugly and loud and men weak.
Yeah, at work, the burping, proud overeating, bathroom humor, playfully or seriously violent trash talk, terrible clothing. All just so gross.
That Third World vibrants pursue these vermin tells us how bad the sexual starvation must be. Having sex with an operational meat grinder or garbage compactor would be a safer, less painful, and more olfactorily pleasant experience.
I’m sure there will be loudmouth feminist articles hating on fathers and the patriarchy this day…
However in my little corner of the universe so far it’s been mostly great tributes and respect to their fathers for what they do for their families. I know I wouldn’t be where I am today without my father, grandfathers, and the Father in heaven. Perhaps it’s turning around but it’s much quieter than what the loudmouth rebels yell.
Probably tells you more about third world vibrants and the type of women they grew up with that they would pursue the West’s worst women.
I wouldn’t doubt what Boxer has said what Muslim women are about.
Not a single disparaging word today about men. Just 5 minutes of honor and respect!! Then on to the regular message!
And… a new pastor for the youth. Guy spoke for a minute. gives off alpha vibes. Hope! Good day!
Rent a billboard near every SBC member church: “This church is proudly joined to the Soros Baptist Convention (SBC)”
On that Quiet Man clip, at the 1.23 mark, there’s a cute bit where an elderly woman runs up to John Wayne, and says in an Irish accent, “Oh, sir. Here’s a good stick to beat the lovely lady.”
That’d be considered shockingly abusive today by Christian pastors and tradcons, never mind the feminists.
Not a single disparaging word today about men. Just 5 minutes of honor and respect!! Then on to the regular message!
And… a new pastor for the youth. Guy spoke for a minute. gives off alpha vibes. Hope! Good day!
It’s a sign of how hopelessly jaded I’ve become that even in the wake of these very positive signs, there would be a nagging worry in the back of my mind that the other shoe was about to drop.
Not a single disparaging word today about men.
All clear at my location also. I read here a lot, so I was tensed up for anything (but calmly, like a jungle cat). Thankfully it was smooth sailing. At this particular church Father’s day is the annual baby dedication day, so each Father goes up front to tell what plans he has for the kid’s spiritual development. It’s actually a pretty good public linkage between the Father and children.
I can confirm the same at my place of worship. We prayed for fathers, the priest blessed them, and the choir sang a song for them.
We have to remember sometimes that the empty can rattles the most. Doing things the right way doesn’t generate much noise…therefore it might be harder to recognize it.
I was sent some spam by a realtor, with a Happy Father’s Day video linked. It’s cute, and actually not offensive to fathers.
Happy Father's Day from Beate Kessler-McDermott on Vimeo.
The secular world is more respectful to fathers than are many Christian pastors.
Not a single disparaging word today about men. Just 5 minutes of honor and respect!! Then on to the regular message!
Maybe more people are reading Dalrock than most of us know……
earl,
Probably tells you more about third world vibrants and the type of women they grew up with that they would pursue the West’s worst women.
I thought you had evolved to the point that you realize that ‘pursue’ and ‘marriage’ are two very different things.
@Anon
Do our third world brethern know the difference between a whore and a wife?
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/04/19/samantha-sally-american-traitor/
Interesting about “The Quiet Man” is that its a 1950s film about a fictional story from the 1920s. It muses about Sean–an American–who finds the courtship rituals of his boyhood hometown in Ireland stifling and oppressive– TO HIM. He feels the community being involved in him deciding to pick and take a wife is annoying more than anything. But it does not take the position that anything has changed significantly about male/female nature in that 30 year span of time. The viewer concludes that since the dynamic between men and women is no different, courtship as done in the film is just one alternative way of dealing with it.
Imagine making a film in 2018, where we take a semi-nostalgic/critical look at the normative mate selection processes of 1988.
That was actually the year I was a junior in high school. When I talk about those days to my millenial (and younger) acquaintances, there is a huge range of variance in how they respond to it that does not really correlate well here. For one, folks actually believe that there is something different about women today than back then. As if policies and institutions and pop culture are able to bend the reality of God’s created order.
As if policies and institutions and pop culture are able to bend the reality of God’s created order.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that, where this topic is concerned, most people (and that certainly includes “Christians”) either don’t believe that there is a God-created order, or are absolutely determined to smash the one that they know exists.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that, where this topic is concerned, most people (and that certainly includes “Christians”) either don’t believe that there is a God-created order, or are absolutely determined to smash the one that they know exists.
The latter is far more likely to be true. It is horrifying to realize that humans would entertain the insane idea of killing God and whatever God stands for.
The Psalmist said humans were determined to overthrow God’s government, just as their father the devil tried to do (Psalm 2). The closest they got to achieving their goal was to kill Jesus, who they believed was God or close to God.
That is another reason, I believe, that God cannot allow these rebels in His Kingdom, but will thrust them to the fires to burn throughout eternity. They are not mere “poor sinners” who “fell into sin”, but heavily armed rebels who are determined to abolish God and whatever God stands for once and for all, and replace Him with another god that fits their image of a god.
@earl
“Probably tells you more about third world vibrants and the type of women they grew up with that they would pursue the West’s worst women.”
I have to disagree here. Your statement implies that our women have plummeted to the point that they are now interchangeable with the lower grade women worldwide. But that’s not how it is. Non-Anglo women around the world are, in almost every case, far more feminine, humble and decent than our ogres. That doesn’t mean that I’ve gone zinging off to the binary end of proclaiming them unicorns. They’re flawed, hypergamous, etc but still far better than what we have here. At the least, they are far more feminine and not obese. That’s a good place to start. Actually those two qualities make it a blowout. Like Conor McGregor in a barfight with Jon Stewart. That doesn’t explain very well why foreign men can’t stand our women. I’d guess it’s just that they see Western Anglos as free prostitutes whereas their country’s females had some restriction and dignity still.
Her eyes are a dead giveaway. I presume this is a “reformed” slut who now uses the power of the vagina to make hubby clean up for her, lest she bangs Brad the plumber or Tyrone the inner city basketball coach.
@ John James R. says:
June 18, 2018 at 8:48 am
Bingo. See Rotherham.
1988 was hardly a “leave it to beaver” age……I was there too. Starting my senior year of high school. As I recall…..and the memories are staring to get fuzzy…….it was the same as today in many ways. Women still decided if she liked you, was going to date you, was going to let you get naked with her……….though being a virgin at that age still wasn’t a big deal or stigma on you as a guy……even if you were not Chritian or “religious” back then.
I wish the phrase “Happy Wife, Happy Life” received the same moral opprobrium as “Arbeit Macht Frei.”
Father’s Day at church yesterday: the usual no mention during the services, and “This Is My Father’s World” requested by one of the children during our evening hymn sing.
Interestingly, the Associate Pastor preached on Amos 4 in the evening, and didn’t hesitate to identify the “cows of Bashan” as women (not women and men) who had taken a liking to comfort, booze and riches. However, he went into a kind of “women should know better” discursion on 19th century women who dedicated themselves to making the home a Christian refuge for children and their husband who spent his days out in the “industrial complex”. He seemed to see women as the second line of defense after the men sinned (earlier in Amos): If even the women were sinning, things were really bad.
Of course, that 19th century women’s movement morphed into the early feminists (think “temperance”), and the elevation of women’s spiritual sensibilities above men’s, which ultimately brought us were we are today.
Dave — “That is another reason, I believe, that God cannot allow these rebels in His Kingdom, but will thrust them to the fires to burn throughout eternity. They are not mere “poor sinners” who “fell into sin”, but heavily armed rebels who are determined to abolish God and whatever God stands for once and for all, and replace Him with another god that fits their image of a god.”
Yup. Most of these folks aren’t confused; they’re self-serving, weak, and collusive with evil. And don’t even start with that ‘poor mental health’ nonsense excuse.
Christians are in a fight. A war. It doesn’t happen later on, you know, when all those cool biblical beings show up, and rush around the clouds chopping with their swords.
This is the war. Been going on many decades now, it’s just that ‘Christians’ refused to fight for God. The Western world’s deity, essentially, is Woman. The Almighty People are the gods, each their own. ‘Christians’ either go passive and let the rebels take over all aspects of culture and government (largely accomplished already), or they actively fight for satan, whilst calling themselves Evangelicals, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, ad nauseum. The latter tactic has been documented well in these pages over the past decade.
Bible talks over and over about war — both material and spiritual — overtaking the world in the years leading up to Christ’s Parousia. Well here it is. What you gonna do about it? It’ll take some chunks outta your body and soul, yes meaning if you fight, you will get hurt, guaranteed. Your life will be difficult and you will have few, if any, friends. Real friends. You bio family almost certainly will reject you, because if you’re acting in authentic Christianity, your very presence will burn their consciences and souls. Work? Education? It’ll all be the same.
Now, how many ‘Christians’ do you know, even going back many decades, that fit that bill as warriors? I can count the ones I know on one hand.
Philadelphia is a small church, likely the smallest of the named seven, and when harpazo hits, this world will not even know it happened. These preachers anticipating vast societal changes — and shocks — immediately after harpazo are deluded. The Almighty People didn’t know what an actual Christian was before the Big Snatch . . . but afterwards, they will? LOL!
if you’re not in the war NOW, then why would Jeshua grab you for His army later? He won’t. You will remain here for the trials, and those who already are in war and wilderness, will be taken.
I can confirm the same at my place of worship. We prayed for fathers, the priest blessed them, and the choir sang a song for them.
Ditto at my parish. No calls to “man up” or any sort of chastisement. First a collective prayer of thanksgiving to our Heavenly Father for the gifts of life and faith. Then a prayer of thanksgiving for our earthly fathers. Later on, Dads were treated to a free breakfast in the church hall.
Always look at a woman’s eyes. You can tell which ones are alive and which are dead.
I often think that’s a subtle reason why they put on the clown hair/makeup, the immoral clothes, the tats…to draw your attention away from their eyes.
What exactly is it about the eyes? Sometimes I can pick up on this but often not.
Personality tells.
‘By her haughty stare and her eyelids
an unchaste wife can be recognized.’
Ben Sira 26:9
@RJ
Not all of us. Quite a few assholes down here.
“I know you wanna go”
Ya think?!?
“What exactly is it about the eyes? Sometimes I can pick up on this but often not.”
There is a term I’ve seen in the mansphere, often associated with carousel riders: The Thousand Cock Stare,
Ingracious,
Thanks for another great post. I really liked that this post seems to be without some of the issues that had been in previous posts. I also responded to your last 2 posts on the Jordan Peterson thread. (not sure if you saw that) You really have used your INTJ/Mastermind personality to break down and make the problem clear above.
I’d be interested to hear your ideas on how we get back to where we once were, when women could not vote, and lived with a healthy and natural physical dread of all men, especially their husbands when violated, and not just thugs?
Imagine if you will the roles are reversed. A music video Wher the wife asks her husband if it is alright for to go shopping with her friends and he rhythmically replies, “not until you mop, vacuum dust, cut the grass, do the dishes, make some sammiches …. “. Oh could you imagine the outrage, the hysterical shrieking? Some of the women might also object.
@Sharkly (June 18, 2018 at 7:12 pm)
Thank you again for your positive feedback.
I did see one post from you after my last one, and while I intended to respond to it I ultimately determined that the amount of words I would feel it necessary to write would be staggering – and in service of what? Settling trifling differences in perception? I decided it would be a waste of time and that I just needed a break from this site for a while.
(Editor’s note: Well, the kraken really got unleashed here too. I hope I’m not straying too far off topic.)
I did fully read the comment I saw, and seeing as you’ve brought up a couple things from it again I’ll quickly address those:
1: The INTJ thing I cited was to offer others an opportunity to glean a better understanding of me and my writings if they desired it (i.e. if they were asking themselves “What’s this guy’s major malfunction?”), not to boast or somehow demonstrate my superiority – I also specifically chose a website that used the title “The Scientist” rather than “Mastermind” (as you insist on) because it’s more appropriately neutral, asserting simply that I’m well-suited at mentally analysing and grasping concepts others would have greater difficulty with. It also included many more negative descriptors than other such sites, such as extreme arrogance and stubborn unintelligibility, which I feel are equally as important for others to know about as the whole “me good at thinking” stuff.
I get the impression that you think I have delusions of grandeur and perfection, which couldn’t be farther from the truth: I understand that if I died tomorrow I would leave behind the legacy of yet another pathetic, unimportant failed genius who never accomplished anything and never created anything worth caring about. As I am, I’m not even worth remembering, and I am certainly not some Promethian gift to mankind.
You also brought up IQ in the post I saw, something which I never spoke of: I’ve never taken an IQ test, and I have no intention of ever doing so. I am evidently smart, yes, but what value is there in quantifying “how smart” I am? All that matters to me is what I use my intellect to enable me to achieve or create – hence, my posts.
I hope that clarifies some things on that topic.
2: Looking back, the Jordan Peterson thread was a unique case. Both I and AustralianIrishman came out of hiding to write what were basically the exact same post, and I reckon it was for the same reason: Neither of us wanted to allow the blatant ignorance and untruth we saw in that thread to stand uncontested (especially considering Dalrock himself was party to it).
I personally was not aware of just how many weak-willed, unprincipled, proudly ignorant, “Die Juden!”-conspiracy asshats were readers of this blog, so to see one post after another of them coming out of the woodwork to spout such ignorant trash – and all about someone I consider to be an undeniable force for good in today’s feminised world – really got my goat. I mean, “The Devil-eyed Peterson”? And all the ‘agent of the Jews who wants to keep young men down’ stuff? Come on!
I didn’t want to speak with these people, I just wanted assert my points while spitting in their face.
Here, I’m just adding my two cents. I’ve enjoyed reading everything everyone else has said, there’s no negative emotion or harsh disagreement I wish to express, I just want to bring up something I feel I know quite a bit about and which I feel is relevant to the overall discussion.
That’s it.
The two different contexts naturally result in very different written works. I do, however, take on board your general recommendations about post length, content, language, etc.
If there’s anything else you’d like me to address, feel free to ask.
—–
When it comes to my ideas about how to ‘go back’, I think they could ultimately be boiled down to the… wise words of one Shia Lebouf: “Do it! Just do it!” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0
The problem as I elaborated in my post is explained clearly and concisely in this well-known quote: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
Men are the sheep. That’s just how it is, which means that any attempt to restore sanity/normality by means of government petition will always be futile when men do it. See: The MRA movement.
MRAs are valuable insofar as any group of redpilled individuals which seeks to spread the redpill are good, but they will never see success when it comes to their goals of changing the laws.
And – to go off on a tangent – that’s primarily because many of those laws are fundamentally illegitimate: The government had no right to intrude and arbitrate in such matters, and yet they did so because it got (and gets) them votes. This means that any attempt to ‘change the laws’ in your own favour is an implicit acceptance that the government has a right to create any such laws in the first place.
Which was my point with the marriage contract: There ought to be no such thing as “marriage law” or “divorce law”, because marriage is by the people, for the people – or from God, for the people, the point being that it isn’t from government. The terms of any particular marriage ought to be decided upon and accepted by the two parties involved and then acknowledged and accepted by their own community if it’s viewed as legitimate. The only role the government would have would be to enforce the terms of the contract as it is written by the two parties, and yet now the government instead has the full authority to tell everyone in society what marriage is, how they ought to behave within it, and even whether a marriage is legitimate in its own eyes – by handing out marriage certificates to those it approves of.
Which now includes gay marriages.
Why? Because it used to be that there were more “gay loathers” than “gay lovers” – now, however, that polling trend has reversed, so politicians around the world have bent over and bought the pro-gay vote by happily and carelessly redefining their country’s legal definition of marriage to please a simple voting demographic.
Is that legitimate? Is “marriage” something which two people of the same sex can involve themselves in? The laws and the half-assed views of the voting majority now definitively say yes (even here in Australia), but I still say no.
To get back on track, my estimation is that the game is irredeemably rigged and men were never holding a winning hand anyway, so any idea for a solution that revolves around “playing by the rules” is a non-starter. It must involve civil disobedience, it must involve doing the right thing because it’s the right thing no matter what the laws say and then simply avoiding the government’s intrusion entirely.
Coincidentally, soon after my very first post on this blog I learned about a better term for what I wanted to describe than “vigilantism”, which is: “Agorism”
It basically describes what I already thought at the time:
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMI-K_yK_o&t=1869s (28:50 and onwards)
Well, one thing of interest that stuck out at me from that Tom Woods video was the mention of how agorists will even make use of their own courts when settling disputes…
So, what we have is a group of separatists who live contrary to the laws and customs of the country they reside in, and who even go so far as to have their own secret courts largely in violation of the law?
Hmm?
Sounds a lot like Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods with their Sharia courts, doesn’t it? In a sense, such communities could be described as “theocratic agorists”.
– http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796747/David-Jones-goes-inside-Britains-secretive-sharia-courts-special-report.html
“About 100,000 British Muslim couples — more than 60 per cent of the total — are not legally married, since they have only undergone an Islamic wedding, or nikah, and failed to register their marriages civilly.”
(Haha, there’s the pitiable defense of Islam too: “Then there are those sickening internet videos posted by so-called Islamic State, whose barbarity — lest we need reminding — and corruption of Islamic teaching is utterly repugnant to people of the true Muslim faith.” – Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, ‘true believer’: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12.)
Now, I believe Islam is absolutely evil and that all Muslims who choose to follow and abide by it are destined for Hell, but I would pose the following question: Are the Muslims who uphold their communities in this manner successful and effective?
Have they strengthened their foothold in society? Maintained and increased their freedom to practice their own religion as they see fit, no matter how patriarchal? Kept their women in line, kept their women modestly dressed and behaved in spite of our modern depraved cultures surrounding them, and kept their women from using the modern, immoral state against them through the use of their own parallel court system?
If these communities weren’t doing well overall, then why are they considered to be such a threat?
It’s even the case that many people have already seemingly given in to the idea that Europe is going to inevitably become Muslim now – “Swedistan”, “Germanistan”,”Londonistan”, etc.
Obviously they have not achieved perfect results and their communities are also rife with brutality, terrorism and criminals (and incidentally their religion is also an evil and immoral falsehood), but when you compare it against the pathetic, female-dominated heretical farce that large swathes of the Christian community have become – with churches and communities which only become weaker, more fractured, more irrelevant and closer to death every day – I think you can see my point.
Those would be my ideas at present:
Learn from the growing threat that the “theocratically agorist” Muslim communities (or the Amish, or any other principled separatist sub-culture) are becoming through their continued success; live in the modern world but don’t entangle yourself with its culture; establish a community of likeminded individuals who knowingly live their lives contrary to the laws of the government and who support each other in doing so; and then… just live a natural, good life.
That last part should come naturally – without explanation – because it will involve just doing what’s natural and good.
Like I said, I would assert that many women are simply artificially emboldened today by having Big Brother on their side – that’s how they’re able to get away with their bad behaviours without men putting a stop to it. To your questions:
Women voting is something that men allow.
Women living with disrespect for their husbands is something that men allow.
(And thugs live in violation of the law by their nature – it aids their sexiness, and lets them treat women in a way a law-abiding man cannot even if he knows it makes him unsexy.)
Why are men allowing it? Partly because they are often forcefully brainwashed by modern culture into thinking what’s bad is good and what’s unnatural is natural, but primarily because they are forced to do so by the government and society at large at the threat of job loss, social exclusion, endless fines, imprisonment, and death-by-cop.
Make yourself immune to the state through social, religious and economic independence, and then men can cease allowing women to get away with these things in their own little communities.
Then those little communities will grow bigger as more and more people see the righteousness and success that are inherent to them, until eventually its views will subsume those of the larger, artificial culture which predominates today – which ultimately cannot defend itself from competition because its tenets and views are antithetical to nature and inherently self-destructive.
Or, those little communities crumble the same as any other, then society as a whole crumbles and then it’s just Mad Max for a while.
Success is obviously never guaranteed.
Imagine if you will the roles are reversed. A music video Wher the wife asks her husband if it is alright for to go shopping with her friends and he rhythmically replies, “not until you mop, vacuum dust, cut the grass, do the dishes, make some sammiches …. “. Oh could you imagine the outrage, the hysterical shrieking? Some of the women might also object.
Actually, I think the man caused the problem for himself.
He had no reason to ask for permission from his wife. People treat you exactly how you present yourself to them. If you present yourself like a little kid, they will treat you like one.
What was wrong with simply announcing to his wife: “Hey honey, I’m going fishing. Wanna come?”
That sounds more manly than asking “Mind if I go fishing?”
And there is nothing wrong in saying a simple, definitive “No” when the wife asked him to clean and mop before he went out. Of course she will throw a little tantrum for a while; I bet she’ll soon get over it.
As humans, we are constantly learning, whether we want to or not. We naturally persist in doing what makes us feel good, and avoid what makes us feel bad. American feminists continue in their madness because their men continue to give in to them, and this makes the women feel good. When the men begin to put their feet down by rejecting foolish demands, the feminists in turn will begin to make fewer demands because rejection makes people feel bad.
@Darlock,
More coverage of south baptist exposure:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/sleazy_sex_games_and_dirty_politics_in_the_southern_baptist_convention.html
“American feminists continue in their madness because their men continue to give in to them, and this makes the women feel good.”
I don’t think they feel good at all. They hang on to the runaway freight train of the feminist narrative and continue acting like jerks because that’s all they know how to do at this point. But when their man capitulates, they are not happy.
Off Topic, but very important: Single father has daughter taken away for no apparent reason.
https://pjmedia.com/parenting/american-children-terrorized-by-cps-while-american-lawmakers-cry-about-border-children
It’s a long read. I’ll excerpt some of it here, but do read the whole thing. As bad as the parts I’ll quote are, the complete story is much worse.
This is some seriously messed up stuff.
@Oscar
As soon as this man realized that he was in the sights of the local CPS he should have loaded up the child and driven far, far away. CPS often has a reciprocal agreement with the states that are contiguous, etc. Usually, CPS has 30 days from a complaint being called in to “investigate” but in many cases the ex spouse or ex inlaws are phoning in repeated complaints. I don’t think that I have ever heard of anyone being punished for making repeated and false hotline allegations, and in fact, the social workers often call in repeated false anonymous tips on the hotline about children they want to “rescue” so that they can show the judge that there is a lot of community concern about a particular child.
The system is completely dirty, starting with the fact that CPS is largely funded on a per capita basis. The more children they take into custody, the more social workers they can afford to hire. And in many jurisdictions, they don’t hire genuine social workers who have a code of ethics and who can be disciplined for violations. Instead, they hire anybody with a college diploma who can’t get any other job. These fake social workers are often terrified of venturing into the ghetto, or dealing with a parent with schizophrenia, so instead of dealing with the kids who are in genuine high-risk situations they harass working class parents with clean, well-fed kids who make the mistake of disciplining their children in public, etc.
When a “social worker” shows up at your door, it’s a genuine emergency. Get out of town. Because this man stood up for his rights and wouldn’t allow CPS to snoop inside his home, they snatched his daughter from school. This is standard procedure for CPS.
Speaking of kids being removed from fathers, actress Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) is outraged that Donald Trump is separating kids from illegal immigrant parents. She posts on Instagram:
DONALD TRUMP. You are a disgrace. My blood boils and my heart rages. Injustice and torture. Human rights abandoned. All in the name of you
Meanwhile, Headey hypocritically separated her son from his father.
Tabloids report that after Headey divorced her first husband (filing in 2011, when she became famous), they agreed to share custody in Los Angeles. Then Headey violated the agreement by moving the child to England. Her much poorer husband had a tough time fighting for his rights in the courts.
The husband eventually moved to England to be closer to his son (who now lives with Headey and her current lover, the father of her second child).
Ingracious,
I get the impression that you think I have delusions of grandeur and perfection, which couldn’t be farther from the truth:
No, I hope I didn’t come off that way. I think you are incredibly gifted, and as a young man have great potential. However, your gifting is probably not appreciated by most people and I know that can be frustrating, when things that appear plain to you are seemingly not visible to most others. So, as a person who may be somewhat similar, and has struggled myself with how to apply myself for good in this life, it would seem like a great waste of life lessons, if I didn’t try to sharpen you with some of the things it has taken me a few more decades to come to learn.
For what it is worth, my father was a genius of almost unbelievable intellect. Some of the things he could do with his mind hardly seemed human. He had a somewhat photographic memory and had memorized his slide rule, and could operate it in his mind with greater precision than most of his fellow engineers could achieve with a real slide rule in front of them. Thus he could rapidly do trigonometry in his head to very close precision. Ultimately he had to learn how to relate to others in such a way that he was influential, as opposed to behaving according to his natural inclination.
I learned a lot from him, and I’ve had to learn a lot of things the hard way also.
Due to my situation of being drug before the family courts right now, I am not able to say too much regarding the theoretical utility of civil disobedience in support of Patriarchy, and Etc. As I’ve already been bereft of my sons over a single sarcastic comment that was then purported to be my stated intention.
I like your posts and see that the future needs folks like yourself to sort things out and restore the best of the past, while taking advantage of the best of the new possibilities.
Meanwhile, Headey hypocritically separated her son from his father.
I was going to recommend a mass rubbing of Headey’s nose in her own hypocrisy, but then realized that Instacrap is just as SJW-converged as every other social media organ these days. Any attempt to shame a celebrity feminist whore would just result in mass bannings and censorship.
Sharkly,
I hope that it is clear on my side that I greatly appreciate the posts you’ve written in response to me and for how overwhelmingly welcoming, supportive and courteous you’ve been. I have nothing but respect for you, despite any challenges or provocation I may have offered or may offer in the future.
I appreciate the wisdom you have kindly chosen to proffer to me in your posts, although I hope you are understanding when I am critical about which of it to accept – I mean no disrespect by it, I am simply seeking the truth as best I can as I trust you are as well. Thank you, regardless.
I sympathise with your inability to comment further on the content of my post. There is not much I feel I can say or offer you, but I wish you the best and I hope that justice prevails over injustice for you and your sons.
Perhaps it is a good time to say that I am thankful that I have been allowed to share my thoughts here at all (and without any hostility or desire to expel me from other commenters), and that others are even able to read them. This is a basic freedom which ought not to be taken for granted, and Dalrock himself ought to be thanked for participating in upholding this freedom for all the commenters who come to post here on his blog.
I assume that when my comments have been “awaiting moderation” this has meant that it has required Dalrock’s sighting and approval for them to be made visible – in which case, now that I’ve made several posts I would be receptive to hearing any input from Dalrock about my posting style or the content of my posts and whether there’s anything I need to change. I didn’t read the rules for commenting beforehand, I just wandered in with honest intention and a solid grasp of the written word, hoping for the best – which may be unsatisfactory in light of what I’ve chosen to write.
Anyway, Sharkly, thank you again for your posts. It does mean a lot to have someone who “gets” what I’m saying and then makes a note to say so, so I don’t feel as if I’m just rambling to myself or that I’m alone in thinking what I do.
I look forward to conversing with you in greater detail in the future – hopefully on topics that permit more indepth discussion than civil disobedience etc., and over which I am more able to constrain the lengths of my posts.
—–
I just want to also post this video and some quotes from an interview with Jordan Peterson on the libertarian youtube channel ReasonTV, because it’s quite relevant to the ideas I’ve brought up in my previous two posts here – I just watched it today, and it may help to positively influence the perception of Peterson on this blog for anyone who felt philosophical agreement with what I wrote:
1:05 into video:
Stossel: “If somebody wants to be called Ze or Zir, why not?”
Peterson: “I don’t care what people want to be called, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean I should be compelled by law to call them that. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever – EVER – governing the content of your voluntary speech.”
5:15 into video:
Stossel: “It’s a little discredited now to say ‘I’m a Marxist’.”
Peterson: “Ha, yeah, you’d think so wouldn’t you– except I think it’s one-in-five social scientists identify as Marxist, so… yeah, it’s a little discredited, but it’s nowhere near discredited enough. It should be as discreditable to say you’re a Marxist as it is to say you’re a Nazi.”
*Stossel V.O.*: “It isn’t. On campus, socialism is cherished, says Peterson, although it’s murderous.”
Peterson: “We’ve got a hundred million corpses stacked up to demonstrate.”
(That really is a massively important thing to come right out and say at this point in history. Socialism is winning over the hearts and minds of the young and vulnerable right this very moment, which is how Bernie Sanders and his socialist/authoritarian/big government platform almost got him the US presidency based on nothing but empty promises – he could’ve easily won instead of Trump. I really would like to know about any other influential public figure who’s as openly anti-socialist as Peterson, because each one counts: “It should be as discreditable to say you’re a Marxist as it is to say you’re a Nazi.” – Jordan Peterson, 2018)
6:25 into video:
Peterson: “The free market principles, the idea of individual sovereignty above all else has distributed itself across the world quite effectively. And everyone is doing better here than anyone has ever done on the face of the planet /throughout recorded history/– and the whole West is like that, and to call that all a tyrannical patriarchy is indicative of a very deep resentment and a historical ignorance that’s so profound that it’s indistinguishable from willful blindness.”
“Socialism is winning over the hearts and minds of the young and vulnerable right this very moment, which is how Bernie Sanders and his socialist/authoritarian/big government platform almost got him the US presidency based on nothing but empty promises”
Democracy in the USA is very superficial. First of all big corporations have massive lobbying power, much more than your average citizen has. Second, politics is oversimplified into bipartisan positions, which does not allow for any compromise, nor for any balancing of interests. Third, representative and indirect voting, without compulsory voter identification hinders the “one man, one vote” principle severely.
This all leads to extremely simplified views, including views on socialism. Europe is a good example where multi-party democracies actually function quite well, and a more finer balancing of power is guaranteed because in most instance not a single party does have all the power, but coalitions need to be formed, and hence compromises be negotiated. As it is clear that parties know they need to cooperate again in the future, they cannot and will not address the other political parties as “enemies”. Furthermore, Europe is a good example of how a social democracy can function in the context of a free-market, capitalist society. Many European countries score in the top ten of happiest countries in the world.
They are also aging fast with a low birthrate and importing their replacements. They are unwilling to stop their self-destruction due to the social fiscal nightmare that their welfare states bring. Someone has to pay, there is no such thing as a free meal.
Paul: Second, politics is oversimplified into bipartisan positions, which does not allow for any compromise, nor for any balancing of interests.
The problem isn’t lack of compromise. The problem with “bipartisan positions” is that The Powers That Be (Deep State, Big Media, Banks, Academia) create false dichotomies. You are presented with TWO choices, as if those represent the ONLY choices possible.
Do you want to bomb Iran OR impose sanctions?
Neither. I want to exit the Middle East, end all aid, sever all “alliances,” and let those nations fight or make peace on their own, however they decide.
@ Paul says:
June 20, 2018 at 6:12 am
Bullshit. Happy people don’t commit suicide – individually, OR culturally.
feministhater says:
June 20, 2018 at 6:52 am
“They are also aging fast with a low birthrate and importing their replacements. They are unwilling to stop their self-destruction due to the social fiscal nightmare that their welfare states bring. Someone has to pay, there is no such thing as a free meal”.
feministhater: I have to disagree with you over this one, or perhaps shed more light on the topic. Here goes:
It is true that Europe’s birthrate is the lowest it ever has been – a rate so low that no civilisation has ever recovered from so low a rate. Yet it isn’t the welfare state that has caused this.
First, because the welfare state was invented by Bismarck to prevent unemployed people’s resort to political extremism and it has been with Europe, (I have Germany mainly in mind) for 150 years.
Second, the welfare state produces very generous provisions as an incentive to have children. My son is planning his family now, and he is thinking of staying in Europe where, as a citizen, both he and his wife have very generous paid leave.
Yet this paid leave – 7 months each for mother and father – is not enough to encourage German women to pair up, marry and have children.
They leave it to a frantic gap between 30 and 40 to have one or perhaps two children if that’s still possible.
When asked why they want to leave it so late, they say they want to travel, see the world, live elsewhere, “focus on their careers” (ahem – have casual sex) and “get married at 30”.
They think my son and his fiance are insane for marrying young and having children early. “Can’t you just live together?” is the standard refrain.
In short, Feminism, more than any other single factor contributes to the low fertility rate, at least for Germany.
For the record, I do not claim that Europe is paradise. It’s just a good example of how the influence of socialism has been able to bring balance and successfully represent the interests of the common man. No one in Europe seriously wants communism, they’ve experienced it first-hand, and are forever cured. But they do understand that it’s worth for society as a whole to have a government that looks after the interest of the general public, not just corporations, who in general only care about their profit. For instance, if slavery would be legal again, I cannot think of many corporations who would not make use of it. In fact, many corporations are using slave labor.
@RPL: “You are presented with TWO choices, as if those represent the ONLY choices possible”
Exactly. As in: “do you want to vote Republican or Democrat?”.
@Oscar
http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/
1. Finland (7.632)
2. Norway (7.594)
3. Denmark (7.555)
4. Iceland (7.495)
5. Switzerland (7.487)
6. Netherlands (7.441)
7. Canada (7.328)
8. New Zealand (7.324)
9. Sweden (7.314)
10. Australia (7.272)
11. Israel (7.190)
It’s great that Israel scores high!
18. United States (6.886)
19. United Kingdom (6.814)
20. United Arab Emirates (6.774)
US, UK just slightly above United Arab Emirates!
@feministhater : “Someone has to pay, there is no such thing as a free meal.”
No, that’s why taxes are so much higher in Europe. People earn less money. Yet they are happier.
And don’t forget about country budget deficits and debts! Ironically, the US has the largest deficit and debt in the world! Talking about the risk of a collapsing society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt
Bullshit. Happy people don’t commit suicide – individually, OR culturally.
Yeah, I’ve always wondered by what criteria they are measuring “happiness.”
@feeriker: ” I’ve always wondered by what criteria they are measuring “happiness.””
Well, read the report! (and you do understand statistics don’t you? The existence of suicide is irrelevant)
You’re disagreeing with something I never stated at all. I didn’t state that only welfare is the reason for the destruction of Europe.
So yes, feminism is the cause. They vote for more socialism and more welfare and don’t have children and don’t replace their own Civilisation. In the end, socialism feeds on its own. They’re ‘happy’ until the money runs out or they are dead and replaced. Neither is good for Civilisation.
You can give people drugs all day, they’ll be the happiest they’ve ever been and as that’s the measure Paul uses, that shall be that. Not interested in socialism or generational debt. Nations need to live within their means and stop borrowing from the future to subsidise their happiness today. Enough of the bullshit.
Bismark brought votes as all Politicians do, with money. Money that the government did not make.
Socialist policies are theft and since a large majority is financed through the issue of debt, it’s generational theft on scale never seen before. Don’t steal, it’s like a Commandment or something…
Paul,
I respect most of what you usually say. However, don’t argue just to argue. If feeriker wants to question whether the metric they used to measure happiness suits his argument, that is fine, you don’t have to argue with his question, just let him say it. His question didn’t prove anything, so you don’t really need to respond to it.
The existence of suicide is irrelevant
I myself think suicide is a sign of extreme hopelessness and torment, perhaps coupled with a shortsighted lack of impulse control, and suicide rates would be a quite relevant addition to a society’s happiness rank, if we were trying to see the whole picture. Hopefully I misunderstood what you meant by its irrelevance.
Socialism is like taking for mortgages out on your house, running up as many credit cards as you can muster, taking out as many shady loans as you can manage and then living like a King for a number of years, using up all the capital before you die, leaving your children nothing; and having them cover the debt, often with fatal consequences from creditors who don’t take ‘I don’t have the money’ as an answer. Breaking kneecaps and so on.
That should be ‘four mortgages’ not ‘for mortgages’
Well sheeit! If all the unhappy people kill themselves, just think of the levels of happiness we’ll all have! You’ve solved the world’s problems, my main man! Woweee!
Suicides for everyone! Get your suicide over here! Happiness is just a suicide away, Paul’s got your back!
>> Bullshit. Happy people don’t commit suicide – individually, OR culturally.
> Yeah, I’ve always wondered by what criteria they are measuring “happiness.”
Logically, when the unhappy kill themselves, this would raise the average happiness of those who are left alive.
This demonstrates that happiness is not a good measure of the health of a society.
“Some unhappy and broken people are offing themselves? Whatevs, I’ve got me and mine.”
Ingracious,
With regard to voting for men’s rights at the ballot box:
To get back on track, my estimation is that the game is irredeemably rigged and men were never holding a winning hand anyway, so any idea for a solution that revolves around “playing by the rules” is a non-starter.
Men cannot outvote women, when there will always be some White Knights siding with the “oppressed women”.
Mad_Kalak says:[on another thread] …there is majority support for gun rights over gun control now due to women’s opinions changing, notably on self defense.
It seems that there may be some hope at the ballot box at some point in the future if we can get men’s rights to be of interest to women, and we appeal to their emotions like the left has for so long. Just like the White Knights subject men including themselves to being dominated legally by women, because of their feelings, and lack of good judgment, we should also be able to figure out a way to get large numbers of women to feel like voting for restoration of certain rights that have been stripped from fathers and men in general perhaps in the name of “fairness” or “equality”.
I also think an unrelenting push needs to be made to point out that Feminists are ugly bitchy sexist pigs, until the word feminist has a connotation that few women will want to be associated with.
If women can be won over to like something that has been as demonized as guns have been, we should be able to get a bunch of them to like and support men also.
Ingracious,
In regard to Jordan Peterson; I am not convinced he is good or bad, right or wrong. But at this point I agree with you he is helping young men, and also perhaps some young women, and even some older folks. Not to get the battle started again, but, in my opinion he has not claimed to be a Christian, so I don’t think he is one, by my definition. However, he does seem to be out to share some truth, and sometimes even bits from the Bible. At this particular moment I agree that Dalrock might have been a little off base with his attack on Jordan Peterson, but I also greatly respect Dalrock, and his intuition, so it is possible he is sensing something I don’t. Right now I see that Jordan Peterson is leading many young men, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, they are following his tune. Right now it would seem that much of what he has taught them is positive, like you have said, and is much needed to give young men some hope and some purpose. It is possible he will lead them off to their doom, as some people suspect, but at the moment he hasn’t, and nobody else seems to be offering young men the hope and respect they need. I think we would be foolish not to try to befriend, sharpen, and influence Mr. Peterson in accordance with our ideology, and also give him his due respect. There is no need to make an enemy of him and turn him against us.
I’d like to again reiterate that if we as men can’t learn to show each other respect, we’ll never get others to follow suit. So, hail you, my mighty brothers and bold minded companions you all have my genuine admiration. You are fellow images of God, and the designated ambassadors of God’s kingdom in this fallen world, and I am proud to associate myself with you and to listen to your wise counsel and share in your struggles to be the best you can be for God. If we suffer together with Christ, we will also reign together with Christ! May I joyously meet you all when we each receive our eternal reward, and share in the glory of all that is glorious. May we, though living in flesh, together in unity approach our God and Father and proclaim His Holiness before a mighty host of holy witnesses. To you who fight the fight with me today, I salute you!
@Sharkly: Thanks for your feedback!
” If feeriker wants to question whether the metric they used to measure happiness suits his argument, that is fine, you don’t have to argue with his question”
I interpreted that he didn’t knew what metric was used to measure happiness. That’s defined in the report. Of course you’re entirely free to disagree with it.
“Hopefully I misunderstood what you meant by its irrelevance”
I think so. Of course each individual suicide is awful. My response was that the mere existence of suicide itself does not negate that most people in a country as a whole can be happy.
@feeriker: “Socialism is like taking for mortgages out on your house, running up as many credit cards as you can muster, taking out as many shady loans as you can manage and then living like a King for a number of years, using up all the capital before you die, leaving your children nothing; and having them cover the debt, often with fatal consequences from creditors who don’t take ‘I don’t have the money’ as an answer.”
The situation you’re describing is EXACTLY what’s happening in the USA (have you looked at the National Debt clock? $214,920 debt per citizen), not really known as a socialist regime. This shows that it is just an example of bad governmental practice, not an argument against socialism per se. Taxes are usually used as a means to finance government budget, combined with loans and sales of natural resources.
Again, I’m not a promoter of socialism as an ideology, and think capitalism in general works quite well, but I do recognize that socialism in the form of social democracy has had good influence on European nations. Hard-core capitalism and liberalism are eventually parasitic on a society if not restricted by society (“Love for money is the root of all evil”, anyone?). As an illustration look at the financial crisis of 2008. In the end, society had to pay the price for “private” banks. Most European countries have shifted in the past three decades towards “privatizing” (=selling) institutions that were built with collective money, hence towards a more capitalist approach. Some of it turned out to be good, some of it turned out to be a regression. Back then the belief was that if these institutions were left to the free market, it would be automatically better. Well we now know that was an illusion.
In the end, it’s a choice of a nation to decide how much should be under government control: too little is not good, and too much is not good, it’s hard to strike the right balance.
Paul says:
June 21, 2018 at 3:06 am
“In the end, it’s a choice of a nation to decide how much should be under government control: too little is not good, and too much is not good, it’s hard to strike the right balance.”
Not really hard to figure out, not at all. The U.S. under the Constitution (so, arguably pre-1860, and certainly pre-1913) worked really well. The economic growth rates were easily up there with China’s the last 20 years, and Japan in the 1960s and 1970s. So, cutting out all government agencies, activities, regulations, and taxes that didn’t exist prior to either 1860 or at least 1913 would seem in order. (Yes, the income tax and probably property tax would have to go.) I would keep the Air Force and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but shut down the rest of goverment (at all levels) that didn’t exist either 105 or 158 years ago as unneeded at best and criminally parasitic at worst.
@Luke:
What might have worked back then is no guarantee to work now. That’s not a safe bet.
As a society we have an interest to protect resources and leave them as an inheritance to our offspring. That holds for space, nature, the environment, infrastructure etc. etc. To not govern them is to let someone or something else do it for you. You do not know if that will serve your (long-term) interests. Therefore, it’s better to have a strong democracy, and a government that is focused on serving societies’ interests for the benefit of the majority.
feeriker didn’t state that, I did.
America has the same disease as Europe. I’m not holding up America as an example of anything. You are the one holding up Europe as the example, a bunch of failing states who are self-destructing. Socialism is theft. Either organise it through voluntary action or own up to the fact that you want to take from others to give to yourself through government force. America has an even bigger problem, corporation welfare. Bail outs. Endless wars. It’s all due to the same problem, too much socialism. Combined with a fiat monetary system and moar debt which equals a need for a continual growing population with a constant need for economic growth to subsidize an increasing social policy. The loop is endless until you run out of resources, money, people or otherwise.
Learn to live within your means. This counts for America as much as Europe. Once Europe is overwhelmed by the current migrant crisis, which is directly related to their need for a new tax base for their social welfare schemes, that happiness index will drop like a rock.
Then don’t use socialism. Where do you think the next crop of taxes are going to come from in Europe? The poor children of the natives or the poor migrants? A socialist net requires a constant inflow of new tax payers, it never stops until it destructs. The EU is disintegrating right before your eyes and the youth unemployment rate is high in many of the EU states but you still want moar socialism.
Learn to do without, don’t steal from others. Whether thievery makes you happy is irrelevant, it’s still a sin.
And if the West had practiced real Capitalism, those banks would have failed as they should have. Welfare, whether given to people or corporations or banks, is wrong. If society had reaped the whirlwind back in 2008 rather than extending and pretending, we could have seen a rebirth of the West rather than the destruction of it.
Make no mistake, the politicians and the banks decided to keep the charade going for their own good.
This is bullshit. As soon as they got bail outs from the tax payer it ceased being a ‘free market’. Done and dusted. Next. It’s a fraud now.
I’m all for responsible government spending. And taxes are required for whichever form of government you desire. If you want to call that thievery, that’s a stretch, to call it sin is too much. Even Jesus when asked told to give the emperor what was his.
And no, I did not vote for more socialism per se, but wanted to counter the claim that socialism is somehow inherently evil and should be avoided at all cost. Social democracies have shown that socialism did benefit societies, even those who operate as a “free” market economy with a strong democracy.
There is no such thing as “real capitalism”. It can only exist if the government (that is society) creates and sustains the conditions necessary for a “free” market. There’s nothing free about that, not in terms of cost for society, and not in terms of necessary laws to govern behavior in such a market.
You seem to be arguing that a Capitalist venture cannot fail otherwise it’s an illusion but no one has ever argued that all Capitalist ventures succeed, in fact, most will fail, that is the right of it. It creates and stimulates competition.
You also seem to be arguing that these institutions were run better by government. Is that so? It’s easy to keep a business going when you can force your ‘customers’ to buy from you at any price. Being from South Africa and living in Cape Town, I can tell you that both our water and electricity have gone up exponentially whilst at the same time we have been using less and less. All government run, all failures. Constant bail outs, constant increase in tax payments. Now we must pay for that and for the necessary alternatives to live our lives, paying double for the privilege. Don’t even get me started on education. Pay moar for less is the motto.
There is always greed. A socialist or capitalist system cannot change this. Those people will either be abusing the market or abusing the political landscape. The one thing capitalism does is create wealth were none existed before, purely by creating incentive. That’s it. Try start a socialist system when you have nothing, see how well it goes. You need the money created through the work of others before you to create your paradise.
Then give them all your money. When you vote to take other people’s wealth, i.e. socialism, that is theft. Are you offended?
Really? Do people only do things if government says so? How do you think society even started? Voluntary interactions or through government fiat and laws?
Dalrock:
Off topic, and I don’t know where to put this, but it’s a very good documentary from Australia. Made in 2014, it hasn’t surfaced until now:
@ Paul says:
June 20, 2018 at 10:02 am
I’m aware of the “world happiness report”, and I’m also aware that it’s bullshit.
Europe is in the process of committing suicide at cultural, and national levels. Happy people don’t commit suicide. Your data is bullshit.
Capital doesn’t engender “voluntary interactions,” and capital is a recent innovation, that didn’t exist at the formation of society.
Oscar, so why exactly is the hapiness report bullshit? Do you have any comment on the applied ways of measuring it? Or do you contest the data?
Furthermore, I don’t recognize “cultural and national suicide”, although of course there’s a steady decline in adherence to Christianity, with its associated increase in problems.
And your statement on suicide versus happy people still doesn’t make sense. In all countries people commit suicide, although with different rates. So are you saying that therefore no happy people can exist?
@feministhater: “You seem to be arguing […]”
Well actually I’m not. Some of these institutions are too strategic to be left to the free market. Others were quite successful, and are arguably better. What I argue is that *governments* during that time *believed* that if they sold existing social institutions (electricity, water, phone, post etc.), that would *automatically* benefit society *because of free market*. All people who warned against such hopelessly wishful thinking were ridiculed at the time.
I didn’t say it did. Mutual co-operation for benefit does. That is neither socialism nor capitalism. It was Paul’s contention that society starts off by society (government) dictating the terms.
As I said to Paul already. If they can do it by voluntary actions, i.e. people pooling their resources and wealth together for the benefit of society. Have at it. I don’t see that happening in Europe or America.
Spain, a socialist government now, recently kicked students out of their paid for residences to make way for the migrants coming from Libya. In the end, someone always pays. All for the bragging rights and being the saviours of the day.
You might not recognise it but it is happening. It’s more likely you willfully refuse to see it. However, your socialist Europe has had a steady decline of Christendom whilst it has succumbed to socialism, with most not even identifying as Christian anymore but they are now happier, this must mean that Christianity makes people sad and it is good that it is being done away with and being replaced by Islam.
You made this case, live by it. Europe is happier with less Christianity and less Church but more state. The state is your God.
Ah yes, daddy government…. doing such a good job at keeping those strategic institutions running. It’s not like we have a problem with single moms or anything, it’s not like daddy oversteps his bounds and destroys all meaning and purpose, no, never. Trust in your government, eh?
We’re from the government and we’re here to help!
@ Paul says:
June 21, 2018 at 10:11 am
I already explained that.
Then you’re blind. If European countries continue on their current demographic trajectory, they will cease to exist as nations and/or cultures. Happy people don’t do that to themselves.
Are you saying that you think happy people commit suicide?
Sorry for the OT post, but I couldn’t resist; this showed up in my Facebook feed along with a picture of the husband painting his wife’s nails.
“Currently weeping as my foot-washing (literally), servant-hearted husband finishes my foot soak and massage with a pedicure. What a gift God has given me in [Husband].”
It’s great that she’s speaking well of her husband, of course, but yeesh….
“It was Paul’s contention that society starts off by society (government) dictating the terms.”
No, I said it takes government to create and sustain the conditions for a free market (e.g. money, ownership laws plus protection of property etc.) Without it, people with the biggest power just take what they want. Societies can and have existed without central governments, but societies sufficiently large develop one.
“If they can do it by voluntary actions, i.e. people pooling their resources and wealth together for the benefit of society. Have at it. I don’t see that happening in Europe or America.”
Oh but that does happen, examples are insurances, cooperations, foundations, funds, clubs etc.
“Ah yes, daddy government…. doing such a good job at keeping those strategic institutions running.”
Well, no one argues that governments are perfect. As Christians we are called to respect authorities, including governments, for the benefits they give. We also know that in all human endeavors, sin sneaks in. No surprises there. But again, that has nothing to do with benefits of socialism.
“Europe is happier with less Christianity and less Church but more state. ”
That is not an accurate observation. European government already had socialist influences long before the decline of Christianity kicked in in the 60s. Most states have since then not significantly become more socialist, hence that is not correlated. And the happiness report does not measure spiritual happiness, so you cannot argue Europe is happier with less Christianity.
It’s great that she’s speaking well of her husband, of course, but yeesh….
At the moment, yes. If he makes a habit of it, however, she’ll be singing a very different tune.
“Are you saying that you think happy people commit suicide?”
You’ve just confirmed you misunderstand statistics.
Oh but it is and they have. Socialism leads to the destruction of family, it erodes bonds, it creates disincentives to form families, it replaces God with the state. You can try to avoid the direct correlation between single mother hood, lack of children and lack of families with welfare policies but it always comes home to bite you in the arse. The state replaces the father in the home, put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it.
I didn’t argue that but you argued that Europe is happier now with less Christianity. Your hole, dig yourself out.
Dear Feminist Hater:
The smart folks call that “primitive communism.” It works well in very small communities, where everyone knows each other, and people can tally debits and credits in their heads. Once society scales up past a certain point, you have to introduce some sort of money system, and that’s where things go south.
I read his post. I don’t think he forwarded that idea. (I think he’s wrong, too. He’s just not wrong for the reason you argue he’s wrong.)
Boxer
“The smart folks call that “primitive communism.” It works well in very small communities, where everyone knows each other, and people can tally debits and credits in their heads. Once society scales up past a certain point, you have to introduce some sort of money system, and that’s where things go south.”
Voluntary communes (hippies, Amish, etc.) are completely different than what Marx and Lenin had in mind. In their system, a murderous dictatorship eventually disappeared (“the state withers away”) as communism starts “working” and there’s no ruling party to enjoy the spoils or lord it over the masses.
We’ve seen how well that’s worked out in N. Korea, Cuba, China, etc.
If you want to criticize something, it always helps to be minimally familiar with it.
“The state replaces the father in the home, put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it.”
Well, that’s not a unique characteristic of socialism, now is it? Else how come everybody is complaining about how the liberal/capitalist government of the USA is enforcing feminist ideology? The obvious analogy is that just as a father is a figure of authority, so is the government. Regardless of which ideology forms the basis of that government.
Again, I’m not defending socialism, but do recognise its positive influence on social democracies. And I’m completely against any totalitarian state whatsoever.
“I didn’t argue that but you argued that Europe is happier now with less Christianity. Your hole, dig yourself out.”
No I did not. You made the connection with Christianity and claimed a causal connection between the current measurement of happiness in Europe and a decrease in the influence of Christianity. I already mentioned the negative effects of the diminishing role of Christianity.
Paul says: I did not vote for more socialism per se, but wanted to counter the claim that socialism is somehow inherently evil and should be avoided at all cost.
If you will accept the wisdom of a man more devout and God fearing than us, who risked his life and fortune and endured famine and peril, and thought it necessary to warn of the evil that is communism; I will share with you from William Bradford’s Journal of Plymouth Plantation.
The first two years everything was owned, farmed, fished, hunted, traded, and rationed communally, and there was never enough food to keep the people healthy. Many had died in just 2 years. Bradford (the governor) writes of himself in the third person, and I have modernized his spelling for you.
So they began
to think how they might raise as much corn as they
could, and obtain a better crop than they had done,
that they might not still thus languish in misery. At
length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with
the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that
they should set corn every man for his own particular,
and in that regard trust to themselves; in all
other things to go on in the general way as before.
And so assigned to every family a parcel of land,
according to the proportion of their number for that
end, only for present use (but made no division for
inheritance), and arranged all boys & youth under some
family. This had very good success; for it made all
hands very industrious, so as much more corn was
planted than otherwise would have been by any
means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him
a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.
The women now went willingly into the field, and
took their little ones with them to set corn, which
before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to
have compelled would have been thought great tyranny
and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course
and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst
godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of
that conceit of Plato’s & other ancient’s, applauded
by some of later times; that the taking away of
property, and bringing in community into a comon
wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if
they were wiser than God. For this community (so
far as it was) was found to breed much confusion &
discontent, and retard much employment that would
have been to their beneflt and comfort. For the
young men that were most able and fit for labor &
service did repine that they should spend their time
& strength to work for other men’s wives and children,
with out any recompense. The strong, or man
of parts, had no more in division of victuals & clothes,
than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter
the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged
and graver men to be ranked and equalized in
labors, and victuals, clothes, & Etc., with the meaner &
younger sort, thought it some indignity & disrespect
unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to
do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing
their clothes, & Etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery,
neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the
point all being to have alike, and all to do alike,
they thought them selves in the like condition, and one
as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those
relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did
at least much diminish and take of the mutual respects
that should be preserved amongst them. And would
have been worse if they had been men of another
condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption,
and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all
men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom
saw another course fitter for them. But to return.
William Bradford, amongst holy and devout believers who nobly endured famine and death discovered that in treating all men alike there was a vanity of conceit, as if they were wiser than God.
God has by nature taught us it is wise to show greater respect to our elders, and our betters. God himself has set distinctions among men. When we show a child equal respect to his father, we ignorantly delve into folly, and raise up entitled snowflakes. We should honor every man for the distinct power, position, and particulars, God has gifted them with, without becoming “respecters of persons” who respect some men for personal gain and not all men out of duty to God.
We hold it to be self evident that God creates all men of equal worth, with one eternal soul apiece, but we are also told to honor and subject ourselves to those God puts into leadership over us.(just like women should) To treat all men exactly the same is neither a natural relationship, nor good. Where will we be as a society if people stop respecting the police more than themselves? Bradford points out that it was not the godly men of Plymouth that failed, it was the course itself that failed, seeing all men have this corruption in them. AMALT! Bradford threw off communism in 1622, and Red Pilled us in his Journal. For he who has an ear to hear it; Communism/Socialism is a vain conceit against God’s established hierarchy and division of mankind, breeding confusion, discontent, and retarding employment that would be to our benefit and comfort. Who knew?
Communal ownership of property didn’t work in Acts either. The apostles had to kill people to put them all into fear to keep the unnatural system of communal property working. So always does communism/Socialism/National Socialism(Nazi) have to kill multitudes to keep its unnatural vanity functioning. Jesus often spoke of personal property and how we are to steward it charitably so that we lay up personal treasure in heaven also.
You can’t give over the duty of caring for your neighbor to the usurping state. Charity is the churches duty. For those who scream about separation of church and state, tell the state to get out of the churches charity business, because they have stolen the churches commanded outreach, and usurped the churches right hand of fellowship to those needing helped. “Sorry, I gave at the office already. The government took my Christian charity out of my paycheck.” “Go see the government!”, says the church.
Dear Sharkly,
A few questions for you, my brother.
1. Who did the apostles murder?
2. What “state” did the apostles work for?
3. Where is the failure of the system set up in the first few chapters of Acts documented?
4. Who is the socialist who condemns “personal property”?
(Note: “personal property” is not the same thing as “capital” or “real property”)
5. Where does Jesus talk about “steward it charitably” in regards to wealth and money?
Thanks in advance.
Boxer
“If you want to criticize something, it always helps to be minimally familiar with it.”
What’s the sound of one non sequitur clapping?
I’m familiar with what Marx said about primitive communism. He’s still wrong.
Sharkly @ 9:16 pm:
“William Bradford, amongst holy and devout believers who nobly endured famine and death discovered that in treating all men alike there was a vanity of conceit, as if they were wiser than God.”
The correct Biblical principles are much simpler. “The worker is worth his wages”. Lev. 19:13, Matthew 20:8, Luke 10:7, 1 Timothy 5:18 and James 5:4. Also, “if a man does not work then he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:8-10. Bradford failed to understand Scripture. To his credit, however, he admitted he was wrong instead of murdering the witnesses like a true believer in Communism.
No need to stretch for some ‘vanity of conceit’ principle.
No, you’re not. You conflate hippies with Amish with pre-capitalist social organizations.
You have yet to make an argument.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Gunner:
That’s not only in the bible, it’s also a direct quote from the 1930s Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Best,
Boxer
Well, we already knew Bradford was bad at Communism when he balked at implementing oppression.
“The women now went willingly into the field, and
took their little ones with them to set corn, which
before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to
have compelled would have been thought great tyranny
and oppression.”
1. The apostles condemned “a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife” and they miraculously died immediately upon hearing their condemnations. Acts 4:34 – 5:11
2. The apostles were ambassadors and witnesses of God’s heavenly kingdom. they were not associated with any earthly kingdom, but they were church leaders.
3. The failure was a failure of human nature to be able to live up to altruistic ideals. an immediate attempt was made to cheat the system with Ananias & Sapphira wanting the maximum in virtue signaling, while not actually giving all to the cause, but some capital was held back for themselves. I must plead ignorance. But, although I don’t know my church history, I believe after the apostles were off of the scene, and people were not afraid of being struck dead, the system mentioned in Acts 4:34 – 5:11 probably didn’t last long. Perhaps somebody on here knows how long that lasted, and what percentage of people participated to the same level as Barnabas.
4. I chose to remain ignorant of the finer differences between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and National Socialism, just as I feel that the Bible tells me to remain Naïve of witchcraft and other evil ways. To me they are all vain attempts by mankind to live as though we are not inherently possessed by a sinful nature. A vain attempt to bring an idolatrous altruistic utopia of, by, and for, unregenerate men. It’s going to take a lot of re-education camps and a lot of killing, and it will still never succeed at cleansing one heart, or one mind. Quoth William Bradford; “…all men have this corruption in them”.
In places like Venezuela most recently, the proponents will try to split hairs about how if the Venezuelans just split this hair or that hair a little father to the left or to the right the holy Jerusalem would have descended out of heaven and we could have gazed on the gilded halls of their El Dorado worker’s utopia thanks to their Socialism. LOL It has never really worked. Even the church can’t make it work. I do not care to know what exactly is the socialist view on private property. I suppose they would not have let me inherit my father’s farm land, but they would let me keep my toothbrush if I behaved, so I suppose the line is somewhere in between there.
I have found that they like to say I can’t condemn their ideology because I don’t know its finer distinctions and nuances. LOL I say, I’m largely ignorant of it, and yet I condemn your belief in it, all the more nonetheless. And since it is ultimately their religion, I won’t argue it forever, I’ll just condemn it as false religion. No amount of economic failure in the real world, will prick their faith.
5. “Steward it charitably” is my synopsis. Unfortunately I have to leave where I am right now, and do not have the time to find and paste in the scriptures right now. FWIW I don’t spend much time studying the scriptures about money, it isn’t my motivation for interest in the Bible. I won’t be able to pull these verses from memory.
Dear Sharkly:
Thanks for your response. Please see below…
Earlier you wrote:
But the text doesn’t support that at all. Ananias was rebuked for lying in an attempt to defraud his community, and the apostles didn’t kill him. He either died of stress, or God killed him for lying, depending upon how you want to interpret those verses.
Then your arguments about socialist states don’t really follow.
Well, again, that’s not really related to your first claim, nor to my request for a citation to support it.
Well, the first part of Acts talks about early Christians and their implementation of communism. It’s hard to believe that the early church fathers were practicing “witchcraft and other evil ways” by doing so. In any case, none of this follows from the propositions you began with.
I’m a big fan of the text, and I assumed you’d be able to cite the text, since you claimed to be paraphrasing from it with your original comment. I respect your opinions, but they have nothing to do with the New Testament (and are, in fact, directly opposed to it.) That’s not a big deal, as we can see other people in this thread talking out their ass too; but, you seem to be smarter than those guys, so it might be useful to craft your arguments a bit more carefully, in order to be the best critic you can become.
Best,
Boxer
”Well, the first part of Acts talks about early Christians and their implementation of communism.”
A temporary,small scale and voluntary thing where people give to the apostles and men in the church where they know each other face to face in a close knit community.
No red terrors by evil men like Lenin and Stalin. No collectivisation of property.And Holodomor where millions of Ukranians died.
Implemented on a society wide scale its Old Testament Israel regular jubilee every 49 years where all debts are cancelled. Or that the poor are able to get the gleanings of food left from harvests.
Read the Old Testament laws on how the poor are to be treated for a scaled up version of what you call “communism”
And we only need to look at how ”not true communism” worked out across history and Venezuela. ”Not true capitalism” does better at scaling up and helping lifting people out of poverty than “not true communism”
As for the closest to the Communist Ideal in revolutionary spain as it happened:
This is the non-leninist stalinist socialism as was implemented in spain.
Sharkly @ June 21, 2018 at 11:57 pm:
“1. The apostles condemned “a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife” and they miraculously died immediately upon hearing their condemnations. Acts 4:34 – 5:11”
It was God who killed them, not the apostles. Their crime was lying or if you like, virtue-signaling, not keeping property private. Re-read Acts 5 verses 4 & 8.
“2. The apostles were ambassadors and witnesses of God’s heavenly kingdom. they were not associated with any earthly kingdom, but they were church leaders.”
Paul was a Roman citizen and made repeated use of it in Scripture. He also instructed believers to be subject to mortal authorities, for example Romans 13.
“3… I must plead ignorance. But, although I don’t know my church history, I believe after the apostles were off of the scene, and people were not afraid of being struck dead, the system mentioned in Acts 4:34 – 5:11 probably didn’t last long. Perhaps somebody on here knows how long that lasted”
Don’t plead ignorance; ask questions instead.
That particular outbreak of exuberant generosity & idleness died when the Church was persecuted & scattered after the stoning of Stephen as documented in Acts 8. There were similar outbreaks because many in the early Church expected Christ to return within their lifetime but Paul taught against this by plying his trade as a tentmaker instead of relying on church funding. Also, the letter of 2 Thessalonians warns against idleness. Since those times, commune life in Christendom has been rare.
“4. I chose to remain ignorant of the finer differences between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and National Socialism, just as I feel that the Bible tells me to remain Naïve of witchcraft and other evil ways. To me they are all vain attempts by mankind to live as though we are not inherently possessed by a sinful nature.”
Um… do you really think you might become a Communist if somebody tells you what Communism is? And what are you using the Internet if you want to be ignorant of evil ways?
“5. “Steward it charitably” is my synopsis. … FWIW I don’t spend much time studying the scriptures about money, it isn’t my motivation for interest in the Bible. I won’t be able to pull these verses from memory.”
I know Scripture and the closest passage I can think of to what you describe is the Parable of Talents… it doesn’t fit here. I hope you aren’t thinking of Matt. 27:6-7.
If you are a Protestant then I would have some words with you about your intentionally spotty understanding of Scripture. Do remember that Christ wants us to be as shrewd as snakes, yes? (Matt. 10:16)
Boxer,
Sorry if I used excessive artistic license with my words. I’m also not above talking out my ass. LOL I knew saying communism failed in Acts too, would surely stir up an argument. I’ve had that argument in person more than once before. Most folks want to believe communism can work, and if they’re Christians, they feel surely good Christians will be able to live up to it. The road to Hell was paved with similar good intentions.
Acts 5:9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
Peter (whom Catholics claim as their first Pope) seems to have at least called out a divine hit on Ananias and Sapphira, if you don’t want to accept he killed them miraculously. Ultimately the text does not explain in detail how that happened, but I know the whole incident is recorded in there as a lesson for us. Perhaps I shouldn’t have written it in such an inflammatory and trolling way. You say that the text does not support that, but I say that the text neither precludes that either. Although below I state that I don’t think theirs was actually a mandated system of communal property, so much as a massive voluntary giving of charity. Perhaps my aversity to godless communism makes me want to poke a commie any chance I get, even when the early church was just exercising ordinary Christian charity to an extraordinary degree. I guess I went too far and labeled it another commie failure. LOL Poor commies cant catch a break from their perpetual mockery!
It’s hard to believe that the early church fathers were practicing “witchcraft and other evil ways” by doing so.
You’re right. I went too far. They weren’t dabbling in communism, they were just shockingly charitable.
Then your arguments about socialist states don’t really follow.
Sure it does. Was there ever a large scale long term communist/socialist experiment at the state level, or church level, or any level, that didn’t eventually involve killing people? (that’s rhetorical. Please don’t provide some obscure commune with no recorded deaths)
I can’t support every opinion I have expressed, but, I came to have them through learning.
Feel free to show me the socialist state or communist church that is currently God’s shining ensample on earth. I’ll eat my words and join up. I’ll see you there comrade!
I could try to list the failed attempts, but That’d be long like a doctoral dissertation. Apparently even Bradford was aware that this had been tried and failed before they landed in 1620.
…the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s & other ancient’s, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
Governor William Bradford outed Da GBFM’s Boi Plato as a source of conceited claptrap. Ha ha!
(Trolling GBFM)
Don’t listen to me, talking out my ass, but listen to Governor Bradford, he was a man’s man, enduring from a once sickly orphan boy, raised by his uncle and the outlaw nonconformist separatist church, to a giant historical figure, pacifying confederated tribes of hostile Indians through magnificent statecraft, elected to 30 one year terms as governor, yet blessed with the humility to admit when his group had foolishly blundered into the vain conceit of others who also thought themselves wiser than God.
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
communism/socialism, a conceit against God, fails absolutely every time, by divine ordinance.
I say, Governor William Bradford nailed it. Yes, he stepped in the shit, but when he smelled the stench of death around him, he humbly and rightly diagnosed it as a result of a conceit against King Jesus.
If you can explain better how you think “steward it(money) charitably” is not in keeping with the new testament, I think I may be able to find some appropriate scripture to paste up here, but again I’m pressed for time, and don’t know which aspect of that sounds off to you?
I value your opinion, and would be interested to know.
That particular outbreak of exuberant generosity & idleness died when the Church was persecuted & scattered after the stoning of Stephen as documented in Acts 8. There were similar outbreaks because many in the early Church expected Christ to return within their lifetime but Paul taught against this by plying his trade as a tentmaker instead of relying on church funding. Also, the letter of 2 Thessalonians warns against idleness. Since those times, commune life in Christendom has been rare.
Thanks Gunner Q, that’s what I needed to know.
Um… do you really think you might become a Communist if somebody tells you what Communism is?
LOL No, nor do I think I would become a devil worshipper by studying black magic, witchcraft, or occultism, but we are warned to avoid it, perhaps because Satan’s deceit is cunning, and insidious. While not swallowing the whole enchilada, I may have an unworthy thought implanted. I also enjoy self educating, but do not want to waste my time studying failed theories.
I wouldn’t brush up on my caloric or phlogiston heat theories that oddly they taught me about in school before teaching the mechanical theory of heat. So why would I study Marxism if I think it is both evil and failed? Just to better debate with its dupes? I should be a wiser steward of my time.
I have often thought of writing a refutation of communism, but I can’t bring myself to do the necessary study of the foolishness.
I think we are told to be wise stewards in more than one way, and we are also told to be charitable in more than one place, so I don’t think it is heretical to think we should steward our property charitably. And use some of our temporal rewards to secure eternal reward.
If you are a Protestant then I would have some words with you about your intentionally spotty understanding of Scripture.
I consider my beliefs Protestant. I wasn’t trying to say that I remain intentionally ignorant of the Bible. I’ve read the entire Book more than once. I was saying that when I study topics, I don’t often study money. I’m not some “prayer of Jabez” formula worshipper who is looking to turn my God into a get rich quick scheme. Nor do I listen to the guys on the radio who teach “Christian finances” every single day while folks are going to hell, families are breaking, and people face trials and temptations. I guess I’m just not a very money motivated person in general. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve tried to get rich quick, and have sort of done it twice already, at least on paper. LOL I’m just not going to try and drag my God down to being a slot machine or scour the Bible for a way to extort filthy lucre in the name of Jesus. I’ve also had my shot at unjust gain more than once and passed it by.
(Hehe, it’s fun to come back and see that even on this blog ‘socialism vs. capitalism’ can still start an argument. Money makes the world go round, I suppose, and hey, it wasn’t me who started it.)
—–
@Paul (June 20, 2018 at 6:12 am)
“This all leads to extremely simplified views, including views on socialism.”
Which simplified views of socialism would those be? “Hey, socialism just hasn’t been tried yet! Capitalism is slavery! Look at my Che Guevara shirt and the Karl Marx poster I keep on my wall, they’re cool dudes! I’m feeling the Bern, bro! I love free college! Venezuela was so totally socialist until it so totally wasn’t socialist! Look at the rad hammer and sickle tattoo I have on my chest – it’s over my heart, because my heart beats red! *wink, wink*”
Wait, no, going by context you actually mean “Socialism is bad” is the simplified (read: not really true) view.
And in order to support that idea, you need to play fast-and-loose with the definition of “socialism”.
Here’s an actual definition of “socialism” to set the record straight:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/socialism
1.
an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2.
any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3.
(in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
The definition is essentially the same across every dictionary site that I scanned:
– https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
– http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
– http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
– https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism
You speak to it in your later posts, but what you are talking about, Paul, is summed up in Merriam-Webster’s footnote about “Socialism vs. Social Democracy”:
“…In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.”
Which, in essence, is itself a tacit admission that “Socialism is bad”: It’s so bad, that in order to make it “work” we need to entirely and unequivocally abandon the very core ideas that make it what it is, and instead take only loose and vague inspiration from some of its more ambiguous components – or in simpler terms, we need to water it down until it’s practically just water instead.
‘Socialism says we should take absolute control of the means of production and not allow any profit: Well, we’ve decided to put a couple of minor regulations on privately-owned companies which should act to slightly reduce their otherwise still massive profits… that’s close enough, right? We also don’t eat poor people, so does that mean we get to call ourselves socialist now? It’s such a cool word!’
The socialism that is winning over the hearts and minds of the young and vulnerable is not “social democracy” (even granting that Bernie’s presidential platform was largely only based on pitching that), it’s socialism.
Marxist-Leninist socialism, Socialism socialism, “pure” socialism, the socialism which was repeatedly implemented in the 20th century and directly killed millions of people across multiple countries through the governmental tyranny it inevitably fosters and the material deprivation it inevitably causes.
That’s a bad thing. It’s a pernicious ideology, and such an ideology shouldn’t be winning over hearts and minds in this day and age.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
We can talk about how best to help the poor and worse off and not leave them out in the cold, how best to structure a country’s political system so that politicians care more about the little guy, and so on, but can we agree that Marxist socialism is just outright terrible?
Would you find support for Jordan Peterson’s statement:
“It should be as discreditable to say you’re a Marxist as it is to say you’re a Nazi.”
Is being a Marxist bad? Agree or disagree?
Is socialism bad? Agree or disagree?
(And, again, the definition of socialism is not “the nice, non-murdery parts of socialism which incidentally happened to influence ‘social democracy’, an entirely different distinct set of ideas for governmental design which specifically resulted in the wake of the failure of socialism because socialism is bad and doesn’t work” – excuse the poetic license.)
—–
@Paul (June 20, 2018 at 9:49 am)
“No one in Europe seriously wants communism, they’ve experienced it first-hand, and are forever cured.”
…”Forever cured”?
I would not feel as certain of that as you are; such a bold statement speaks of foolhardiness to me.
Those who forget the past are so common that we need a famous quote to remind us not to forget that we might forget. And I’m probably stealing that joke, but if I ever knew from whom, then I must’ve forgot.
—–
@Sharkly (June 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm)
“It seems that there may be some hope at the ballot box at some point in the future if we can get men’s rights to be of interest to women, and we appeal to their emotions like the left has for so long.”
I just don’t see how this is possible in the areas that actually matter.
Gun rights are one thing, but that’s an issue where you’re able to pitch it to women as offering them benefits as well: ‘Hey, guns are the great equaliser, they help you protect yourself against those evil men who (you think) are lurking in the shadows waitin’ tuh rape yuh. Women should want guns too!”
Sure, it’ll allow you to keep your guns, but it’s like a whipped married guy always having to sell his wife on a road trip to somewhere he wants to go by saying that he’ll pay so that she can go to the spa there or buy a new handbag – he isn’t actually able to just say “We’re going”, and so he always has to make undesirable sacrifices in the trade.
As you say, guns have been demonised, yes, but guns are largely a gender-neutral issue which offers potential benefits to both men and women.
Now move from guns to things like no-fault divorce, cash and prizes, gender quotas, discrimination laws, guilty-until-proven-innocent rape policy and things of that nature: These things are /sources of power/ for women alone.
(Which ties into my overall point: These things would never be an issue if the government had no right to ever have any input over them. You can only sell what you own, and unfortunately Big Gov owns a lotta realms of law nowadays.)
I’d put it like this:
Earlier in this thread (June 18, 2018 at 12:52 pm), Ray said this: “The Western world’s deity, essentially, is Woman.”
I would say – in a different sense than what Ray meant – that this is true: Women currently occupy a demigod-like status in western society.
The government has bestowed upon women such systemic, legal power that for all practical purposes they are now demigods, able to call down the wrath of government – like lightning from Zeus – at any time they wish so that they may smite any man who does not bow to them or do their bidding.
(I’ve made this point before, but I’ll say it again: This is why men today so often live in subservient fear instead of proud authority: They are in real, tangible danger if they do not and their behavioural reaction, in light of that, is appropriate. “Alphas” are better able to please their female masters viscerally and thus may be granted the illusion of freedom for a time, but the sword of Damocles hangs over their heads in modern marriage the same as it does any “Beta”. It’s not an “alpha/beta” issue.)
The woman-favouring laws and policies which would need to be revoked in order to secure men’s rights are the same ones which give women their demigod-status: Asking women to willingly give them up is akin to asking a demigod to willingly make itself mortal.
If you believe that women – particularly the young narcissistic women who are being raised today who will naturally want nothing more than to relish and enjoy this artificial power, and who will likely remain single – would be in any way open to being convinced to do that, then you have far more faith in the integrity of women than I do.
I don’t believe there is any combination of women’s emotions you could tap into that would be able to overcome a lust for power and their desire to maintain that power, even if from their perspective it’s just out of self-defense, and even appealing to the cause-and-effect reality that their stubbornness will ultimately destroy their own civilization would likely not even be sufficient.
You also have to contend with the issue that the fact that women possess this power also puts weak-willed men in a position where they necessarily must also /vote/ to keep it this way in order to save their own skin. You not only have to convince women to vote against their own interest, you basically have to “free the slaves” and convince these hopelessly cowed men that freedom is not just a dream – even if it costs them their relationship with their girlfriend or wife.
And I have the absolutely perfect song as an example of what I mean:
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQxmE2QuWYM
– https://lyricstranslate.com/en/schatz-du-arschloch-darling-you-prick.html#songtranslation
In conclusion, I’ve not resigned hope about “winning the fight” as it were, but this is just not the avenue of attack which I feel will produce the best outcomes.
(P.S. I agree with your general idea to push to defame the word ‘feminist’. The footage of Triggly-puff’s attempts to silence contrary speech likely did more to convince women away from feminism than the arguments that were made at the event she was attending, as ironic as that is.)
Dear Sharkly:
I think you ought to strive to be the best antifeminist you can be. I’m sure you have kids in your extended family, even if you have none of your own. They depend upon you to do that.
You didn’t say that. You said:
*The early church fathers set up a state to enforce their economic plan,
*The early church fathers used state power to murder people who dissented from their implementation of communism, and,
*The early church fathers banned the ownership of “personal property.”
None of this can be supported by a charitable reading of history, or a study of the New Testament.
Communism can work. My people used it to bankrupt your people in Missouri. It was so successful that there was a war over it in 1838. The anabaptists have used it for hundreds of years, also.
Your job is to back that up with the text. I’m not simply being argumentative. I’ve never heard this interpretation before, and I’m interested in how you came to your conclusion. If you have a source, cite it.
They weren’t dabbling in anything. They self-organized under communism. They banned capital, liquidated real property and introduced a collective economic system. That’s what ‘communism’ means.
The text doesn’t explicitly forbid lots of stuff: Trannies leading children in storytime, wimminz as priests, anal marriage between two men in the chapel, the list goes on… That’s how the feminists take control of ideological institutions, by claiming that such things aren’t specifically forbidden in the text.
Every successful state uses violence to get rid of its parasites. That’s the definition of state.
Jesus didn’t really go for the prosperity gospel. Matt 19:21 is a good place to start.
You’re starting to sound like SirHamster, who laughably gets trolled into denouncing various ideas as Satanic, before realizing that they’re quotes from Jesus in the New Testament. Don’t be like that moron. Don’t be like MKT or info, either. They’re SJW virtue signalers and they type out stuff simply to make themselves feel good. GBFM, in contrast, is a successful troll, because when he trolls me he makes valid points, and he’s actually funny. You’ve got the second prerequisite down. Work on the first one.
Best,
Boxer
“Don’t be like MKT or info, either. They’re SJW virtue signalers and they type out stuff simply to make themselves feel good”
What a sanctimonious little tool. If it’s not a non sequitur, it’s a baseless ad hom. Have a good weekend, Boxer. Just don’t go crazy with your EBT card.
@ Paul says:
June 21, 2018 at 1:31 pm
Actually, you’ve just confirmed that you have trouble with reading comprehension. Also, that is neither an argument, nor an answer to my question.
Do you believe that happy people commit suicide?
Boxer,
Having recently looked into the history of the LDS in Missouri in the 1830s, I am curious as to your source for the idea that LDS people or groups bankrupted non-LDS in Missouri. The reasons I find (from both LDS and non-LDS sources) are not bankruptcy, but fear of political power and “military” force. Overall, I think the LDS were victimized more than the non-LDS, but some on both sides were guilty of extreme incitement and violence, even murder.
I also find the degree of dissent within the LDS leadership at the time is indicative of their beliefs and their strength. At least two, maybe three, of the very top level of LDS leadership were excommunicated in 1838.
For myself, the general behavior of the LDS in Missouri at that time is counter to Christian principles.
Dear Rickety:
Please see below…
Dear Rickety:
Please see below…
They weren’t “LDS”. That religious organization didn’t exist until 1844, at the earliest. They were Mormons.
That’s very easy to find on the internet. If you’re interested in a detailed study, you can read Brandon Kinney’s book The Mormon War. The quote I got, in under ten seconds was:
…economic cohesion allowed the Mormons to dominate local economies.
What “economic cohesion” means is central planning, big collective farms, and communism. We had a much higher standard of living and a much larger portfolio than anyone else as a result.
We had a military as a reaction. We didn’t form a military before we started collectivization.
There were no victims. We starved you guys out. To us, you’re polytheists and pagans — something less than human. This is the way we justify such things. Governor Boggs was right (from his perspective) to sign off on the extermination order. We would have taken control of Missouri in a very short time, otherwise.
The reason we were able to do this was communism. End of.
Best,
Boxer
Sharkly,
“If you can explain better how you think “steward it(money) charitably” is not in keeping with the new testament, I think I may be able to find some appropriate scripture to paste up here, but again I’m pressed for time, and don’t know which aspect of that sounds off to you?”
What sounds off is:
1. You’re moving goalposts. The original statement was “Jesus often spoke of personal property and how we are to steward it charitably so that we lay up personal treasure in heaven also.”
2. Jesus never taught on personal property or money specifically. The teaching about storing treasure in heaven (parable of the Shrewd Manager) is valid here but a much more general principle than spending priorities or charity.
3. Usually when someone tells me to be a good steward, they’re eco-Nazis demanding I treat the environment like a museum. That’s not you so I may have knee-jerked a bit.
“I also enjoy self educating, but do not want to waste my time studying failed theories. … So why would I study Marxism if I think it is both evil and failed?”
So you can recognize evil when it appears again, so you understand WHY it failed for future reference and so your beliefs aren’t grounded exclusively upon whatever you’ve been told. The first step in not making mistakes is remembering the mistakes that have already been made.
Testing Christianity honors God because the testing proves Him correct. Testing your personal faith by debating other people strengthens it for the coming persecution. A Christian who is ignorant of evil is like a martial artist who is ignorant of sparring.
Boxer,
You are at odds with the LDS “church”, who recognize, per lds.org Ensign “What changes have been made in the name of the Church?”, that the official name of the “church” was, as of May 3, 1834, The Church of the Latter Day Saints, and, as of April 26, 1838, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ignoring the “under ten seconds” snark, I don’t consider one group’s economic domination of a local economy to necessarily be bankrupting others. I have not read Kinney’s book. Perhaps he believes your people did bankrupt some of my people, but I find no other references to that idea.
End of.
Dear Rickety:
The “LDS Church” didn’t exist until it was formed by Brigham Young. This is a well-documented historical fact that’s easily found, and your citation of the Ensign (not a historical source, but the official religious organ of the LDS church) is funny, in context.
Well, that’s a matter of history. Why else would the good people of Missouri have signed an extermination order, if we were all so innocent? They certainly didn’t do this with the Baptists or the Jehovites, did they?
Kinney is a member of my tribe, and as a result, the history is infused with a tone of whiny persecution. Even so, it’s got a lot of good historical details, which as I realize now, you won’t read or understand.
In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and have no desire to have your ignorance replaced with easily-obtainable historical facts. You’re an SJW. Duly noted.
Regards,
Boxer
“You’re an SJW. Duly noted.”
LDS choir boy strikes again! I’ll take the Skousens (anti-commie Mormons) any day over an internet troll
LOL at you two idiots, who don’t know what religion I am, have no idea what Mormonism is, and haven’t a clue about anything else you’re incoherently babbling about.
Boxer,
“LOL at you two idiots, who don’t know what religion I am, have no idea what Mormonism is, and haven’t a clue about anything else you’re incoherently babbling about.”
A fine example of argumentum ad hominem. I’m hardly surprised, as your claim to expert knowledge of Mormonism and LDS teaching and history is clearly untrue.
Dear Rickety:
I realize you’re a masochist, who delights in hostile banter. Be that as it may…
I have a graduate degree. My thesis wasn’t the Missouri war, but it was 19th C. American History.
I write peer reviewed journal articles, and you rage on the internet. Each of us is in our proper place, and that is exactly as it should be.
Regards,
Boxer
@Ingracious
If you believe that women…would be in any way open to being convinced to do that,[vote for men’s rights] then you have far more faith in the integrity of women than I do. I don’t believe there is any combination of women’s emotions you could tap into that would be able to overcome a lust for power and their desire to maintain that power…
They’re “open to” it in the same way a fool is “open to” being parted from his money. They’re susceptible to being led into things by clever manipulation of their frame and feelings. My wife is so rebellious that I can often manipulate her with “reverse psychology”.
He who cannot agree with his enemies is controlled by them. ~Chinese proverb
Up-thread Gunner Q reminded me of:
Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
William Bradford bought beads from European ships porting in Plymouth harbor with beaver pelts, knowing that the Indian men would trade much needed food for the decorative beads. No doubt the Indian women were behind that, indirectly.
So, we need to put our minds to figuring out how to get women to beg for men’s rights back. I’m not gifted with guile, but some of the smarties on here who study Jung and Freud, may be able to come up with a plan for us. We might need to figure out what their “beads” are, and be prepared to hand some over, to get what is needed.
Apparently we men got snookered and gave up the vote, and consequently our rights, for some beads at some point in the past. So, I’m sure women could be sold some beads also, and perhaps we could get back at least some of the birthright we sold for a mess of porridge.
@Boxer
I should probably have let this all drop, but I’ll go for a little more.
Communism can work. That sounds like a statement of faith to me.
My people used it to bankrupt your people in Missouri. It was so successful that there was a war over it in 1838. I didn’t even know my people were in Missouri fighting the Mormons in 1838. I thought half of them were being chased all over Europe because of their pacifist Anabaptist beliefs, and the other half were settling near Shipshewana, Indiana at that time.
The anabaptists have used it for hundreds of years, also. It must have skipped a few generations, because I don’t ever even recall hearing any talk of it. My Mennonite side of the family won’t lend a brother a penny without documenting it. No good Mennonite would accept charity! It will be paid off and settled at a later date as a matter of honor. My father used to joke that his Mennonite ancestors were the only people on earth who could buy something from a Jew and sell it to a Scotchman, and turn a profit. LOL That sounds proudly capitalistic. He also often said they were so “tight” they squeaked.
Q: How many Mennonites does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only one, …but it takes a committee of 20 to decide how to make best use of the old bulb.
“The anabaptists have used it for hundreds of years, also”
It looks like Boxer is conflating primitive communism with the Anabaptists…something he told others not to do. Or maybe he’s just trolling himself, if that’s possible.
As much as you’re trying to be a “woke” Marxist, it just ain’t working, Boxer.
lol! How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
The answer? It takes 100. One to actually just do it, and 99 to make a documentary / made for TV movie / and to write harrowing articles about the immense challenge and inspiration to other women / girls
Wasn’t one of the founders of Mormonism from Vermont? As I recall (went to college in the Green Mountain State) they were “kicked” out of that bastion of Yankee-Methodism, of town greens, tidy clapboard houses and maintained farms
Dear Sharkly:
Go for as long as you like.
We consider you all the same. To us you’re just outsiders — chumps to be exploited. That ought to provide some context for all the historical hostilities. I think it’s silly and counterproductive, but that’s how it goes in Deseret.
The Hutterites have a large and very prosperous collective farm, just outside Cardston Alberta, where I grew up. I don’t have any direct link, but I find it hard to believe that we didn’t steal all our communist ideas from you guys.
http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Big_Bend_Hutterite_Colony_(Cardston,_Alberta,_Canada)
Jews don’t acknowledge Jesus. Catholics don’t acknowledge divorce. Mormons don’t acknowledge one another in the porno shop.
Best,
Boxer
“I have a graduate degree. My thesis wasn’t the Missouri war, but it was 19th C. American History.
I write peer reviewed journal articles”
Well aren’t you special? That certainly explains the logical fallacies, baseless claims and muddled thinking. Your support for Marxism isn’t surprising, nor is your petty projection (“SJW!” “Internet rant”).
@ Boxer
I find it hard to believe that we didn’t steal all our communist ideas from you guys. ,,, We consider you all the same. To us you’re just outsiders
Ausländer, says what? Your newborn religion was entirely stitched together like a Dr. Frankenstein’s monster of ideas stolen from our older religions.
//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De-Ausländer.ogg?embedplayer=yes
When we learned English, you outsider all became “dem English”, as in:
“You be careful out dere among dem English!” Apparently some saw us as chumps to be exploited.
our folk were way insular, before you even dipped your toe in the insularity. You cant AMOG me with your baby religion. We spent 200 years in the Netherlands and still spoke only German.
I have a graduate degree. … I write peer reviewed journal articles… Mormon Please! If you’re going to AMOG you can’t just say you went to skool and got learned how to write.
Srsly! My marriage may be a shambles, but I could AMOG most of you a hundred different ways more impressive than that. I’ve actually done shit! Not just learned about it and wrote about it. But I’ll save it for another time. Its the internet, you wouldn’t believe me anyhow. Don’t want to get the AMOG train started. The next guy will be like: “Yeah I’m so smart I built my own time machine, went back and took his mother’s virginity. When she pouted and giggled that I lied to her about pulling out, I playfully socked her in the boob and said, ‘well, Just name him Boxer’.”
The first liar doesn’t stand a chance. LOL
Q: why is it verboten(forbidden) for Mennonite couples to have sex standing up?
A: Because that might lead to dancing!
Dear Sharkly:
I’m not really up on Mennonism. I imagine there was a dude named Menno in there someplace. The anabaptists I knew spoke a Germanic language at home that wasn’t proper German (I was pretty proficient at German, when I was a little kid, and I couldn’t understand them).
We did seem to start collectivization with a high degree of clever; and it’s hard to believe our wild successes were just improvisation. I don’t know who the anabaptist convert was, but I suspect there was one, teaching Communism 100 at night, in the barn, to the Mormon Central Committee.
I have no doubt about it.
So, the jokes are fun, but I’m curious as to why you guys never decided to implement a state of your own. You seem to have had your asses kicked repeatedly, despite being the numerical majority in your colonias. I also noted that the whole pacifism thing is marbled at the edges. (I know Hutterite boys who grew up to be mounties, for example.) To be successful in this world you have either got to isolate yourself socially (like modern Mormons and Jews) or politically, with borders. You guys have neither. It seems like an unnecessarily rough way to live.
Best,
Boxer
So Peter pointing out that Ananias (and his wife who knew what he was doing) was lying to the Holy Spirit and lied to God and not men is somehow a divine hit?
Perhaps the lesson pointed out to the people at that time and for those reading today…you die if you lie to the Holy Spirit. I mean we are aware that lying is a sin, right?
Closing the loop on Southern Baptists and feminism:
http://www.dennyburk.com/are-southern-baptists-turning-into-feminists/
“Closing the loop on Southern Baptists and feminism:
http://www.dennyburk.com/are-southern-baptists-turning-into-feminists/”
I don’t think any loops were closed. Greear says he’s a complementarian–a term that seems to change on a weekly basis. Southern Baptists still believe in “Biblical headship”…as long as the right people define it (servant leadership where mama is right about 99% of the time)?
Southern Baptists:
But it is also important to note that the resolution affirms headship as that which “blesses, honors, and protects wives and children and does not require them to submit to sin or to abuse.”
LOL So really they only affirm Figurehead-ship. Any attempt by men to rule will be deemed sinful and abusive, if the wife or children don’t fully approve of it.
You can’t make such foolish stuff up!
I just wrote the following commemorative poem, to commemorate this shameful groveling of Baptists before the world:
If a marriage is Baptist.
The wife is the aptest. /s
Baptist husbands, don’t be obtuse.
Your every instruction, is always “abuse”. /s
So when, by your speech so “abusive”, your wife, she is harried;
May ye recall, your Saint John the Baptist, who ne’er got married!
@Boxer
I imagine there was a dude named Menno in there someplace. The anabaptists I knew spoke a Germanic language at home that wasn’t proper German
Yes, & Yes.
Excerpted from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menno_Simons
Menno Simons was a former Catholic priest from the Friesland region of the Low Countries who became an influential Anabaptist religious leader. Simons was a contemporary of the Protestant Reformers.
Born: 1496, Frisia
Died: January 31, 1561
For true evangelical faith is of such a nature that it cannot lie dormant; but manifests itself in all righteousness and works of love; it dies unto flesh and blood; destroys all forbidden lusts and desires; cordially seeks, serves and fears God; clothes the naked; feeds the hungry; consoles the afflicted; shelters the miserable; aids and consoles all the oppressed; returns good for evil; serves those that injure it; prays for those that persecute it; teaches, admonishes and reproves with the Word of the Lord; seeks that which is lost; binds up that which is wounded; heals that which is diseased and saves that which is sound. The persecution, suffering and anxiety which befalls it for the sake of the truth of the Lord, is to it a glorious joy and consolation.
— Menno Simons, 1539
Our humble folk from the Low Countries spoke “Low German”. I believe the Low referred to elevation. My Mennonite ancestors actually built the dams in Holland and pumped out the sea, since the native Dutch would legally not permit them as foreigners to buy Dutch land. LOL The greatest claim to Dutch fame was actually envisioned and built independently by German immigrants. I recently read of one place where my Mennonite ancestors had built dams(I believe it was in the Vistula Delta) and reclaimed land from the sea, that was now wanting the Mennonites that they had chased away to return. Apparently there is quite a tricky art to operating the dams and pumps and knowing when to seasonally inundate the land with water to prevent collapse. And the locals are not good at it. The old dams are also in poor repair. Apparently they imagine my great-great-grandparents passed this dam knowledge on to me. LOL
I think my father’s family was once from the Alsace, near the free city of Strasbourg. But persecution kept these holy martyrs fleeing all over the map, always looking for the religious freedom to worship as they believed. My dad married an “English” woman. So I may not be as inbred as some of my kin. However a godly heritage may be more valuable than genetic diversity. I debate with myself about that sometimes. I passed on a second cousin who was a seemingly perfect match, because she was a relative, and our family tree was already a little thin. Oddly enough hindsight isn’t always clear either. But until I get a time machine, it is moot.
I’m curious as to why you guys never decided to implement a state of your own. You seem to have had your asses kicked repeatedly, despite being the numerical majority in your colonias. I also noted that the whole pacifism thing is marbled at the edges. (I know Hutterite boys who grew up to be mounties, for example.) To be successful in this world you have either got to isolate yourself socially (like modern Mormons and Jews) or politically, with borders. You guys have neither. It seems like an unnecessarily rough way to live.
My father explained the groups pacifist beliefs to me and where they find them in the New Testament. He however was not personally a pacifist, but behaved as one out of respect for his elders, and he requested that I not join the “chairforce” when I was younger, out of respect for his need to maintain the good graces of the community, for his work. I respected him by eschewing military opportunities, even though I think “some people just need killed.” And after acing the ASVAB the Airforce had offered me a dream opportunity.
I can’t speak for my devout ancestors, but if you read online the ‘Martyr’s Mirror’ originally published: 1660, they speak for themselves. A history buff like yourself might find it interesting. However, those who’d like to continue in the delusion that the catholic church has always been a pious organization, had better not inform themselves of the holy martyr’s blood that the Great Whore is drunk with. However it wasn’t just the catholics. Satan will rouse persecution against those truly devoted to God from every corner. If you ever consider going 100% after God, expect persecution to find you. But, it is a mark of the elect, who are counted worthy to suffer for Christ, as He suffered for us.
Ecclesiasticus Chapter 2
1: My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation.
2: Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble.
3: Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end.
4: Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate.
5: For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.
”Don’t be like MKT or info, either. They’re SJW virtue signalers and they type out stuff simply to make themselves feel good. ”
When facts fail go for the Ad hominem.
Oh by the way, I feel it necessary to clarify:
Above when I said “chairforce“, that was my own snarky comment.
My father would have never approved of me denigrating one of our armed services. He’d have drug me down by my ear for that. Even though his people were contentious objectors, they had no misgivings about the price of freedom, or lack of gratitude for those who paid that price.
Apparently they even voted during one of our world wars against Germany, to always display the US flag inside the church building, to show their American loyalty since some were skeptical of the German speaking Contentious Objectors, and hassled them. The vote was contentious as some thought the church should only display religious symbols, with no nod to earthly powers. The flag is still on display in their church to this day.
Also, one time while in High School I was called by my Aerospace Explorer post leader, who was a Major in the US Airforce. I asked him when something was going to happen, and he said not until July. In shock I exclaimed “July!” My father who was in an adjoining room thought he heard me exclaim “You lie!” After I got off the phone he called me over and asked me to explain. I did explain it, but my father remained unswayed and paddled my butt severely telling me that a man of such rank should not be expected to hear any loud retort from a young person.
Doh!
Conscientious Objectors, not Contentious Objectors.
Darn auto-correct.
@Sharkly (June 22, 2018 at 6:43 pm)
“They’re “open to” it in the same way a fool is “open to” being parted from his money. They’re susceptible to being led into things by clever manipulation of their frame and feelings.”
Yes, I understand the conceit that women would simply be fooled into taking such a poor deal (as opposed to being rationally negotiated with), but my point is that the difficulties that would need to be overcome as well as the practical logistics required to pull off such a feat would be so immense as to be ridiculous – it would ultimately come down to requiring women to knowingly accept changing the laws anyway.
Your examples of your wife and William Bradford just don’t come anywhere close to encapsulating the scale of what we’re talking about. This isn’t a single woman you can run game on or a small tribe of unworldly Indians who you can swindle with an unfair bargain, this is a long-term nationwide endeavour you’re talking about.
For each one of these laws or policies (no-fault divorce, gender quotas, etc.) you would need to persuade not only the majority of women, but the majority of women-sympathising men, across the entire country (the entire United States in your case), state-by-state, county-by-county, that they ought to – all at once – vote against their own direct self-interest so as to get the law changed or to elect a politician who would do so.
And not only would you have to convince/fool them into wanting to do that, you would need to keep them convinced all the way up until the time of whatever elections and ballots are occurring that you need in order for their votes to be tallied and put into effect – you’d necessarily have to plant the seeds of manipulation in advance, not just wait until the night before an election.
You would need to win over/manipulate significant portions of the populace to the point of critical voting mass, and then also mobilise them all in such a way that having convinced/fooled them actually results in them voting to change or remove the laws (that’s the actual goal, after all, not just making women follow the right ideas inside their heads).
You would need to tailor and repeat this process for each law and each policy, one at a time, perhaps over the course of years if not decades, and the entire time you’d have to contend with the likely fact that once your endeavour becomes successful enough to be noticed all the MSM then has to say is “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains – back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant because they’re sexist misogynists” and then whatever social movement you’ve assembled to achieve this sizable undertaking will be labelled a hate group, likely undoing all of your progress in an instant.
If this idea succeeded, it would be a nationwide, grassroots underground psy-op social propaganda campaign that both the KGB and CIA – even combined together – would surely be jealous of.
It ought to be abundantly clear that women are happy with the status quo. They won’t be happy once the status quo gives way to mayhem, but for the meantime they are indeed happy and are in fact only getting happier with each unjust law that gets passed in their favour.
Women, by and large, wanted these federal and state laws that serve to disenfranchise men. They wanted them specifically because they disenfranchise men; because such laws serve to empower women above men through men’s relative disenfranchisement.
Attempting to trick women into giving away such “hard-fought political gains” would require more than guile, I’d think it would require actual brainwashing.
You are basically attempting to neg women as a group into re-subjugating themselves to men as a group – and why would they do that when they’ve spent the last 50+ years specifically voting for laws that move them away from that reality?
As well, why would they make a trade – and not just any trade, but a terrible “useless beads” trade – when they already have men’s balls in a legal vice? When they hold all the cards in the legal/political realm? What would men even be able to offer to give them? “Oh, in divorce, we’ll accept making it so you can always take at least 75% of my stuff instead of 50% and you always get the kids and house 100% guaranteed – how does that sound, honey? Can I have some table scraps now?”
You can certainly play on a woman’s emotions one-on-one to get them to give away things they otherwise wouldn’t, but just how on earth could you extend that to the entire female population in such a way that they will reliably vote away their “rights”/privileges? Most of the game/pick-up/psychology stuff I’ve read focuses on getting women to want to have sex with you or cook you meals and be pleasant, not tick the right box at the polling station in the 2020 election, you know?
It should go without saying that any realistic opportunities to change one law for the better through this method should of course be seized, but as an idea for a general ongoing strategy for undoing the legal quagmire men find themselves in today it just seems like such a massive expenditure of time and effort for such a low – and perhaps only theoretical – chance of success.
I’ll see your Chinese proverb and raise you some Sun Tzu:
“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.”
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
“If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.”
—–
I also want to address your Jordan Peterson post, and although I too don’t want to start a battle over this there are some clear and substantive points I’d like to make to you.
@Sharkly (June 20, 2018 at 8:09 pm)
“At this particular moment I agree that Dalrock might have been a little off base with his attack on Jordan Peterson, but I also greatly respect Dalrock, and his intuition, so it is possible he is sensing something I don’t.”
I respect Dalrock as well, and I’ve learned a great deal from reading his blog over the past year or two – something for which I’m thankful. However, I feel you are doing far too much to excuse him over that particular post if you think it was just “a little off base”. I’d say it was slanderous and based in ignorance, and that Dalrock needs to do much better the next time he posts about Peterson.
The post Dalrock made was entitled “Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth” (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/peterson-cant-handle-the-truth/), and what he wrote in it was this:
“Jordan Peterson tries to morally condemn pickup artists without condemning fornication: *video link*”
Dalrock gives no specific example from the video where Peterson ‘morally condemns PUAs’, instead only remarking:
“Peterson ends up twisting himself in knots… The closest he comes to a reason that pickup artists are immoral is to claim that they aren’t communicating in an honest way.”
Again, there’s no quote given to support this inexplicable assertion that Peterson is making any moral claims, Dalrock simply asserts it as if it is self-evident.
This is “facts not in evidence”. I won’t go into any specific arguments, but I’d say it’s very clear from watching the actual video again that Peterson was making a clinical assessment of the behaviours and motivations of PUAs (and in a very giddy, interested manner too – unlike that of someone morally condemning something they detest), and morality or moral judgement never even once comes up in what he said about PUAs. Not once.
In light of this, Dalrock’s own claim that Peterson thinks PUAs are immoral is a baseless accusation. Completely baseless. I grant that it could very well be true, but Dalrock offered absolutely nothing to support it in that post.
It could be that Dalrock instead only “senses” something, however, I’ve just noticed another thing in going back to that post which I would assert undermines that idea entirely: Dalrock himself completely failed to understand what Peterson was talking about with the idea of the instrumental usage of language.
It’s in that second quote above as well (‘he claims they aren’t communicating in an honest way’), but here’s what Dalrock wrote:
“Through both their words and nonverbal communications, pickup artists are very carefully signalling that they are aloof jerks offering no strings sex. If the pickup artists in question were really boring loyal dudes hoping to lure hos into matrimony, they would indeed be communicating in a dishonest way. But they aren’t.”
This is a complete misunderstanding of what was being talked about.
If you’re a natural Chad Thundercock who enjoys picking up women and you do that by giving off an aura that says to women that you want no-strings sex then, like Dalrock says, there’s nothing dishonest about this at all. Such a person is honestly expressing themselves to the women he wants to have sex with in everything he does.
But what if you’re Joe Blow and you’ve just gone to a PUA seminar and been taught “how to get laid”: You’ve now been told to wear rich clothes, an expensive watch, behave and talk in ways that are completely unnatural to you – not because you’re actually rich or actually behave like this, but because presenting yourself as if you are and do increases your statistical probability of getting laid.
Perhaps you’re told that if a girl says she’s a Sagittarius then you should say you are as well – not because you are one, but because it’s a potential path to sex. Same with saying you like modern art museums when you actually hate them, or boasting all night about this crazy trip to Bali that you never actually went on – if it makes the girl more likely to want to have sex with you, then it’s okay to say or do it, even if it’s an outright lie.
Being truthful or honest about what you actually want, feel or believe when you speak is secondary to getting laid.
How you behave should not be an expression of self, it should be a mirrored reflection of your target’s desires – whatever will get you laid.
All forms of communication – speech, clothing, behaviour – are an amoral tool to be used in the service of achieving the end goal of getting laid.
That’s the PUA use of language that Peterson described as “instrumental”, and I have quotes from the video to back that up:
1:10-1:50
“What they (PUAs) are doing is teaching their followers instrumental language. And so if you want to sleep with a girl, here’s /how to do it/. Here’s how to manipulate her.”
“They have a bunch of tricks, like wear an expensive watch and dress up … but also add something peculiar to your wardrobe … so that the girl can see that not only are you rich and successful, but you’ve got that little bit of individuality that sets you apart! … but it’s all bullshit, because the guys aren’t like that.”
(Saying that all of these forms of communication are feigned – the wealth and success are fake, and this “individuality” came pre-packaged from a PUA website to help you get laid.)
1:50-2:15
“So, and then they have all these little routines they use – that are verbal routines … What are they doing? They’re using language instrumentally. They have a goal in mind … And then they’re willing to say ANYTHING *long pause* to obtain that goal.”
So, what this all means is that Dalrock had a false understanding of what Jordan Peterson was talking about in that video, and Dalrock twice put forward an assertion (‘Peterson is saying PUAs are immoral’) that was not substantiated by the video he was speaking about or by anything else he wrote in his post.
That’s not ‘a little off base’, that’s just making a flawed and unintellectual argument. It’s throwing chum to the readers who already don’t like Peterson so they can all circle-jerk about how much of a beta cuck he is who just doesn’t like how PUAs get lots of pussy without being chivalrous – when what they’re discussing is only based off of Dalrock’s written misrepresentation of the video, and not having actually watched the video themselves.
Anyway, that’s what I have to say about that. No disrespect to Dalrock, but I choose to call a spade a spade.
I’ve already written so much here, obviously, but there was one more thing I wanted to talk to you about, Sharkly, in the service of trying to convince you. To what you said:
“Right now I see that Jordan Peterson is leading many young men, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, they are following his tune.”
A key distinction between the story of the Pied Piper and the “Peterson Phenomenon” is that inherent to the tale of the piper is that he offers nothing of clear substance: He’s just playing music, and thus no one knows why the children are mindlessly heeding to him. The story basically requires a magical pipe.
As well, the piper’s music is heard by the children whether they want to listen or not – it is forced upon them by the piper roaming through the streets playing.
Now picture a young man idly browsing YouTube (note: I can’t remember how I started watching Peterson, so this young man isn’t me, just an example):
He sees a video featuring this unfamiliar Jordan Peterson fellow, one with a basic and relevant title like “Jordan Peterson – How To Stop Procrastinating” from the channel Bite-sized Philosophy (which cuts up his full lectures into single-topic sections so they’re “bite-sized” for the viewers).
The young man thinks “Haha, well, procrastinating’s certainly what I’m doing right now. Maybe I should do something good for myself and check this out?”. So he willingly chooses to click on it and sit through it, and at the end he thinks: “Hmm, that was quite interesting – he brought up ideas I hadn’t heard before. I think the next time I see one of this Peterson person’s videos I’ll click on it as well.”
So he does, and he finds it equally edifying and intellectually stimulating. So he keeps clicking on more videos, maybe even watching Peterson’s full lectures instead of just snippets, and he continues to learn more new ideas which he’s eventually able to apply to his life and which end up steadily making his life factually better and happier compared to where he was.
And all of this is happening while Peterson himself doesn’t even know this young man exists.
Peterson has never interacted with him, and he had no intent of speaking to him when he said the things he did, he just uploaded his university lectures to YouTube as they were, completely unedited – and all the hours that this young man spent watching them was that young man’s own choice because he obviously felt that what Jordan Peterson was saying was of potential value to his life.
Basically all of Jordan Peterson’s videos are nothing but him talking and expressing his views, so if no one felt that what he was saying was of value, then why would they choose to listen to him? If he was nothing more than a hack, why would anyone even know he exists?
This video came out less than two weeks ago, and it already has 2.7m views – and it’s nothing but him expressing views he’s already expressed many times before in his lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
Peterson cannot force young men to click on his videos, or force them to attend his sold-out speaking events, or force them to come up to him afterwards to tearfully shake his hand and thank him for saving their life.
(That he is an open anti-socialist, is anti-identity politics, and publicly holds numerous other unpopular-but-no-less-necessary views which he helps to present to these young men – who likely have never encountered them – is even better.)
Unlike the Pied Piper, there is no compulsion in this phenomenon. It is a simple fact that many young men today lead hollow, meaningless, undisciplined lives which they find utterly depressing, and the content of Jordan Peterson’s lectures are something they’ve discovered FOR THEMSELVES works to help alleviate their problems.
Some of it is even pretty basic wisdom for improving yourself, but no one else in these young men’s lives has ever taught them how to improve themselves in this manner, or perhaps even told them that they should want or try to improve themselves at all. That is shameful, but these young men’s lives are what they are (and they must be dealt with as they are).
Peterson didn’t show up in their street with a box of snake oil in order to make a quick buck, these young men went to his videos to sit and learn – from the other side of a screen – real, applicable knowledge that they’d never been taught before.
Why it is that these young men were never taught these things is a separate matter entirely, what is important is that Peterson is effectively teaching it to them now in a way they will listen to.
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.”
I understand that Jordan Peterson not being a devout Christian or perhaps not even being a Christian at all is a source of agitation for you, but I feel you aren’t heeding that “The better is the enemy of the good”.
You could prefer that Peterson be an out-and-out absolutely devout Christian who preaches the Word of God in every lecture and speech, but let me ask you this: Do you believe he would have had the same international impact if he were? And would Peterson the Man being a better example of a Christian be worth sacrificing Peterson the Phenomenon’s influence over young men who otherwise won’t be helped with their empty and dissatisfactory lives?
I’ll make one final point:
One of the great services that Dalrock’s blog provides is to document and examine the gangrenous rot which has set in to so many of the vestiges of society and culture, of how much tolerance there is for female rebellion in Christian churches, how utterly lacking in Biblical principle they are today, how much empty self-indulgence there is, and so on.
Many readers here complain that they have great trouble finding a church to attend which has not become corrupted in this manner. I think even a few readers have concluded that there are no publicly-operating churches that have not been corrupted by the culture. Not one. That you would need to go underground, and begin practicing the faith in your own home instead.
With all of this in mind, one could make the statement:
Modern churches offer young men religion – without principle or discipline.
Jordan Peterson offers young men principle and discipline – without religion.
And I would ask you, Sharkly, when it comes to young men’s well-being on this earth and the well-being of their eternal soul, which do you believe it is better for them to consume? Would you rather a young man take his chances and go and spend a day in his nearest church, or spend an afternoon watching Jordan Peterson lectures?
Obviously you’re free to say that he should do neither and instead sit down with the Bible and strengthen his relationship with God.
But I’ll point this out again: More and more young men are atheists today, and many of the young men in Peterson’s audience are likely atheists as well.
(Is them being atheists perhaps why their lives are so empty in the first place? That’s a different discussion again.)
These young men have likely never touched a Bible, and they know nothing of Christianity. They are vulnerable to untruth.
If adult Christians who post here on a redpill blog can’t find a good church nor find a group of likeminded men willing to form a home prayer group together, then what hope would a young greenhorn have in learning a form of Christianity that is not utterly corrupted by our modern culture to the point of worthlessness? What Christian elders could he turn to when he has never been involved in the Christian community? He knows neither who knows the truth about how to follow God, nor where he can find the people who do.
I would assert that it should be satisfactory that Jordan Peterson is doing anything to help the young men who choose to listen to him:
He is strengthening them in body, mind and soul* to whatever extent each young man ends up applying what he says to their lives, and that is a good thing because it helps to keep them alive, healthy and out of jail and thus capable of being approached with the message of God – in addition to the mere message of the mortal Peterson – when the time is right.
Again: “The better is the enemy of the good.”
* (i.e. tell the truth, and do not say things instrumentally/just to get what you want/just to avoid bad reactions for saying what needs to be said – that’s what the rest of that Peterson PUA video was about, and it’s also a lesson that some young men have likely never heard and which will surely benefit their soul if they seek to apply it. PUAs are not the examples for moral purity, after all.
5:25-5:35 into video
“But you have to decide – to begin with -whether or not you believ– whether or not you are willing to risk the consequences of… the truth.”
He says that in the context of relationships, but I’m sure you can see the greater meaning that could be applied to it.)
@Ingracious
Wow! Your response was amazing. You seem to be getting even better with your comments.
I however have had a bad last couple of days, I stooped to trolling, was talking out my ass, gave out opinions I didn’t have the will to support. have been reduced to crude joking, and have been rightly called out and corrected by multiple people. Hopefully it is just a lapse, or that I’m becoming wiser, and am suddenly more aware of my own foolishness, but likely not. I guess the good news is that I’ve really learned a lot, even if I’ve got some egg on my face. Hopefully I’m being sharpened by taking all this to heart. I do come here to learn, not just vent, evangelize, and condemn Popery. I’ve been fighting the worldly church for a while, but I just got Red Pilled this year, so I’ve still got a lot to learn.
You’re right on your criticisms of me.
I hate to despair. I like to always think that there is something I can or should do to make things better. Perhaps it is a vanity to think that the world needs me, or men like me, but I like to think it. I like to think I can make a difference. And I have made some difference through my dogged persistence and fearless abandon at times.
I can’t believe that God put us on this earth to be ordinary. ~Lou Holtz
I can’t believe God put me on this earth to behold its fallenness and do nothing about it.
Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
I think the Lord would have me lead many to righteousness. Some might think that thought a bit narcissistic, but I’m OK with that.
Anyhow, I felt a bit trapped. You seemed to be saying dealing with women politically was hopeless. And Dalrock’s comment policy says: 2.Don’t advocate violence. So, unless you’ve got some other ways, and you’re holding out on telling me, I was trying to inject some hope back into the political arena. God is omnipotent, and as long as I have His ear, I can hope in Him. Yes, I agree, our chances, by honest analysis, are shitty, but I want to try, and I’d like to know where the Sun Tzu approved weak spot is, to turn the women. Also if things are exactly as you say they are, the women would have overwhelmingly voted for feminazi Hillary not Pussy grabbin’ Trump. Even women can be turned from voting for more Feminism, which Hillary surely would have forced on us, more so than Trump. I just don’t want to despair, I want to do something.
You’re also correct that I didn’t call out Dalrock like you have, even though I agree with you. And yes, I guess I was using instrumental language, to try to nudge Dalrock, hopefully effectively, as opposed to completely condemning him and giving him no option but to completely recant, or to oppose me. Often people have difficulty having the humility to admit they were wrong. So if you can give them an in between path it is easier for them to come away from their previous position.
Again: “The better is the enemy of the good.” Right back at you buddy.
I was trying to do that by saying: “At this particular moment I agree that Dalrock might have been a little off base with his attack on Jordan Peterson, but I also greatly respect Dalrock, and his intuition, so it is possible he is sensing something I don’t.”
I hint that he may be a little off, then follow it up by stating my genuine deference to his more experienced Red Pill intuition. That way gives most people a lot easier path to agreeing with you. I used to approach things just like you did, with a direct attack, storming the castle gate with a battering ram of straight honesty, and people said I had no tact. And wrongheaded people loved to oppose me, for seemingly no reason. The more I fought, the more fools poured out of the woodwork to oppose me. The Bible says that flattery is a sin, and I’m not often guilty of that one. But, I have endeavored to learn some tact, and to not speak all of my mind, over the years, and I’ve been through some humbling circumstances also. So, understand that even if I don’t approach Dalrock like you do, it is my natural inclination to be like yourself, and I understand that, and I respect that, I am just trying another way that I hope will be more likely to give good results, instead of trying immediately for better results. If I can get Dalrock to realize he may be a little off base about Jordan Peterson, Dalrock is wise enough to figure out the rest of his way to utilizing Jordan Peterson as an asset and an ally as far as possible, it just might take longer than you have the patience for, and he may never send us a satisfying Notice of Reversal. However It is good to learn to take satisfaction in even small changes. Like that, to this point, Dalrock has not doubled down on his post about Jordan Peterson since you and others complained. Perhaps he will reconsider his position, to some degree, if we allow him to reconsider while still keeping his honor very much intact, and having him know that I’ll still respect him either way.
Yes, Jordan Peterson is a huge, and positive influence, and a courageous natural ally for the men’s rights movement, but in Dalrock’s defense, Jordan Peterson does often “instrumentally” use Click-Bait titles that are more exciting than the lecture content of his videos.
So There!
Ingracious,
I finally had the time to watch the university Feminist “Trigglypuff” that you mentioned above.
Wow! That is Cray-Cray! I had not realized the quality of women you young guys have to choose from. I went to a churchian engineering university about 3 decades ago, so times were different.
A little research revealed that Trigglypuff became an internet meme named after a triggered version of Pokémon character Jigglypuff. The video of her below, has over 1.6 million views. Apparently she is inadvertently helping to Repel people from the her Blue Pill beliefs.
Language Warning!
@ingracious: That’s a looooooong post
Yes I agree that Communism is evil, I already told that. The same holds for socialism when it conflates with communism. However socialism had a direct influence on the development of social democracies (due to a multi-party democracy which requires majority consensus between “socialists”, liberals, Christian-democrats etc.), and the welfare state. That’s a good thing. You can discuss how much of it you would like, but it has measurably benefited these societies. To discredit ANY government involvement in distributing wealth “because of communism/socialism” is plain stupid, but is the commonly heard argument.
And yes, in Europe most people ARE aware of the negative effects of communism, because many have experienced it first-hand.
Just yesterday I heard another heartbreaking story of what poverty can do in Nigeria. These people were Christians but due to sickness were not able to work (2 Th 3:10 has: If anyone IS NOT WILLING TO WORK, let him not eat), and could not send their kids to school. This results in a cycle of perpetual poverty, as in many places on this earth. I think it is an act of charity to help these people, but it would be even better if societies could be restructured to collectively improve the lives of all their citizens to a certain degree, to prevent such extreme situations. As ideologies, liberalism and capitalism do not care, socialism at least shows a concern for these situations. And don’t forget, the same situation of extreme poverty existed in Europe for hundreds of years. Only after WW2 did the countries develop what some have called “21st century socialism” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_social_model) and were these situations vastly improved.
As Christians you cannot deny the need for justice and social reform (did you ever read the OT about what God says about it?), but in this day and age of the “Social Justice Warrior”, the “Feminist”, and the “hard” left, it’s getting more and more awkward to argue for societal change that is not hard-core liberalism or hard-core capitalism “because of communism”. I would expect Christians to appreciate the finer details in the discussion.
For clarity I repeat:
2 Th 3:10 has: If anyone IS NOT WILLING TO WORK, let him not eat
Although it has been worded as : “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” was even by the communist understood as meaning a willingness to work, not applying to the inability to work.Therefore the disabled, the sick, the elderly, or the ones for who no work is available shall not be denied food because they do not work. You could even argue that in that case this command implies food should be provided.
Interestingly, I found the following article which argues for the benefits of the Nordic social democracy model, as well as counters the common misconceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
“[The Nordic model includes] support for a “universalist” welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.”
“The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.”
“Economist Jeffrey Sachs is a proponent of the Nordic model, having pointed out that the Nordic model is “the proof that modern capitalism can be combined with decency, fairness, trust, honesty, and environmental sustainability.”
“George Lakey, author of Viking Economics, asserts that Americans generally misunderstand the nature of the Nordic “welfare state”:”
“Americans imagine that “welfare state” means the U.S. welfare system on steroids. Actually, the Nordics scrapped their American-style welfare system at least 60 years ago, and substituted universal services, which means everyone—rich and poor—gets free higher education, free medical services, free eldercare, etc.”
“”‘I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,’ he said. ‘Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.'””
Since the 1500’s, Anabaptists have lived successfully in communal societies. Those founded explicitly on non-violent terms (e.g. Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Brethren, and Quakers) are among the precious few Christian sects that have believed and lived out a consistently peaceful, war-free doctrine. There has been no body count for hundreds of years.
Yet it did lead to killing. The Anabaptists have long been persecuted (e.g. The Martyr’s Mirror). They settled in the New World where they lived in peace until others wrecked that too. Look at the history of the Quakers, and their peaceful coexistence with the local native Americans in Pennsylvania, and the French and Indian War. These ‘experiments’, along with the Mormon examples Boxer cited, were successful.
It’s hard to maintain a long-term, large-scale communist society when you are being imprisoned or killed for your beliefs. Since you won’t accept as evidence examples of communism that don’t include acts of violence by the participants, it’s just begging the question. There is a certain irony in communism failing because non-communists murdered them.
Of course Anabaptists can’t be communists, since Anabaptist communalism predates communism (Marxism). That nicely excludes any possible examples prior to the late 1800’s at the earliest. Clever stacking the deck there. Yet many Anabaptists (especially Mennonites?) self-identify with communist, socialist, and progressive political movements.
This is not universal, but its understandable given the overlaps and similarities. The key differences are not being anti-religious and being non-violent. The Anabaptists have tried a variety of communal living and have made it work in whatever form they tried, from the collectivist Hutterites, to the isolationist Amish, to the political activist Mennonites.
@Paul
Don’t have that same conceit, that your personal utopian Government concept would be kinder than God, and where God in His divine providence has your anecdotal Nigerian. And Don’t send that starving guy in Nigeria your bank routing number. Those of you claiming socialism’s virtues are just naïve. There have been plenty of failed left wing and right wing states in Africa. A little more socialism, or some hybrid including socialism is not what will help them to catch up to the parts of the world that are better off. Sorry, but they’ve already tried that foolishness on that continent also. My parents spent 8 years in West Africa before I was born, A brother and sister of mine were born in the hospital in Lagos before the Biafran war, and the place was better off in many ways then, under capitalistic colonial influence, than they are over 5 decades later after many African states gained their independence and many tried different permutations of your left wing tom foolery. A big problem is that Nigeria is half Islamic. We haven’t figured out how to bring Muslims into peaceful coexistence with modernity yet, or even peaceful coexistence with anything, including other Muslims. It is not the continent or the natural resources that are the problem. It is not that Africa hasn’t had countries try all sort of good and bad ideas. It is not that we haven’t been sending aid to them for many decades. It is not that the UN, NGOs, Missions, Charities, and a host of other organizations don’t have people there trying to help.
My father explained a lot of the problems to me, as to why the continent had not caught up much in the intervening 50 years,(and he has been dead for a while now) and part of the problem lies within the people. My Dad observed that the African men were more prone to corruption than men of other races. My father was not against them, he was over there helping. His observation was that 99% of Black politicians were eventually corrupted because of their susceptibility to it. If that is actually true, that leaves a non-Black government as the only possibility for a non-corrupt government over there. BTW those are some of his thoughts, I just relayed them. For the record I personally totally disbelieve that, and I’m sure Paul’s ideas are probably the missing key to fix things there shortly.
@Sharkly
Of course there’s more to the story than a “little bit of socialism” could help.
I totally recognize the negative influence of Islam, as well as the corruption.
And yes, colonialism has brought much benefit to many societies, which to this benefit from much of its infrastructure (see Rodney Stark’s “How the West won”).
Another big negative influence is the tribal attitude where people either see other tribes as their enemies, or at best only allow for any benefits (jobs, money, etc.) to go their own tribe.
@Paul
I’m glad you see the problems, especially the tribalism. Leftist thought elevates the group above the Western ideal of individualism. They readily stoke Proletariat against the bosses, Feminists against men, Black Lives Matter, Etc. Some folks so believe in their beloved socialism, that they imagine it will divinely fix all problems, as opposed to just magnify the sectarian strife. The left, if allowed, will ultimately tear down the individual freedom and the one group unity provided by western civil society/patriarchy, and leave us in primitive tribal warfare where the individual must remain acceptably conformed to his gang or group to enjoy their protection from other murderous factions.
Capitalism runs on free & individual self-interest. Very powerful and responsive, but open to abuse.
Communism/Socialism runs on mob enforced envy. Very destructive, and also open to abuse.
@Sharkly: only some forms of capitalism and some forms of socialism. I talked about the success of the welfare state/social democracy, which is capitalism with social influences. It is not that there are only TWO forms of government possible, of which one is obviously evil.
It’s actually pretty easy to prove that capitalism is the most evil form of government imaginable.
At this point, Sharkly has the obligation to tell us how the modern day U.S.A. is in any way more moral or decent than socialist countries, like the People’s Republic of China. He can start by comparing the numbers of fags married-in-the-ass in Chinese churches, for example (that number is zero). Then he can move on to compare the numbers of men jailed in China for failure to pay exorbitant alimony to their ex-wives (that number is also zero). We can go on from there to an almost infinite number of other topics.
The reality is that feminism is the end result of capitalist thinking. Feminists believe that marriages are merely business contracts, same as capitalists, and the typical feminist reacts to the prospect of divorce in the same way that the CONservative republicans do — by seeing it as a way to make a profit off their fellow man. Capitalists and feminists are the same basic types: parasites, who seek to weaken the foundation of society, like a tick feeding off its host, so that they can live without doing any productive work.
Remember the names that appeared in this thread and you’ll see them, over the course of their posting history, in similar shenanigans. The reason that they act like radical feminist SJW types is because they are, in fact, radical feminist SJWs.
Nope. The base idea of Capitalism – let people own the capital and be responsible for their own success, is far more moral than any other form of government.
Yeah, it sucks when it becomes an idol, but so do all other forms of government. Only one, when Jesus reigns, will be truly good. The rest stumble along, but putting the responsibility and authority in the hands of individuals is far better than a completely controlled central economy where only a few elites do well.
Though I have become more partial to a benign despot/monarch. I suspect that may be more productive, but it still must be built on a basis of individual achievement and the right to overthrow an unjust system.
You may want to study the horrors of socialism and its implementation. Look at Venezuela as an example of its depths. Far worse than anything we have.
Though much of our modern debauchery is because we have rejected God as Creator, as it notes in Romans 1. That will mess up any society.
Dear Billy:
If that were true, you’d be able to toss out countless real-world examples of the moral superiority of the U.S.A./U.K./Canada. You can’t, because there aren’t any such examples.
Why not look at China? How many Chinese bakers have been thrown into poverty there, because they wouldn’t bake a faggot’s wedding cake?
Best,
Boxer
Interestingly enough, China IS communist and despicably totalitarian (e.g. Great Firewall of China) , but is running a semi-capitalist experiment. It is also one of the regions of the world the fastest growing number of Christians, so I do not doubt that some of the positive changes can be accounted to that. China shows the real face of communism: an elite group who’s in power and determines everything for all people just to stay in power.
The same is true for North-Korea. Communism is NEVER about the welfare of the common man. It’s just a big lie to disguise a perverted concentration of power that controls all aspects of life of all people. As such power wants to preserve itself, it will by definition be the sworn enemy of Christianity. Satan itself is its master.
But don’t be fooled, many forms of government are effectively operating as channels of evil, it is not limited to communism. Many on this board can easily identify which evils are sprouting from the US government past and present.
The currently best known forms of government that benefit the common people most are those that are able to prevent concentration of power. A multi-party (not bi-party!) democracy enabling a capitalist free-market within strict boundaries with a shared “infrastructure” (transportation, healthcare, water, electricity, internet etc.) controlled by government seems to work best.
That’s why a single world government will indeed be a nightmare. That’s why nationalism is good. And that’s why MANY people want to abolish national governments.
Pay close attention to those who promote elimination of national governments: it helps you to identify your enemies.
And be aware that multinational corporations are usually already effectively operating outside control of national governments.
Dear Paul:
You’re falling into Billy’s frame: conflating morality with material wealth. (That’s very “Christian” of him, isn’t it?) Don’t do this. We’re talking about a society’s participation in moral degeneracy, not the ability of that society’s stock exchange to make record profits out of thin air, from which only a few benefit.
So, again, we could look at China and Venezuela, and ask where all fag marriages and divorce payouts are, or we can look at any other society, and ask the same question.
The same could be said for the U.S.A.: If you took the ruling class and renamed them “the communist party” then by your standards, we’d have an identical situation (you’re basically echoing Leon Trotsky here, whether you know it or not). Yet, there are notable differences at the level of structure, which suggests that Trotsky was wrong, and so are you.
The reality is that there is a positive correlation between capital and moral degeneracy.
An interesting contradiction arises in your thought. Namely:
Then you write:
There is no contemporary nation which is so “nationalist” as North Korea. Look up the definition of ‘Juche’ if you don’t know what you’re lecturing on. How do you account for this?
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer
I fully understand that material wealth is deceptive. That’s however different from striving for a society where basic living conditions are provided for as a shared effort of mutual care.
That still doesn’t say anything about other moral choices a society might make. That I didn’t talk about it does not mean I think any -ism can steer these moral choices, I don’t. I even hesitate to talk about the ability of Christianity to give direction to these moral choices, as we all know how different Christians think about moral choices.
As for nationalism: it is one factor in restricting concentration of power. Therefore it is good.
I do not claim it is the single factor, or even that there could be a single factor, I don’t believe that.
And I already mentioned “the love of money is the root of all evil”, which thus classifies many capitalist endeavors as promoting evil. Still I think restricted capitalism currently is the best we know to provide for common human needs.
Boxer,
Of course I would. Those are also far from true capitalism and are far more socialistic – with a strong Big Daddy government controlling things. I am not the pure libertarian, as government has its scope, but it is much more limited and should be upholding justice rather than enforcing other “good sounding” things as it does not.
Are you really arguing that Venezuela is better?
China is much better in some ways now. Though they are only a relatively short while from the Cultural Revolution, so I would be cautious seeking them out without thought. They actually want capitalism, with keeping the social structure. That is fairly consistent with their history in many ways, though that has ups and downs too.
It is not your daddy’s communism to take another phrase.
When did I do that? I didn’t say our wealth proves our righteousness. I said it was more righteous to let industrious people generally do better. Note this doesn’t mean driving a really expensive car. Even those in the US without a car are far more wealthy than most of the world, in spite of our far distance from truly letting individual consequences happen.
And nationalism is good. A people in a land have the right to screw themselves up. They also should have the right to fix things. You don’t have that without a nation. God made the nations, we should not fight Him.
BTW, it looks like the UK is going Islamic, so the future could be quite interesting. Look at the joys of South Africa after one group gave up power.
Note that I am NOT a fan of Democracy. Most people really are idiots, thus limits need to be placed on that. Any form of government will fail without a moral people as well, and we have to get back to a semblance of that before we can have any success.
@ingracious
Your comments are much too short. Please use moar words.
Here’s another happy Southern Baptist “wife”:
http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/06/26/southern-baptist-lesbian-divorces-husband-happily-brings-lover-to-church/
Boxer says:
At this point, Sharkly has the obligation to tell us…
I must be shiftless, because I’m just not feeliin’ it. I don’t need to argue every point with every person every time. But I appreciate that you value my opinion, as I also value yours.
If that were true, you’d be able to toss out countless real-world examples of the moral superiority of the U.S.A./U.K./Canada. You can’t, because there aren’t any such examples.
Michelle Obama, is that you?
As a historian of sorts, no doubt you could see a legacy of morality in the histories of the 3 once Christian nations that you cite, if you wanted to see it. I see it. However sometimes I lack the will to argue my positions. I just throw them out, like a vote, yea or nay. Perhaps if I thought Capitalism or patriotism was critical to your salvation I’d feel more inclined to argue. Perhaps if I thought you’d be easily swayed, I’d make an attempt. Anyhow, sorry for my lack of will to “prove” my points to you. I regard you as a good ally in the Fight against Feminism, even if you say: Capitalists and feminists are the same basic types: parasites. We may have to agree to a difference of opinion, as I believe Marxists are the great parasites always in blissful ignorance operating initially off of other people’s money, before descending into economic stagnation, resignation, and casting blame.
Anyhow, I’ve got to bake a faggot’s wedding cake, finish subverting the Venezuelan economy, and correct my misunderstanding of the Marxist’s legacy of mass homicides, so I’ve got a lot to do today, as you can see. Cheers!
Dear Fellas:
Well, I asked about morality, you replied with:
Certainly the Venezuelans are poor, but I’d argue their society is less degenerate than this one, all the same. That said, it’s possible they have a national program to introduce little schoolchildren to things like transsexualism and anal intercourse, the way the United States does.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/drag-queen-demon-reads-to-kids-at-michelle-obama-library/
If you can post evidence of something along these lines, I’ll concede. Until then, I have to assume that you’re merely conflating morality with wealth, which is something the New Testament soundly and repeatedly condemns.
lolled hard 🙂
Boxer
Boxer,
Conclude what you will. While I despise much of modern US culture, it is still far better than Venezuela. Plenty of problems here though, so I am not saying the US is great. While I do have a MAGA hat, I still think we are doomed as a country, at least in anything close to this form.
Freedom is still better than slavery, even if the slaves are fed. (Though that is a bit simplistic, since voluntary servitude is not the evil some think, but that is an argument I won’t mess with now.)
When are you moving to Venezuela since it is so much better?
I would personally argue that the US is doomed because we regularly slaughter millions of children in the name of “choice.” That has been going on far too long and the bill will come due and be very expensive.
“That said, it’s possible they have a national program to introduce little schoolchildren to things like transsexualism and anal intercourse, the way the United States does.”
Canada is certainly more socialist than the U.S. and it’s worse in terms of Orwellian PC speech control, LGBTQ and pretty much everything else in the SJW agenda:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen3/18b/Bill-Whatcott-arrest-warrant/index.html
The same is true for much of Western Europe. So try again, dude.
MKT babbles:
LOL! You have no idea what this conversation is about, at this point, do you?
Boxer
Dear Billy:
I realize you’re an open borders type, but I’m not. More generally: this is the go-to response for any self-loathing CONservative, who sees human beings as ultimately interchangeable cogs in the huge scam machine they worship. That’s why capital imports millions of slave laborers to displace actual Americans. They see no real difference between peoples, as they all reduce to the profits that you worship.
I like my society, and want to fight for it. I don’t expect you to understand this, but there it is.
Best,
Boxer
“LOL! You have no idea what this conversation is about, at this point, do you?”
Sure I do, though I have little patience for your rambling and discussing things beyond your ken. Just seeing you stumble on correlation vs. causation is hilarious…especially for a Marxist, LDS faggot* who calls others “SJWs” and brags about advanced degrees and doing peer review.
* At least someone who acts like one and shows indications
I know this will blow some people’s minds, but: Communism (what the Soviets and their ilk do) and sharing (what Anabaptists and Mormons do) aren’t the same things.
The former requires central control–someone tells everyone else exactly what to give up for redistribution, how much, and when; with pain upon failure to meet any one of those requirements. The latter is what even little children can accomplish.
Anyone who conflates the two is foolish.
As far as the Nordic Model: What it produces–just like all socialism–is cultural solvent. Most births in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are out-of-wedlock. From an Atlantic article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/03/incredible-everlasting-institution-marriage/555320/
To the Atlantic author, this data shows that marriage isn’t actually necessary for raising children. From that perspective: We could also applaud the fall in rate of divorce while ignoring the fact that it’s because fewer Scandinavians marry in the first place. Along with OoW birth, Nordic countries are notoriously irreligious–and that’s even after including Muslims!
As a Christian, I see only the carnage of what happens when a people begin to believe in the power of economies of scale instead of Christ’s power over death. They don’t believe in Christ. They don’t go to church. They marry frivolously. They don’t produce children, and when they do it is out of wedlock.
Dear Fellas:
We’re talking about socialist states: Venezuela and China, not capitalist ones, like Canada.
Again, you have yet to make an argument, outside of repeating the same nonsense and tossing around insults. I’m glad Cane Caldo is here. He also has a history of calling people homosexuals, when he loses arguments.
Sorry. The definitions of common English words don’t change, just because you and your ilk get your feelz hurt. The United Order wasn’t about “sharing.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Hope this helps,
Boxer
@Cane Caldo
“As far as the Nordic Model: What it produces–just like all socialism–is cultural solvent. Most births in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are out-of-wedlock.”
Do not conflate moral collapse with introduction of the Nordic capitalist/socialist mixed model. The rapid decline in church membership (!) in the Nordic countries seems to have started in the 1970s. It is well-known that the Nordic countries then started to support child pornography as well as an aggressive feminist agenda.
My statement has for a long time been: moral decline starts in the church, then spreads to society (and the same is true for moral reformation). I have not found a counter-example yet.
1 Pt 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
Christian communism thrives in a religious-authoritarian framework. There is central control in Christian communism: Jesus. This central control is facilitated by a committee of elders, who form the government. What do you think happens to members of the community who don’t follow the will of the people?
Naturally, Christian communism can’t be communism because Marxism wasn’t invented when Christians invented communism. Game, set, match!
Let’s talk about the morality of China. This is the same place that instituted a one-child policy that meant aggressive birth control, abortions, infanticide, and child abandonment. It is a place that treats the disabled as subhuman. It does not place any intrinsic value on a human life. There is no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. They fail at many human rights. They’ve utterly destroyed their natural environment.
Paul,
You still haven’t answered my question. Do you believe happy people commit suicide?
Boxer,
Did you move to Colorado? What have you been smoking?
That is the exact opposite of my views. Open borders are going to bite the US big time and they already have.
If that’s true, I wonder why you suggested I emigrate to someplace else? Is it because, like MKT, you’re simply posting here for feelz and virtue signaling?
Someone else: “I bet you can’t make a bunch of so-called Christians shill for trannies, homosexuals, pedophiles and single moms.
Boxer: “Hold my beer, and watch…”
Boxer,
Since you indicated it was so much better than the US.
@Oscar : “Do you believe happy people commit suicide?”
What do you mean? Does a happy individual commit suicide? Well, obviously that will not happen often. Or does a group of happy people commit suicide as whole group? Not likely. Or do some people out of a group who in the majority are happy commit suicide? That’s regular practice.
So which one is it?
@Boxer
Your comment is irrational. I’m perplexed as to why you took the time to make it.
Have you ever been to China and witnessed the immorality firsthand? The casual treatment of China in various comments by various persons is a mistake. It is no bastion of morality, neither historically or currently. The morality of countries is not a zero sum game. It is right to condemn China’s immorality while simultaneously doing the same to our own society.
Enjoy your beer.
@Paul
Socialism always follows moral collapse. Everywhere it has been implemented, it followed serious moral collapse. Where you find Socialism, you find godlessness.
Then you haven’t read your Bible; which is–among other things–a historical account of God’s actions among immoral peoples. And, apparently, you haven’t raised children, or noticed that their behavior sometimes changes for the worse when you let them around other children who are less moral. For that matter: You can learn that by paying attention to yourself. As St. Paul quoted: “Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.””
Then you quoted St. Peter, who wrote:
which actually has nothing to do with moral decline or where it starts. That passage is St. Peter’s encouragement that believers:
1) Not be sinful and therefore not to be subject to suffering because of sin
2) Not to be ashamed to suffer as a Christian for God’s glory
3) It is time for judgment to begin, and it begins at the household of God
4) If Christians in God’s household suffer during judgment, think how bad pagans outside His house will suffer. It will be worse for them.
St. Peter closes with: “19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.” You have misapplied the text.
@Derek Ramsey
This comment:
is, first and foremost, literally self-refuting; so I am not surprised that you don’t understand the difference of Communism from sharing. Second, the government of a church, and the government of nations, are never presented as the same thing in the Bible. In fact they are explicitly enumerated. As far as I am aware, every Anabaptist church recognizes this same separation. Third, you haven’t actually showed that elders run their churches like Communists run their countries. Fourth, there is nowhere in the Bible where governments of either churches or nations are instructed to compel anything like a communist or socialist economy; which is what communist and socialist governments do.
@Cane Caldo
I never said Marxism was equivalent to Christian communism. But you don’t understand Christian communism. Those religious communities exert a very high level of authoritarian control, indoctrination, and uniformity of thought. They don’t need to use violence. Shunning is just as effective, perhaps more so. The control goes way beyond a community based on voluntary sharing.
To the separatist Anabaptist, the government is irrelevant. It exists to be ignored. The community governs itself as it sees fit and only interacts with the outside government when it must. For the purposes of this discussion, it is best to consider it to be a government inside a government.
This is irrelevant. It matters not a bit whether the Bible explicitly and actually enumerates or states communist views, so long as these Christians believe that it does.
Correct. That’s because they don’t. They are not equivalent, as I have said. There are a number of important differences.
Dear Fellas:
Please see inside text…
I’ve been to China, and I’ve been to the United States, and I’ve been to Canada. In all three examples, abortion on demand is the rule. In the latter two, single mothers are allowed to breed up as many bastards as they want, and I have to pay the bill. In the latter two, the bastards who are bred up get to go to state funded programs where they’ll learn about gay sex from a weird transsexual, at a state-funded public library. If the Chinese ever have such a federal program, I’ll return to criticise them for it.
We have no standing to criticise the moral foundations of any other society. We live in the most disgustingly immoral society on earth, by any metric. The Chinese hate our guts, for trying to spread feminism into their society. Keep defending this nonsense, if you’d like. I think it’s silly.
Didn’t say it was, and it doesn’t have to be.
As though this thread hadn’t yet descended into humor, comes Cane Caldo to lecture an actual anabaptist about the social praxis of his own community:
Truly, you never cease to amuse and entertain.
Boxer
@Cane Caldo
“Socialism always follows moral collapse. ”
I was talking about Social Democracy, not socialism, hence it does not apply (even it were true).
“.. a historical account of God’s actions among immoral peoples. ..”
Well, my whole point is that the Church should be leading in morality, both for its members, and indirectly it should have a noticeable influence in society. And I already mentioned it can go both ways.
1 Cor 5 : 12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
A similar idea can be found within the symbols of leaven and dough and unleavened bread, and within the symbol of the believers being the salt of the earth.
And counter to your statement, you have not shown how I have misapplied the text in 1 Peter, as you did not show how I applied that text in the first place.
Furthermore, to say the 1 Peter 4 text has nothing to do with moral decline is grossly overstating your point. You are commendable for reading the verse in context, but read again the following verses
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do–living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.
5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.
17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
So then again, what is the testing and judgment about? Is it not about NOT living a moral live, and doing what pagans do, for which they will be judged? Is it not about testing obedience of Christians to God’s commands? Isn’t that what morality is about?
I found it quite amusing about how it was pointed out human life wasn’t valued in China…when for the most part it isn’t really valued in America or Canada either. Then you can add things like exportation of porn, hormonal birth control, and anything else the sexually deviant mind can come up with.
China is farther down the rabbit hole on this than we are though…their government overtly forces it upon the people whereas here we have the governments who covertly force it upon the people through ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ or ‘constitutional right’.
And while it has been coming out in bits and pieces…if the big pedo rings ever come to the light of day we will truly see how far the rot of evil goes in this and many other democracy loving capitalist countries. Not only do we kill our children…the ones that do make it are targets to have their innocence robbed.
Modern social democracy definitely followed moral decline. Read a little history.
Visiting China is not the same as being immersed in it as well.
But keep with the fables.
You may not have standing, but I am no unbiased, neutral bystander. I have that right both by family rights and as a Christian. You may view America’s feminist corruption as the overwhelming moral issue that overrides all else. I do not.
Let me try to explain this again if I can. The differences between China and the US are fundamental at the worldview level. China is a country crying out for moral grounding, for Christ. It needs that badly.
America, for all its faults, is full of people who see that there is an intrinsic value in a human life. They may apply this inconsistently and illogically as part of their fallen nature, but most still recognize it. Americans are generous people that will help out a fellow human in need. Moreover, a large percentage of Americans think abortion is wrong.
This does not apply to China. They look out for me and mine. Charitable giving in China is almost non-existent (0.1% of GDP vs. 2.0% GDP) and reflects their way of thinking. My family’s extended Chinese relatives were stunned at the level of community generosity here in the States. In China my children would literally have had handlers and been beggars on the street or prostitutes. Here they will be treated with dignity. They will get an education and will become productive members of society.
If society is judged by how it treats its weakest members, then China fails miserably.
True. A decent chunk of my immediate and extended family is native Chinese. I’ve had access to parts of China that most non-natives would never be allowed. I speak of what I know. I’m not a rational, unbiased observer in this matter.
Derek,
I was aiming that at Boxer.
Fair enough…I’m immersed in America. It doesn’t respect human life especially the unborn, and it peddles porn and hormonal birth control to the world. We also have faggot marriage and no-fault divorce and a system that does everything to remove a father and husband’s authority away from his marriage/children.
Now I’ve read a little history…you might be familiar with a former country called the Soviet Union. I’d suggest reading their divorce/abortion/wimminz empowerment laws and tell me how much different it is from the United States.
What about America? Isn’t there enough signs and rotten fruits in plain sight to see why we need Christ just as badly?
Jesus wasn’t a socialist. Any reading of the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector or the statement “the poor will always be with you” should be big hints.
Dalrock,
On the topic of Southern Baptists, perhaps you’d be interested in a recent post by Sheila Wray Gregoire, My Husband Has Something to Say to Those Who Insult Women, “in which Keith responds to a Southern Baptist pastor who called me emotional, easily deceived, and uneducated, and asked to hear from my husband instead.”
Sure, but it’s not a competition. My opinion (and it is just that) is that the Chinese are potentially more receptive to Christ than Americans.
In the context of communism vs capitalism and whether one was more moral than the other, there is a distinction not yet made. In China, unlike the US, the abortions and contraception are coerced by the communist government. Which government is worse? The one that forces immoral actions or the one that makes it easy but optional? Which society is worse? The one that is forced to kill its babies or the one that does so willingly? While this is oversimplification and black-and-white thinking, it’s still worth considering. I don’t think America got into this mess by embracing capitalism.
@Paul
This comment of yours:
is not remotely the same as this comment of yours:
The latter says that moral decline always starts in the church. That is wrong, and wrong-headed.
@CC
Well, maybe I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough.
I think morality is spiritually driven and starts out in the Church. It can go “upwards”, an increase in holiness, which will eventually influence society, or it can go “downwards”, a decrease in holiness, which will also eventually influence society. Otherwise said: the church is the kingdom of light, the world the kingdom of darkness. In the former Christ is (or should be) obeyed, in the latter satan is pulling the strings. Eph 6 shows the constant spiritual warfare which tries to draw a follower of Christ away from him. The more the church follows Christ, the more effective it will be, the less it follows Christ, the less effective it will be. The more effective the church is, the more profound effect it will have on society, because God’s light will be spread more.
@ Paul
Thank you for finally answering my question. As I stated earlier, happy people don’t commit suicide, either as individuals, or as a group. That’s true. I’m glad we agree.
It’s also true that most European countries are committing suicide, including the Scandinavian countries you claim are happy. So, if it’s true that happy people don’t commit suicide, and Scandinavian countries are committing suicide, then it’s also true that Scandinavian countries are not happy, and the studies that claim they are happy are bullshit.
@OKRickety:
I’m having too nice a day to click on that link.
@Oscar
Are you serious? Or are you just arguing for the fun of it? Because it sure looks like you don’t understand any fundamentals of statistics.
In how many countries do you think there are people that commit suicide?
In how many countries do you think there are happy people?
So what does that tell you?
@OKRickety
I dropped some Bible verses on the Feminists at Sheila Wray Gregoire’s site.
We’ll see if my comment ends up getting posted, and how they react to Bible truth. I used a different screen name from on here. Her husband was false preaching that husbands should be submitting to their wives, and vice versa. by making Ephesians 5:21 about husbands and wives, instead of about brothers in Christ, and by ignoring the verses 5:22-24 that specifically state that the wife is to submit to the husband in everything as unto God.
@Damn Crackers
Thanks for reminding me of this verse, that is also recorded in two other gospels:
Mark 14:7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.
I don’t see Jesus saying that we should forcibly equalize everybody’s income. And that would have surely been the place to put in such a comment, if he wanted us to do that. I get from that verse, that it is good to help the poor, but that there will always be poorer folks among us. He didn’t say “until you folks ‘feel the Bern’ and institute your socialist utopia and bring about holy heaven on earth without God, through the conceited actions of sinful men, then poverty will be eliminated and blessed equality will wipe away all tears and redeem the sinful nature of mankind.”
Sharkly:
Please consider writing up a rebuttal. I’d love to host it on my site, with backlinks. If not, just post it in one of these old threads.
People like Sheila have a false sense of confidence, because they can censor any criticism. Air it someplace she doesn’t have control.
Best,
Boxer
@Paul
Fair enough.
If we understood each other’s terms more clearly (For example: who do you mean by society? Members of your household? The country? Something between?) it might be that we could find agreement. We do each have influence over others, no question. At the same time we are not merely meat machines who respond rationally to stimuli. There are, for another example, husbands and fathers out here who do things for the absolute good of their wives and children, yet they are reviled by the same.
Boxer,
Thank you for the invitation. Somebody needs to rebut that sort of rot. If somebody is to rebut her exact post, it should be done soon. Perhaps Dalrock could, or one of the guys that already has a blog set up. I can, with your help hosting, but I’m a bit busy also, and do not have the time to really give it the full treatment.
I skimmed her post, before commenting. I have difficulty bringing myself to wallow in their pooled ignorance. It pains me to see how she trots her husband out and to hear her husband dutifully self flagellate his manhood for her churchian Feminist succubi peers.
Apparently Pastor Steve Camp wrote things she did not want to hear, like that she was being emotional, and easily deceived, and then asked to speak to her husband when she continued to be contentious with him. And That is a serious crime against vagina worship! So she is publically calling out Steve Camp on her blog trying to incite a mob of banshees to cry out for his crucifixion. She does trot out her husband who then dutifully Cucks himself publically for her. He basically says that we both share the pants and the testicles in our family, and if she wants to lead the Southern Baptists to Hell, its OK, because I allow all her foolishness, so I’m really the leader see. Then he Cucks even harder and implies that he can no longer assume good motives on those ministers who still insist on Patriarchy. Apparently any pastors who oppose Feminism are now objectified as just tools of the devil to him. The comment section seems to be a bunch of fools speculating “Jesus is up in Vagina Heaven screaming ‘you go girl! to you Sheila’ and that Mr. Camp is a bad bad bad man for implying your husband is your head.” And Sheila then says thank you for your empowering words, and I’m glad you found freedom in Christ from all submission.
It is written in sickeningly sweet psychobabble yet the heresy is vile enough to gag a maggot!
Sharkly says:
June 28, 2018 at 11:50 pm
I wonder if Sheila and her fellow christofeminists are going to try to tell God on Judgment Day that He didn’t really mean to say what the Bible quotes Him as saying.
I know that Scripture makes it clear that Judgment Day will be a terrifying experience and that His Presence will overwhelm us, but I still can’t erase from my mind the image of the western christofeminist woman trying to argue with God Almighty, even as He holds her in His palm ready to cast her into the pits of Hell.
I’ve discovered other parts of Feminist Sheila Wray Gregoire’s site are just as worthless.
I saw an article called Discover the Happy Marriage Secret.
It began with: “What’s the secret to a happy marriage?”
Anyhow, I thought; I would like to find that out, so I read on, and on, for about 5 pages worth of boring and pointless anecdotes still waiting for the secret to be revealed. Finding out that so many of her friends are getting divorced. And then I came to the end, and the secret was revealed…
She published a marriage book many years back and is still hocking it.
“This book is my honest and heartfelt attempt to help people overcome pain and truly grow their marriages!”
There is a link to where I can buy it today, but wait, that’s not all, there is also a video course to buy to go along with the book.
After reading 5 pages of filler made up of pointless emotional drivel …
@Sharkly: don’t hold your breath your comment will get posted by Sheila; she has a track record of not letting any critical comment to get approved (from personal experience only of course).
Southern Baptists aren’t the only denomination to institutionalize throwing men under the bus (as Dalrock knows and has written about):
https://blogs.lcms.org/2018/the-toxic-and-the-true/
I’d be interested to hear your commentary on this one, Dalrock.
Sharkly,
That material is part of a direct marketing approach to selling things. You have to wade through a lot of copy (hype) to find out what the content really is. She is just using that it seems, it didn’t originate with her.
Note: Dalrock has posted about Sheila Wray Gregoire before (and even has a “tag” for her), as recently as March of this year. I thought he might find her post of interest.
This comment by Sheila Wray Gregoire on that post summarizes her position well:
It is my opinion that some of Sheila’s teachings for women about sex in marriage is reasonably good. Unfortunately, she is not very good once she leaves that arena.
Patriarchy is men being in charge. It is from Genesis 3:16, and it is part of the CURSE, not part of CREATION.
Strange then how Paul appeals only to pre-curse material (man made first, then woman; woman deceived, not man) to make his case for men being in charge. It’s almost like he believes it IS part of creation.
Too bad we don’t have any of Lydia’s epistles to set the record straight…
Everyone here seems to be assuming that the US is a capitalist nation, or at least not a communist nation. But, if you look at the ten planks of Communism as set forth in Marx and Engel’s book, you will see that the US government has adopted all ten of them.
1. Abolition of private property.
Try living on your property without paying your property taxes.
2. Graduated income tax
3. Abolition of inheritance rights.
If you don’t ask probate for your inheritance, it belongs to the state.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
FCC and NHTSA
Maybe Nordic socialism is better than the US’s socialism. But both systems are definitely socialist.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html
Paul says: don’t hold your breath your comment will get posted by Sheila; she has a track record of not letting any critical comment to get approved
She did post my first comment, with a heretical reply that OKRickety copied above.
Last night in the wee hours I responded correcting her false teaching:
Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.
Patriarchy is men being in charge. It is from Genesis 3:16, and it is part of the CURSE, not part of CREATION. Jesus came to redeem us from the curse.
I ponted out that Sapphira was killed for lying to God, not for obeying Him (Acts 5)
And that Jesus came to redeem us from our sins, not the curse.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
The curse is still with us; pain in childbirth, usurping wives, weeds, laborious toil.
That the non-neutered Bibles never claims that women are in the image of God, and in fact seem to indicate, multiple places, that they are not.
And I again threw in some verses saying how women are supposed to “glorify God” through a quiet spirit, submission to husband, and calling him lord. They gotta hate that!
Anyhow, it automatically posted in the wee hours this morning, but, when I woke up and checked again this afternoon, it had been removed. LOL wouldn’t want the Bible expounded there, showing women how they should behave.
I also again posted a reply about how she was being hypocritical in her Bible interpretation also.
They interpret Ephesians 5:21 a verse about fellow Christians submitting one to another as also applying to a husband and wife, while ignoring Ephesians 5:22-24 that specifically address wives and says that they should submit to their husbands in everything, as unto the Lord.(she must have flunked Hermeneutics class) She claims submission can never be demanded. However instead of submitting to Steve Camp, she was demanding that he submit to her and give her an apology, and when he didn’t, she made a blog post trying to force him, and to punish him, and send a warning to others who might refuse to forcibly submit to her heretical Feminist railing.(I don’t think this last one will ever get posted, but at least I bet she’ll read it and see my sensible Bible based correction of her spoiled childish behavior.) I pray Jesus will open her blinded eyes to see.
Sharkly, read her comments on her recent feud:
https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2018/06/steve-camp-florida-sbc-pastor-sexist/
” I have made it very clear that I do not allow comments that show Christ in a bad light. I have so many seekers on this blog that I do let one or two comments from a person through but then stop, because I do not want to give the impression that Christians are misogynists, which all too many commenters sound like.”
So you’re a misogynist and have shown Christ in a bad light, that’s why!
You’re not the only one trying to bring her to other thoughts, who knows how many sensible, biblical comments she already deleted.