Killing her with chivalry.

Over at Instapundit there is an article/discussion offering chivalry as the antidote to feminist charges of toxic masculinity.  Specifically, the article points to the men on the Titanic as the gold standard for noble masculinity. Few conservatives would argue with this sentiment.  One commenter approvingly offered a Heinlein quote:

Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.

I wasn’t familiar with the quote, but with a bit of searching found a more full version of it (all emphasis mine):

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can–and must–be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is no only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly–and no doubt will keep on trying.

Having not read the book, I don’t know if Heinlein meant the quote to be ironic or not.  But either way, the claim that Women and Children First (WACF) is a practical philosophy in opposition to starry eyed idealists is deeply ironic.  For WACF is the philosophy of the hopeless romantic.  It stems directly out of the Medieval literary tradition of Courtly Love.  Courtly Love is founded on the starry eyed idealism that men suffering for women is the ultimate masculine virtue.  Moreover, the more unnecessary the man’s suffering, the greater the masculine virtue.  The archetype of noble chivalrous manhood is Sir Lancelot in Chretien de Troyes’ late 1100s tale  Sir Lancelot, Knight of the Cart.  As you might guess from the title, the cart is central to the moral lesson of the tale.  Joseph J. Duggan explains in The Romances of Chretien de Troyes:

Lancelot is also about shame, but a paradoxical shame inflicted in seemingly arbitrary fashion on Lancelot by Queen Guinevere. The scene of Lancelot in the cart, after which Chretien named his romance (Lancelot 24), and by which Godefroy de Lagny calls it (7103), is one of shaming.

Lancelot is searching for the queen and meets a dwarf who is driving a cart… The dwarf tells Lancelot that if he climbs into the vehicle, he will soon know the queen’s whereabouts. Understandably Lancelot is reluctant to ride in this nefarious conveyance in which felons are often transported. His hesitation is occasioned by his receiving contradictory interior advice from Reason and Love. Reason tells him not to do anything that will bring him shame or reproach. Reason, says Chretien, is not in the heart but only in the mouth… Love, however, which does dwell in the heart, advises him to jump into the cart… This is precisely the Lancelot’s problem and the core problematic of Chretien’s romance…

Chivalry is a starry eyed glorification of men’s suffering, and the more capricious the suffering the better.  Heinlein’s character makes chivalry out to be a matter of practicality, but as the originators of the genre fully understood it was precisely the opposite.

And it is not merely in fiction that we can see this truth.  In the Titanic itself we learned that WACF is a terrible way to approach saving lives on a sinking ship.  It is even a terrible way to save the lives of women and children.  The reason for this is that women understandably don’t want to separate from their men in times of extreme danger.  Their men are their protectors, yet WACF demands that women enter into the terrifying unknown of the life-raft without their men.  As a result, women tend to refuse to enter the lifeboats under WACF.  In the prototype for WACF, the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead, the women had to be forcibly picked up and dropped into the lifeboats.  From the Daily Mail:

Some women did not want to go on their own — they had to be torn away from their husbands, carried over to the bulwark and dropped over the ship’s side. Most of the soldiers and sailors aboard drowned or were eaten by sharks, but all the women and children survived, and the  chivalric ethos became known as the Birkenhead Drill…

The same problem came up on the Titanic.  Women were too afraid to enter the lifeboats without their men, and as a result not just men, but women and children needlessly died:

All 14 lifeboats, the two emergency boats, and two of the Engelhardt boats were launched. These had a capacity of 1,084 passengers. Obviously, many boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water. Some of the men put in boats were put there simply to show it was safe, and allay the fears of other passengers.

…there was enough lifeboat capacity for ALL women and children (534 persons total), AND 550 men as well. (Total capacity of the boats launched was 1,084.) This explains why, especially as the situation became more urgent, more men were put in the boats. Indeed, if the boat crews had loaded one man for each woman or child loaded, they could have expected to save all women and children, plus as many men.

From an account of the last lifeboat launched from the Titanic:

Collapsible lifeboat D was the ninth and last boat to be lowered from the port side. Second Officer Lightoller had managed to fit the collapsible boat into the now-empty davits of boat 1. He tried to find women to fill it with, but had trouble in finding any. Finally, he said, he managed to fill the boat with 15-20 people…

Mrs. Hoyt gave a concise account of the tragedy to her father. She did not leave her husband’s side until the last boat was being lowered and then she was torn from him and thrown into a boat.

Another woman wasn’t so lucky.  She wasn’t physically thrown into a lifeboat, and perished as a result:

On the night of the sinking, Isidor and Ida Straus were seen standing near Lifeboat No. 8 in the company of Mrs. Straus’s maid, Ellen Bird.   Although the officer in charge of the lifeboat was willing to allow the elderly couple to board the lifeboat with Miss Bird, Isidor Straus refused to go while there were women and children still remaining on the ship. He urged his wife to board, but she refused, saying, “We have lived together for many years. Where you go, I go.” Her words were witnessed by those already in Lifeboat No. 8 as well as many others who were on the boat deck at the time. Isidor and Ida were last seen standing arm in arm on the deck.

We know from another account of the loading of Lifeboat No. 8 that there was plenty of room for Mr. and Mrs Strauss.  We also learn of another woman who survived only because she was physically thrown into the lifeboat.  From the Encyclopedia Titanica:

Only twenty women were near the boat, and these were put in. My daughter Ruth was among the first, but I said that I wouldn’t go if my husband did not accompany me. There was room for fourteen more after the last woman had found her place, and they all pleaded to let the men take the empty seats.

“But the Captain said that he would not allow it. I was frantic. There was that boat, ready to be lowered into the water and only half full. Then the order came to lower. The men were pleading for permission to step in, and one came forward to take a place next to his wife. I heard a shot and I am sure it was he that went down.

“Then the boat swung out from the deck. I was still with my husband, and Ruth had already disappeared below the deck. I gave a great cry—I remember perfectly calling out the name of my daughter—and two men tore me from my husband’s side, lifted me, one by the head and one by the feet, and dropped me over the side of the deck into the lowering boat. I struck on the back of my head, but I had furs on, and that fact probably saved me from greater injury.

The terrible thing was that we had so much room left for the poor men who were snatched away

The story of the death of Isador Strauss and her husband is indeed a romantic one, but it is not a story of practicality.  Had Mr. Strauss not refused to enter the lifeboat, Mrs. Strauss would have been saved.  The focus on romance over practicality costs lives, not just of men, but of women and children as well.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Romantic Love, Titanic, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

177 Responses to Killing her with chivalry.

  1. Pingback: Killing her with chivalry. | @the_arv

  2. Ras al Ghul says:

    There is a story of lancelot at a tournament and to prove his love, guinevere tells him to “do your worst” so he proceeds to cheat and behave like a coward to prove his love. So its worse than just the shame of the cart, bit active bad behavior

  3. Hmm says:

    Heinlein’s “women and children first” is the best secular answer to the survival of the human race, if that is our goal. Again, it only takes one man to father 100 children (or more). But survival on what terms, exactly?

    The Biblical ethic is “widows and orphans first” – women whose husband had died, and children whose parents had both died. “Take care of those who are helpless through no fault of their own.” As far as I am concerned, this does not apply to women who have made themselves husbandless through divorce, or have children out of wedlock. And even widows and orphans, who were helpless in ancient cultures, are no longer helpless in ours. Every effort of the state will be made to make their lives comfortable.

  4. “…the more unnecessary the man’s suffering, the greater the masculine virtue.”

    You can be willing to take risks to protect your wife and kids, and not have to be a pathological masochist about it. A lot of ideas can be sound when executed responsibly by sane people with a sense of proportion, but crazy in the hands of idealists and virtue signalers. The latter would be the ones who *want* men to go down with the ship, all else being equal.

    My understanding of Heinlein (source: RAH fan since childhood in the mid 70s) is that he came from a very chivalrous age, and depending on how he felt at the moment or the point he wanted to make, he’d vary a bit, but I think he would generally say that you can’t protect them tomorrow if you needlessly die for them today.

    But RAH was not a moral philosopher but an entertainer, he’s dead, and you can read him for yourself. You can probably find passages somewhere that advocate masochistic chivalry, and others that decry it. He put a whole lot of words on paper, over many decades.

    I certainly don’t think there was any irony intended in that passage, anyway.

  5. Damn Crackers says:

    Although, those women today would hand their husband the kids and jump in the lifeboats with a tall, dusky deckhand.

    When are folks going to understand that you can’t fight knife and gun wielding thugs with Marquis of Queensberry rules?

  6. Gunner Q says:

    “Having not read the book, I don’t know if Heinlein meant the quote to be ironic or not.”

    Not. He was a big-time atheist. I haven’t read that particular book but the quote is consistent with Starship Troopers and his short stories.

    “In the Titanic itself we learned that WACF is a terrible way to approach saving lives on a sinking ship. It is even a terrible way to save the lives of women and children. The reason for this is that women understandably don’t want to separate from their men in times of extreme danger.”

    I hear WACF has been abandoned by modern naval standards because it slows the evacuation to queue the men until the non-men are gone. The current emphasis is “load ’em up and send ’em clear” because ships are required to have enough lifeboat capacity for everybody anyway. That’s the real lesson of the Titanic: lifeboats are not merely for show.

    Hmm @ 12:00 pm:
    “Heinlein’s “women and children first” is the best secular answer to the survival of the human race, if that is our goal. Again, it only takes one man to father 100 children (or more).”

    If humans reproduced by laying eggs and abandoning them then this would be true. It would kill an evolutionist to admit that human reproduction requires more effort than mere rutting because it implies a moral code beyond “do what thou wilt”.

  7. “It would kill an evolutionist…”

    You’re not even within a million miles of remotely close. What other bizarre things do you think I believe?

  8. Growling says:

    @Matthew
    Why are you being so hypersensitive over a comment that wasn’t directed at you?
    Do you realize you didn’t even refute what Gunner said, just bitched out like a progressive feminist woman overhearing an off-color joke?

  9. Gunner Q says:

    MW, I wasn’t thinking about you at all but if you believe a village of 100 women and 1 man can survive a single generation then I recommend this link:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

  10. Boxer says:

    This is an important and timely article. Incidentally, over on PJM, a couple of white knights are in an uproar over Dalrock’s reasonable and historically accurate replies. Pinging all trolls, &c.

  11. ray says:

    Excellent research and presentation.

    Bob Heinlein’s quote is very much in keeping with his objectives during his adult life. Those objectives included debasement and control of the emerging Boomer Generation, and establishment of a functional matriarchy in America, Britain, and the broader West.

    How’d ole Bob do, do ya think? :O)

    Robert Heinlein graduated from Annapolis, and lifelong carried intimate ties with U.S. Navy and Air Force Intelligence . . . also Brit intel at the highest levels. In 1960 he was deployed strictly into MK-Ultra psy-ops, including the huge drug-proliferation and normalization scheme designed to zombify and control the Booms. In 1961 Heinlein published the massively popular and influential ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’, the ‘bible’ of the incipient counter-culture, in which one Valentine Michael Smith, Citizen of Mars, arrives on Earth and promptly teaches the heathen the righteous ways of feminism, altered states of consciousness, and y’all can fill-in the rest. Oh and p.s. ‘sexual liberation’ also was a rallying-cry of ‘Stranger’.

    ‘Stranger’ was the key propaganda-piece in forming the ‘hippie movement’ from the shards of the East-entranced Beats of the Fifties. The book’s political twin was the ritual murder of JFK outside the Masonic Temple in Dallas, and the immediate (and btw Constitutionally invalid) installation of Master Mason LBJ on the tarmac over Love Field. I’ve written about this at great length over the past two decades.

    Heinlein was a principal actor and agent of a carefully planned and executed intel-op, involving many agencies both governmental and NGO, that led the Booms down the garden-path to our current fresh hell, including Total Feminism. What you see in Western cultures in no way is accidental; it was designed and carried out with military precision. Not by God’s Army, duh.

    This only scratches the surface of that particular operation, which still is very much ongoing, despite official denials. I mean, what’re they gonna say? Yes, we deliberately enslaved America and the West both spiritually and culturally, and we wrote the script for Michael’s lifetime, before he even hit terra? We’re really sorry, not? Those of you who read Scripture closely should be able to fill-in most of the blanks from here.

    America is a nation that hasn’t a clue as to what it really is, nor how it came about. Folks are now yammering about the Deep State, lol, if they only knew the truth! The enemies of God already were expert in mass-com manipulation and control before they rolled-out CRA ’64, the Great Society, Women’s Liberation, ad nauseum.

    Now you know why the name of this planet is ‘Deceit’. Hey, I told you that you’re in a war. It’ll continue to be waged on you, whether you fight or not.

  12. steve heller says:

    Heinlein was a highly pragmatic person. He was referring to racial survival.

    But I’m pretty sure he would also have been inexorably opposed to giving women the ability to cast aside and ruin their husbands for no reason other than because they weren’t “feeling it”.

  13. Bart says:

    “Women and children first” is the cry of the natural, fallen, corrupt, and depraved mind.

    The proper foundation of society is “Soli Deo Gloria!”. The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Mankind was created “by and for” the Lord Jesus Christ. We exist for Him. He does not exist for us. His Name is I Am Who I Am.

    In a similar but lesser sense, man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. Woman was made to be the helper of man. Man is the head of the woman, and head of the covenantal household.

    In the situation of the Titanic, of course the saving of children should be a priority. Also, the parents (father and mother) of children should have been prioritized over elderly women. Saving a 70 year old grandmother instead of a 40 year old father with children at home would be madness! Grandmother’s are wonderful, but fathers are more necessary.

    CHILDREN NEED THEIR FATHERS! Once a child is over 6-7 years old, they probably need their father more than they need their mother!

    God bless Ida Straus! She understood the covenant of marriage. She knew her place was at her husband’s side. A father with children should have taken her place in the lifeboat.

  14. “if you believe a village of 100 women and 1 man can survive a single generation”

    I should have been more clear: Paternal investment is a trait humans have evolved, more so than many mammals. Kids need fathers.

    If it’s moral to care for your children (being Catholic, I am informed that it is very much so), then a father should certainly care for his children, and that is true regardless of what happened in 4004 BC or 50,000,000 BC. Your hypothetical village seems like a bad idea for a lot of other reasons too.

    It does happen to be true that if, by some catastrophe, the human race were reduced to one man and 100 women, the group would have a real hope of long term survival. It would be a bad experience, but they’d probably have great-great-grandchildren, however dysfunctional the first few generations might be.

    100 men and a woman would have vastly worse odds of long term group survival. The second generation would be on the order of 1/100 the size of the first example.

    I certainly hope nobody is recommending that we try either experiment.

    I apologize to our host for the digression. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut.

  15. rdchemist says:

    Gunner Q

    “MW, I wasn’t thinking about you at all but if you believe a village of 100 women and 1 man can survive a single generation then I recommend this link:”

    It can survive if the man is in charge 😉

    To advance and evo psych interpretation of the Titanic disaster

    Two evolutionary instincts came into direct conflict with each other when the Titanic started sinking:

    Women not wanting to be deprived of their sole protector (their husband) in the face of mortal danger .

    vs

    The crew, and later the other men, realizing that there was no possible way for everyone to survive the crisis that has befallen their isolated civilization (a ship in the middle of the freezing North Atlantic) started trying to save as many women as possible for the best chance to continue the species.

    Population numbers can more easily rebound with a female surplus than a male surplus.

    Nothing would be certain, of course, but that gives that population the best chance.

  16. Boxer says:

    It does happen to be true that if, by some catastrophe, the human race were reduced to one man and 100 women, the group would have a real hope of long term survival. It would be a bad experience, but they’d probably have great-great-grandchildren, however dysfunctional the first few generations might be.

    Gunner’s right, in the main. Aside from his (funny) link, you can read about the Triple-Alliance War in South America. This scenario (male depopulation, with a subsequent Catholic dispensation for polygamy) is the general reason that Paraguay is a third-world shithole, while Argentina and Uruguay are developed, pleasant places to live.

    It’s certainly true that men can’t have babies, but it’s men who are the main transmitters of civilization and culture to the subsequent generations. This is an undertheorized bit of realtalk that will never get the funding to be studied, thanks to institutionalized feminism.

  17. Anon says:

    The antidote to feminism and faggotism :

    Less Chivalry, more Shivalry.

  18. Keith says:

    Boxer,

    “It’s certainly true that men can’t have babies, but it’s men who are the main transmitters of civilization and culture to the subsequent generations. ”

    I believe that you are correct that men transmit culture to future generations. But a civilization needs to meet one criteria before that happens: survival.

    I think that’s the whole point about preferring female lives over those of men. Giving your population the best chance of survival by producing as many offspring as possible. During times of crisis that is the primary concern.

  19. Hazelshade says:

    These sources are really something. Those women on the Titanic sensed their places. The chivalrous men knew neither the women’s places nor their own. Chivalry is overrated in love and emergencies. It’s good that women’s instincts are consistent on this.

  20. Anon says:

    Population numbers can more easily rebound with a female surplus than a male surplus.

    Quantity, but not quality.

    While this was fine from 500,000 BC to about 4000 BC, after that, the societies that got to two-parent families got ahead.

  21. Hugh Mann says:

    Chivalry was a very good thing when society was less womancentric. Now, not so much. And IMHO the Titanic men were right (assuming there weren’t enough lifeboats, which there weren’t).

    From Christina Hoff Sommers review of Harvey Mansfield’s book Manliness:

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/christina-hoff-sommers/being-a-man

    “One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle “women and children first.” The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by “the women of America” in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: “To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be saved.” Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.”

  22. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Quantity, but not quality.

    Yeah. He’s not technically incorrect, but mere survival is a pretty low bar. It puts human beings on par with things like virii and farm animals.

    Do you know about the Paraguay situation, by any chance?

    Boxer

  23. feministhater says:

    Who are these women going to complain to if you only save the one man? We all know that once he realises the misery he is in, he’s out of there.

    100 women and one man wouldn’t survive either. The man would have to protect that entire tribe all by his lonesome, impregnate all the women, provide for all of them, keep their bickering under control. The jealousy of the women would bring it to an end soon enough even if he were able to do all the above.

    I think that’s the whole point about preferring female lives over those of men. Giving your population the best chance of survival by producing as many offspring as possible. During times of crisis that is the primary concern.

    That’s gynocentrism in a nutshell. The very reason they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, they have far too much power already.

  24. earl says:

    Less Chivalry, more Shivalry.

    If females can fitness test with complete impunity…why not men?

  25. earl says:

    Women were too afraid to enter the lifeboats without their men

    Guess that whole fish and bicycle theory their future granddaughters spouted was nonsense.

  26. feeriker says:

    100 women and one man wouldn’t survive either. The man would have to protect that entire tribe all by his lonesome, impregnate all the women, provide for all of them, keep their bickering under control. The jealousy of the women would bring it to an end soon enough even if he were able to do all the above.

    I don’t doubt for a second that there would be fewer –far fewer– than 100 women after a very short time. Not only would they soon turn on each other and kill a significant number of each other out of feral jealousy and territoriality, but the lone man would probably go homicidal on many of them himself. He wouuld soon realize that if he is the sole hope for these women’s survival, then it is his prerogative to decide who among them will benefit from his protection and provision.

  27. feeriker says:

    Aaaargh! Major italics enclosure fail on that last quote.

  28. feeriker says:

    Guess that whole fish and bicycle theory their future granddaughters spouted was nonsense.

    The irony is that today’s whiny, spoiled, worthless, entitled twats would mock their great-grandmothers as being weak and ignorant – even though even the most privileged and wealthy of that generation endured hardships that their SJW great-granddaughters would probably commit suicide over the very thought of facing.

  29. Keith says:

    Anon,

    “Quantity, but not quality.

    While this was fine from 500,000 BC to about 4000 BC, after that, the societies that got to two-parent families got ahead.”

    Yes, when population numbers and density allowed for more sophisticated and complex cultures to develop. Once a culture evolved that was centered around the nuclear family, we found that it was outperforming cultures that were operating around more basic insticts, primarily due to paternal investment in offspring.

    Now going to our hypothetical “1 man for every 100 women” scenario:

    The ratio isn’t meant to be interpreted literally. But as thought experiments go, it’s pretty valid.

    A population with such a ratio might double itself in one year.

    I say “might” because you never know for sure. Perhaps a few of the women are baren for some reason. Perhaps some of the women have the looks or the attitude (like feminism) that makes the man not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

    So after considering all these factors, a man might be only procreating with 50 out of the 100 women? Perhaps 25? Maybe only 10?

    That’s still a better reproductive rate than the 100 men to 1 women scenario.

    And the good news is that all the ugly, feminist women won’t be as reproductively successful and those genetic and behavioral traits don’t get transmitted to offspring. The fitness of the individual members and society as a whole improves and becomes more competative.

    Rinse and repeat and you get a pretty good shot at creating a viable civilization that survives the ages.

  30. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Do you know about the Paraguay situation, by any chance?

    No, but I am curious.

    The European monarchy did have polygamy in the Middle Ages, but perhaps that was too little to distort the population, and perhaps polygamy is why Europe didn’t start outperforming Asia decisively until 1800 or so.

  31. Boxer says:

    The European monarchy did have polygamy in the Middle Ages, but perhaps that was too little to distort the population, and perhaps polygamy is why Europe didn’t start outperforming Asia decisively until 1800 or so.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen it discussed in the ‘sphere, which is strange, since it’s directly relevant. Paraguay is the case study of “wimminz and children first.” One hundred years in the future, and it still hasn’t recovered.

  32. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock, is the link still working? It’s sending me to an article about Jordan Peterson on toxic masculinity, no mention of the Titanic.

  33. Boxer says:

    Dalrock, is the link still working? It’s sending me to an article about Jordan Peterson on toxic masculinity, no mention of the Titanic.

    This is the one you want.
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/300070/#respond

  34. Keith says:

    Boxer,

    You might need to give a primer about the War of Triple Alliance.

    From what I can read so far, Paraguay waged war against three of it’s more powerful neighbors with predictable results.

  35. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Boxer. Isn’t that the link you see in the OP as well? That is what I see.

  36. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen it discussed in the ‘sphere, which is strange, since it’s directly relevant.

    Charlemagne, Edward I (Longshanks), and obviously Henry VIII all reproduced across multiple women, who were obviously not allowed to reproduce with anyone else. We have to assume smaller Barons and Lords did the same.

    But as there was a perennial surplus of women due to lower-class men dying in wars or occupational hazards, this still did not lead to surplus men at the time.

    In addition to the problem of civilization being transmitted through the fathers, there is a second immense problem that the ‘sphere has not emphasized enough. When a child is cut off from the father, the child loses HALF of all of his relatives. All the cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents see the child far less (for obvious reasons), and no real relationship is built.

  37. Boxer says:

    You might need to give a primer about the War of Triple Alliance.

    From what I can read so far, Paraguay waged war against three of it’s more powerful neighbors with predictable results.

    I know far too little about it. My understanding is that ~80% of the men in Paraguay were killed, in the latter half of the 19th century, as a result of this war.

    Earl can probably correct me, but I believe the Catholic bishops approved polygamous marriages, in order to boost the population in the next generation. (Whether the religious authorities approved or not, that was the strategy for a couple of generations.)

    Ever since, Paraguay has been kicking around with Haiti for biggest basket-case country in the Western Hemisphere. The “wimminz and children first” moment was a long time ago, but its effects remain relevant.

    Best,

    Boxer

  38. Boxer says:

    Thanks Boxer. Isn’t that the link you see in the OP as well? That is what I see.

    Yessir, the link works fine for me as well. I don’t know why others can’t see it.

  39. SAMANTHA WYNTER says:

    Dalrock, and anybody else who finds this interesting. Would you be willing to talk about Eurydice Dixon, and her rape and murder in a park in Melbourne? In the aftermath of the incident feminists were talking about how they always receive the advice to practice situational awareness, and avoid walking home alone, especially late at night. A lot of people would recognize this as common sense, but feminists say that this is another example of misogyny and sexism, and that we should teach men not to rape. In my opinion, because men are ridiculed and effectively neutered by women the world has become a much more dangerous place for women, as men won’t come to their defense, not that they deserve it. Would advice would you give to young women on how to avoid situations like this? This post is a little off topic I know, but this story has been in news recently, and I find that the advice people give involves physical violence in some form or another, and I am by no means a competent fighter (no training experience whatsoever). Anyone is free to answer this.

  40. Keith says:

    @Boxer

    “I know far too little about it. My understanding is that ~80% of the men in Paraguay were killed, in the latter half of the 19th century, as a result of this war.”

    Yes, I see.

    It seems that provisioning might be the issue with Paraguay. Populations are limited to what the environment can provide. There’s a reason why civilization (at least what looks like civililization to modern eyes) emerged first in the Nile River basin along with a few other places despite humans occupying virtually every geographical niche in the world with the exception of Antarctica.

  41. Keith says:

    @Samantha Winter

    I’m 6’2″ and weigh 240 lbs.

    Even I practice situational awareness and avoid taking foolish risks. Like you say, it’s common sense. We would like to irradicate crime, but until then we expect people to take reasonable precautions so that they don’t become an easy victim.

    This whole discussion is ridiculous. What kind of person would refuse advice to maximize his or her safety? Would this person refuse to wear a life preserver? Or take a life saving drug?

  42. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the heads up SAMANTHA WYNTER. I’m not familiar with the Dixon case. I’ll do some reading on it. As far as advice to avoid violent crime, I did a post on the topic eight years back.

    My guess is that Dixon was attacked in exactly the kind of place MacYoung describes here:

    A key point of positioning is “fringe areas.” You will seldom, if ever, be robbed or raped in the middle of a crowd. A fringe area is where you are close to people, but out of range of immediate help. You won’t be mugged in the mall, but will be in the parking lot or bathrooms. ATMs, parking lots, stairwells, public bathrooms and sidewalks should be considered potential danger areas. Even a separate room in a crowded house can constitute a fringe area, as many women who were raped at parties can attest. Being alone with someone in a fringe area is a major part of the opportunity element of the triangle.

    Also check out the articles he wrote on the topic of rape. Especially his warnings about women’s misunderstanding of the limits of their sexual power:

    Having Power and Losing Control
    The reason all of this is important is that many young women don’t realize that the power and influence they have over young men is given to them by the men. It exists only AS LONG as the man is willing to listen to her. And, as stated earlier, the reverse also is true. Men only have power over women as long as they grant it to them.

    But, many young and inexperienced women assume that the power and control they have over other people comes from within themselves(1). This gives them a false sense of confidence and often a dangerous overestimation of their own abilities. They assume that the power is always going to be there and that with words alone they can control others.

  43. feministhater says:

    Dalrock, and anybody else who finds this interesting. Would you be willing to talk about Eurydice Dixon, and her rape and murder in a park in Melbourne?

    Well obviously the problem was that no one ever, ever, ever told him not to rape women. If only someone had done that, you know, perhaps the laws, the media, an advert or something, constant media celebs, on and on and on, that would have saved her. That’s obviously the problem, men not being aware that rape is a crime…

  44. feministhater says:

    Do I need to put the /s tag on my above comment or can we all see that it was dripping with sarcasm?

  45. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Boxer

    You definitely win the prize for arcane subject matter on this thread so far.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen it discussed in the ‘sphere, which is strange, since it’s directly relevant.

    This is barely known today outside Paraguay proper, but as you say is directly relevant, and a multi-generational case study along the lines of the 100 women for every man discussions.

    I had to refresh myself since you brought it up. Here is a good article for anyone interested:

    https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2012/12/22/the-never-ending-war

    “In the mid-1800s most Paraguayan households were led by señoras, often depicted chomping cigars, carrying food on their heads and sporting white cotton dresses. They paired off with a rotating cast of itinerant men.”

    I happened to be in Paraguay in the early 90’s when the national news was trumpeting the fact that male/female ratios had finally been restored in the wake of the Triple Alliance, and Chaco wars. Today it remains near 50/50.

    http://countrymeters.info/en/Paraguay/

  46. SAMANTHA WYNTER says:

    Thank you Dalrock and Keith for responding. Dalrock, I have been a reader of your blog for over a year, and I find that you bring a perspective that others don’t have. I was thinking about this case when I was reading your previous post about kickass conservative girls. A lot of kickass girls like Tomi Lahren, Lauren Southern and Dana Loesch advocate for women to arm themselves, but how effective would they be when the situation asks for it? In my opinion, arming certain people fills the, with a false comfidemce, causing them to overestimate their ability. I think that is the case with women like these. Unless you are law enforcement, or military personnel, you don’t know how you are going to react, what if you miss, or hesitate, or get hit first? It’s game over for you. I’m not against arming people, I’m pro second amendment. But I don’t think I would be ready to take a life even with training. Leave it to the professional. And final thought, do you know how women react with confronted by people that want to hurt them? Would they actually use their gun?

  47. Samantha Wynter,

    (1) “In my opinion, because men are ridiculed and effectively neutered by women the world has become a much more dangerous place for women”

    Good news! That is quite false in the USA. Crime rates of all kinds are at multi-generational lows. Esp rape and murder.

    (2) “as men won’t come to their defense, not that they deserve it.”

    Crime does not depend on men’s ability to defend women. Criminals almost work where they have an overwhelming advantage in numbers, or weapons, or both. The Wild West, where men fought fairly in the street, is a myth.

    (3) “feminists were talking about how they always receive the advice to practice situational awareness”

    They are, as usual, goofy. When in high-crime areas, everyone needs to be careful (no need for the fancy mil-speak). Men and women. Criminals will prey on both, as available.

  48. SAMANTHA WYNTER says:

    And also, the man who miredered Dixon is on the autism spectrum if that changes anything.

  49. Boxer says:

    Dear Lost Patrol:

    I happened to be in Paraguay in the early 90’s when the national news was trumpeting the fact that male/female ratios had finally been restored in the wake of the Triple Alliance, and Chaco wars. Today it remains near 50/50.

    Would you be interested in answering a couple of questions away from here? I’m boxer at v5k2c2 dot com if you’re available. If not, it’s not a big deal. I appreciate the info you’ve already given.

    If nobody else will examine this, I suppose I will.

    Boxer

  50. Re: Heinlein

    He was a great writer, and his stories are told from many different political perspectives. Which is one reason he is a giant in the science fiction cannon.

    Many of the beliefs in his stories are nutty and historically false. Such as “an armed society is a safe society.”

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/09/09/an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society-a-myth-of-the-right/

    One of my favorites is The Moon is Harsh Mistress, a great story that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But also taken seriously by people. Dream castles are fun, but the floors aren’t strong enough to live in them.

    Even in real life, Heinlein was often crackpot-level misinformed. For example, discussing the Soviet Union after his 1960 trip to Moscow. Fake news before the term was invented.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/04/13/robert-heinlein-prediction-soviet-union-82556/

    On the other hand, we are living in the crazy years — he was just several generations too soon on the date.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/09/03/we-are-living-dystopia-of-heinlein-and-bradbury/

  51. Jeff Strand says:

    Re: the Titanic.

    There was miscommunication involved in the order given. The captain, when he gave the order to abandon ship and launch the lifeboats, gave the order as “Women and children FIRST”.

    His crew interpreted the order as “Women and Children ONLY”.

    Big difference.

  52. SAMANTHA WYNTER says:

    Larry maybe I was not clear enough, allow me to elaborate.

    1) I know that crime rates are at an all time low. In fact, the media has pointed out that getting raped and murdered in a park is rare, which is probably why this case is getting so much attention.

    2) What I meant was because feminists say that they are strong and independent, and they need men as much as a fish needs a bicycle, men are less likely to come to a woman’s aid, as evidenced in another case, this time in the UK. A women was attacked on the train and two men retreated to another car rather than intervene. In a traditional, conservative society, where men are allowed to be men, they would be more willing to help, provided the women in this society knew how to respect them. But because they gave up the security and protection they would have gotten from a man, their husband, as well as demonizing the gender as a whole, they must now take on the risks that men have known about since the dawn of time. A traditional society would not allow its women to stay out after a certain time, because its dangerous. Feminists look at this, say it’s not fair, and demand that they be allowed to stay out late. They don’t understand the risks of doing so, someone gets hurt or killed, and then they turn on men, saying that men are violent people, or that they should man up. This in turn upsets the men, who then stay away from women, out of fear that they will be labeled a sexist, or be attacked. The women are now left to their own devices, and have to protect themselves, which they are not as good at compared to a man, or complain some more. It’s usually the latter.

  53. Keith says:

    Re Paraguay
    The gender ratios reached 50/50 despite the pronounced male deficit after the War of Triple Alliance. This suggests that there was active procreation.

    But I also see the overall population trending downwards over the decades. This suggests to me that there’s some limiting factor in the environment. It seems that survival is a higher bar than what Boxer suggests. Which makes sense. You’ll get better population growth in bountiful environments than arid ones.

  54. Paul says:

    Over and over again, in endless repetition I find myself wondering when contemplating yet another foolish outcome of a decision driven by emotions, why are people not more often rational?

    I find the story of the life boats of the Titanic amazing, more specifically, that there were enough places for all people to have been rescued, if only evacuation was done more orderly.

    As for women and children first: Bill Burr has a hilarious treatment on why men are getting paid more

  55. ray says:

    steve heller — “Heinlein was a highly pragmatic person. He was referring to racial survival.”

    He was referring WHAT to racial survival?

    And Bob wasn’t pragmatic, he was an experimentalist; he dipped his toe in almost everything, from Ouspensky to Jung, from Korzybski’s General Semantics to Rand’s libertarian utopias. Not to mention the secret societies that the CIA’s membership already consisted of, and to which he belonged.

    His orders came from Langley. And their orders came from hell. Just like Gloria Steinem’s, and a lot of other folks To Be Determined at the proper time.

    “But I’m pretty sure he would also have been inexorably opposed to giving women the ability to cast aside and ruin their husbands for no reason other than because they weren’t “feeling it”.”

    Well I’m pretty sure the interior of the moon consists of digested Ho-Hos. It’s great not having to do any work or research. Just have Opinions instead.

    Bob was an intel asset, and as far back as 1939 he already was hawking sexual liberation and free love, which eventually appeared full-grown in SISL. I guess if I looked like Bob I might back sexual liberation too. :O)

    Later on he and Western Intel decided to pre-empt Michael’s arrival and works, in these our lovely End Times, by pre-informing the populace as to what/who he was, and what works God’s archangel would righteously undertake after touchdown. You know, like advocating for libertine, do-as-thou-wilt pansexuality, for Strong Empowered Women who were equals to men, for the ingestion of psychoactive substances, and ever so much more!

    Why, there actually wasn’t any NEED for Michael to do works on this planet, or even show up. Seeing as how Western Intelligence already told the world what he’d do. What God would want him to do, in other words.

    And here you are, with Bob’s vision realized. Damn there are a LOT of coincidences in this place!

  56. Samantha Wynter,

    “men are less likely to come to a woman’s aid, as evidenced in another case, this time in the UK.”

    I suggest caution about drawing conclusions from a single news story. Especially one in which we just have one person’s tale, with (as yet) no confirmation. People in 1964 were horrified that nobody tried to stop the murder of Kitty Genovese in NYC, but it turned out to be a fable.

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

    Also, stories of bystanders non-intervention are commonplace in history. Such as: thirty years ago Marc Lepine burst into an engineering classroom at École Polytechnique. He brandished his gun and ordered the fifty (50!) men to leave, which they docilely did. He then shot the nine women (6 fatally).

    So I would like to see evidence before drawing conclusions about the present. My guess is that your are correct that this is our future, as the men of Generation Z come to see chivalry to be a weird custom of the past.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/06/22/the-world-of-gen-z-women/

  57. We’d better save those women first! They are needed to keep up the population! After all, there are only 300 million people in America, and 7.5 billion people on Earth!

  58. Paul,

    “I find the story of the life boats of the Titanic amazing, more specifically, that there were enough places for all people to have been rescued,”

    The Titanic carried aprox 2,224 people and its lifeboats could hold 1,178,

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

  59. Gunner Q says:

    I did a quick post on Dixon. Spoiler alert, feminists are protesting because they don’t want to be held responsible for their own safety.

    http://gunnerq.com/2018/06/22/eurydice-dixon-died-stupid/

  60. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @steve heller
    Heinlein was a highly pragmatic person. He was referring to racial survival.

    But I’m pretty sure he would also have been inexorably opposed to giving women the ability to cast aside and ruin their husbands for no reason other than because they weren’t “feeling it”.

    Don’t bet the rent on that. Ray touched on this in another comment, but Heinlein also adhered to some fairly loopy sexual theories and practices, a few of which involved the subordination of men towards women to the point where the man might even end up volunteering himself to be cuckolded. Lawrence Wright’s book Going Clear about L. Ron Hubbard and the development of Scientology even contains one account of this. Hubbard had once been a member of a cult that practiced group sex as part of their rituals, and he recalled that after he made a name for himself as a sci-fi author he was approached several times by Heinlein. By this time Heinlein was a famous writer himself, but he wasn’t interested in speaking to Hubbard about his books or his stories. Instead, Hubbard found out that Heinlein had heard about some of his past sexual adventures and now wanted to invite him to live in his home as an honored houseguest and have regular sex with his wife — which Hubbard eventually agreed to after Heinlein made multiple requests.

    Dalrock has talked before about how practices of chivalry inevitably end up getting tied up with cuckoldry. Heinlein’s beliefs offer a pretty good visual demonstration of how that plays out in real life. It’s probably no coincidence that his sci-fi also features some early examples of that popular modern archetype, the kick-ass warrior girl who does everything the boys can, except when she does it better. If you protest that it doesn’t seem fair that men should be expected to die for women when the women are also regarded as the objectively better and more capable sex then you are missing Heinlein’s point, as well the point of those who promote chivalry. For them, it is not about duty and responsibility on the part of the strong towards the weak, it is about reminding men that in every example and in every scenario it is they who are the lesser creation, and encouraging them to live in a manner that befits their lowly status.

  61. info says:

    @Ras al Gul
    Chivalry in the form that Lancelot exemplifies its fundamentally effeminate in nature. Masculine in appearance and not its substance.

  62. Spike says:

    In the age of contraception and on-demand abortion, WACF has been gutted.It makes no sense.
    If women – the bulk of whom are staunchly pro choice – will literally not “put children first” in their lives, why should men sacrifice themselves for their sake?

  63. info says:

    @GunnerQ
    It has to do with us being made in the image of god that Patriarchy only occurs among some higher order animals with humans being the pinnacle.

  64. earl says:

    Earl can probably correct me, but I believe the Catholic bishops approved polygamous marriages, in order to boost the population in the next generation.

    I couldn’t find anything confirming or denying that claim other than a bickering session on CAF about it. Perhaps that den of snakes wants to allow polygamy in the church too.

  65. Jack Russell says:

    Another interesting post.

    or were eaten by sharks?? The writer should realise the Titanic sunk of Newfoundland, not New Caledonia.

  66. paddy says:

    re: Paraguay:

    Don’t forget that Paraguay had a law pre-dating the Triple Alliance War, that Spaniards (white) could not marry other Spaniards, but could only marry native “Indians” or those who were already mestizo.

    This killed the ability of Paraguay to have a higher-IQ population. And that has continued to the present day.

    According to online sources, Paraguay’s average IQ is 84. Argentina is 93. Uruguay is 96. Brazil is highly variable because of the big differences in backgrounds of the populace, which is why I can’t find a single number – estimates are between 87 and 92. Notably, Brazil’s measured IQ keeps dropping from 1930 to the present day – my guess, a result of demographic changes.

  67. Piroko says:

    Heinlein wasn’t being ironic. Read Starship Troopers. He argues that any scientific theory of morality must have as its foundation the survival of the species.

  68. Piroko says:

    And in Starship Troopers, the “starry eyed idealists” are more than welcome to go try to negotiate with the bugs themselves if they think that peaceful coexistence is just a matter of talking.

    The bugs don’t care about talk. Someone is going to remake the galaxy according to their whims, and it’s either us or them.

  69. Frank K says:

    Earl can probably correct me, but I believe the Catholic bishops approved polygamous marriages, in order to boost the population in the next generation. (Whether the religious authorities approved or not, that was the strategy for a couple of generations.)

    In more than a few cultures, having a mistress on the side is acceptable, regardless of the Church’s stance.

    I am reminded of a scene in an old Pink Panther movie, where Commissioner Dreyfus appears to be talking on the phone with his wife, ending the call saying “Kiss the children for me.” Once he hangs up we learn that he was speaking with his mistress, which achieved comedic effect because that wasn’t acceptable in many cultures at the time, but most people understood that it was OK in France. In real life I recall that at Mitterand’s funeral that both his wife and his mistress attended.

  70. FatR says:

    The very Father of History, Herodotus, relays a certain rude historical anecdote, regarding Egyptian soldiers who after extended mistreatment deserted their country to seek better luck down south. When asked to think of wives and children they were leaving behind, one of the soldiers pointed at his dong and answered: “As long as we have this, we can get new wives and children”. That apparently worked fine for them, they founded their own country that survived for centuries.

    In the concentrated form this anecdote relays the attitude of people who had to found societies and ensure their survival at the time when they had nothing whatsoever to shield them from harsh realities of life and provide room for any sort of idealism. They understood quite well that men were the keepers of society and maintainers of civilization. Women were in effect treasured property. Strong men that somehow ended up lacking them, for example due to being dispossessed and exiled by an even stronger force could just capture other people’s women. Herodotus and other ancient historians who told us about fairly numerous cases of this, clearly did not consider such practice to be interrupting continuity of society, or imperiling some “race” of which they were not concerned to start with. Meanwhile weak men no more could hold on their women than on the rest of their treasures.

    Much the same state of affairs could be observed in later ages all across the world in places where life remained too brutal for idealism, from Africa to Siberia.

    There can be a valid argument that elevating the status of women above that of cattle is necessary for building an advanced civilization. But human history absolutely denies the possibility of arguing that elevating value of a female life above that of a male is anything but relatively recent and highly idealistic position.

  71. Opus says:

    Anon puts it rather oddly above about Henry VIII saying that Henry reproduced with multiple women who were not allowed to reproduce with anyone else. It is my duty as Dalrock’s royal correspondent to mention that Henry did not maintain a Harem. He had two children by his first wife, one by his second, one by his third but none by his fourth, fifth or sixth. To say that his wives were after their marriage ended (assuming they were not then dead either by natural causes or execution) not permitted to reproduce is surely not correct and indeed wife number six by a subsequent marriage did just that.

    This is a very interesting thread. I am never sure what to make of I.Q. but FWIW these are the South American scores: Uruguay 96, Argies 93 {spit}, Chile 90, Ecuador 88, Bolivia 87, Brazil 87, Peru 85, Colombia 84, Paraguay 84, Venezuala 84. Any countries with a score of less than 100 are no-hopers (Canada, U.S.A.) and any country with a score of more than one hundred the worst sort of poser (Iceland) or even liar (Italy).

  72. Paul says:

    “All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can–and must–be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function.”

    Read that again: PREGNANT women and YOUNG children. Whether you agree or disagree with Heinlein, by any measure all societies have failed this criterium since the introduction of abortions on a massive scale, where BOTH pregnant women AND young children were NOT protected, but effectively annihilated. According to Heinlein that makes all current societies genocidal.

    Since 1920 more than 1,000 million children are registered to have been killed by induced abortion. Women have requested those and men have enabled them.

  73. freebird says:

    “SAMANTHA WYNTER says:
    June 22, 2018 at 6:07 pm
    Larry maybe I was not clear enough, allow me to elaborate.

    1) I know that crime rates are at an all time low. In fact, the media has pointed out that getting raped and murdered in a park is rare, which is probably why this case is getting so much attention.”

    Ok Sam Since you are so insistent upon hijacking the thread for attention here goes:
    Did you not know one on four women are being raped right now?
    This culture of rape will continue until all men are re-educated,threatened with gaol,
    and/or castrated to be subservient to the gynomastery.
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    New thought
    The rise of technology is the second half of the equation of fragmenting our society.
    First they put the threat-point of the badge fags in the hands of vicious-by-nature women, secondly they gave everyone a mobile attention device. (MAD)
    As a result there is no longer a cohesive “society” or “tribe.”
    In that spirit let’s re-write the script of the ship sinking for the modern man.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    Boats full of women are being lowered into the water.
    New age man, non-tribal,uncivil by design,Ubermensch goes to the lower level,jumps into water with life vest in place.
    Swims to the boat furthest away from sinking ship.
    Takes womens dry clothes,food,wigs,makeup, tosses them from life boat.
    ~Fin~

  74. earl says:

    Abortion is one of the greatest injustices in our lifetime.

  75. Scott says:

    I find these two comments:

    We’d better save those women first! They are needed to keep up the population! After all, there are only 300 million people in America, and 7.5 billion people on Earth!

    and

    The bugs don’t care about talk. Someone is going to remake the galaxy according to their whims, and it’s either us or them.

    To be the most valuable in today’s world for a discussion on how to best survive as a species (or a race).

    Because they contain two immutable truths that have to be reconciled. One, population growth, in whole numbers may be ending as a useful barometer, and two, intra-group differences (on quite a few dimensions) and demographics are making conflict on a global scale more and inevitable as the pie (earth and and its resources) get smaller in comparison to the total number of people.

    It is related to this WACF business on a smaller, visceral scale (a immediate, emergent, life threatening situation) and to the bug example on a larger scale as well (national identities and borders).

  76. Pingback: Wimminz and Children First: The Strange Case of Paraguay – v5k2c2.com

  77. SAMANTHA WYNTER says:

    Freebird, I wasn’t hijacking the thread for attention, I was genuinely confused about something, and I thought I was misunderstood, so I wanted to explain myself. This is my first time commenting on this blog, give me a break.

  78. Hazelshade says:

    FatR,

    WACF also made me think of ancient history. Heinlein’s quote by the fictional Lazarus Long especially made me think of the (mythical?) rape of the Sabine women. The Romans thought it was justified, because Rome. Add an assumption here and there, and WACF turns women into treasures to be won. Inhibitions against, say, the rape of the Sabine women become “surplusage, excrescence, luxury, adornment, or folly.”

    Nothing new here, but I’m guessing chivalry was originally invoked to prevent a Men First! event in emergencies like the Titanic. The strong escape and leave the weak to their fate. Serious question: has this ever happened?

    My hunch is that today, the possibility that the strong might seize the lifeboats and leave the weak behind is so indefensible and contrarian that it’s ridiculous. That contrarian possibility is thus a favorite paper mache dragon to be slain by white knights.

  79. poetentiate says:

    “Isidor and Ida were last seen standing arm in arm on the deck.”
    His pride and the WACF killed both him AND his wife. Ironically as modern women tend to regard their menfolk, more and more as replaceable in addition to useful, it is much easier to get them to abandon their husbands.

  80. ray says:

    Gunner Q — “I did a quick post on Dixon. Spoiler alert, feminists are protesting because they don’t want to be held responsible for their own safety.”

    The evidence of the past half-century backs you up. Collectivized females are very cunning manipulating the emotions/assumptions of males to construct a totalitarian Secure Homeland (Hi Ms. Napolitano!) that ensures princess is Safe Safe Safe from every possible problem and inconvenience, including being disagreed-with or ‘offended’, by anything. BubbleLand is EXTREMELY profitable!

    Modern females learned that screeching and wailing for The Authorities is far more effective than actually taking responsibility for their own lives and safety, like males must. Why should they, when the United Sisterhood shoulders responsibility for them, coddling them cradle to grave? Females then can pretend lifelong that they are Kickass Empowered Hardchargers, whilst remaining babies before the law, and before their own responsibilities.

    It’s a two-fer, and to boot, the fool males will construct the GynoGulag FOR them! The darlings aren’t even responsible for that.

    Like the commenter said above, the cuckservatives make a strong argument for their continued shiv-alry: Earth REALLY needs to protect those Precious Breeders (who slaughter their own children), seeings how the place already is jammed with teeming billions. But I guess if I’m in my summer estate in the Hamptons, there’s plenty of room, eh?

  81. Opus says:

    Off Topic

    Why Christianity will gain more female adherents than Islam

    I was talking to a woman brought up Islamic but who previously flirted with Orthodox Christianity but now is falling into the Anglican net. She explained: she knew that there was a God but only one and she wanted to see him whereas in Islam that is not permissible. I think we can safely say that Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings may well be the kind of God that she wants to see.

  82. ray says:

    FatR —

    Yep.

    Heck you don’t have to go back to Herodotus. My GRANDPARENTS would have been gobsmacked (and disgusted) by the modern princessification of the female, and the attendant laws and assumptions of modern western societies. They passed through the depression, leaving little room for fabian-school fantasies in their hard and practical lives. Both my grannies were v strong women, in different ways, but both of them would recognize current culture as unworkable and evil.

  83. Freebird,

    “Did you not know one on four women are being raped right now?”

    First, that number does not refer to women being raped “now”, or even this year. It refers to women raped during their lifetime (or in some surveys, over four years).

    http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

    Second, that scary number results from several studies using different definitions of rape (often quite specious) – and different methodologies (loose self-reporting). A more reliable number is from the FBI Crime Stats, which show a rate in 2013 of 24 women per hundred thousand people – down almost by half from the 1992 peak. That gives a lifetime average for women of roughly 3% being rape. Adjusting that by ethnicity or geography gives most middle and upper class women very tiny odds of being raped.

    The FBI broadened the definition in 2013 to include a wider range of actions AND rape of men. This, of course, increased the number of rapes during the next few years (as local police slowly adopted the new def). Also, the publicity about rapes probably encouraged more reporting.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

  84. Mad_Kalak says:

    I am surprised that by now no one has brought up the idea of what would happen if the Titanic sinking took place today and it was a singles cruise.

  85. Gunner Q says:

    “I am surprised that by now no one has brought up the idea of what would happen if the Titanic sinking took place today and it was a singles cruise.”

    A singles cruise? The captain would have rammed the iceberg on purpose for the good of humanity. “Details are slow to emerge about the disaster because the crew was immediately quarantined on suspicion of baby rabies after bite marks were found on several of them… Unconfirmed reports say the male passengers all left in lifeboats exactly one hour before the hull breach occurred, which raises the ugly specter of male privilege… We now go live to safety engineer Barbie Ken-Hasbro who believes that some women would have survived had they been able to find a man to blame during the evacuation.”

  86. It’s interesting how no one here has mentioned the 2012 sinking of the liner Costa Concordia, and the the concern and outrage by conservative males and the general female population over the ‘lack of chivalry’ shown by some of the male passengers and crewmen.
    What was illuminating were the comments that kept reappearing in stories about the sinking; the ‘lion’s share’ were generally two kinds: the anger and concern expressed by females over the supposed ‘lack of chivalry’ shown towards females, and the comments by males which generally ran along the lines of “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too” (e.g., “we are all ‘equal’ now — you can save yourselves”, “chivalry is dead, just like you feminists wanted”).

  87. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Brigitte Nielsen, age 54, gives birth to fifth child: https://www.yahoo.com/news/brigitte-nielsen-54-given-birth-her-fifth-child-230620317.html

    Brigitte Nielsen says she has given birth at age 54.

    The model, actress and reality star and her 39-year-old husband Mattia Dessi released a statement to People magazine Saturday saying their daughter Frida was born Friday in Los Angeles and weighed 5 pounds, 9 ounces (2.3 kilograms).

    It’s the fifth child but first daughter for Nielsen, who has four adult sons from previous marriages. She married Dessi, her fifth husband, in 2006.

    In a statement, the couple said, “We are overjoyed to welcome our beautiful daughter into our lives,” and “it’s been a long road, and so worth it.”

    I suppose modern women will think this is the new normal. To be married to a man 15 years younger, and still giving birth at age 54.

    Nielsen says “it’s been a long road.” I suppose that means lots of fertility clinics and extreme measures. The sort that only an exceptionally healthy and wealthy woman can afford. But most women will gloss over than.

  88. seventiesjason says:

    It always shocked me in when I was living in San Francisco to see so many stumbling, drunk women in clunky high-heeled shoes, short skirts, make-up running from “crying” because Chad didn’t choose her clumsily walking home……now my neighborhood was considered “upper crust” of that fair city (Marina / Cow Hollow / Pacific Heights) but when a murder DID happen in SF back in those days (late 1990’s early 2000’s) usually it was never solved. SFPD’s closing of murder cases was abysmal. I even had my guard up many a night, even while ripped on cocaine….or hailed a cab and got my sorry self home

  89. info says:

    @RPL
    ”Brigitte Nielsen says she has given birth at age 54.”
    Unless she has a mutation that reduce mutation load dramatically in her eggs. There will be a lot of latent diseases from bad mutations in the genetic line that will be coming down the line.

    Children who will pay a price for the choices of their ancestors.

  90. Adam says:

    The men refused to step into the boat because they were more afraid of returning safely home and being shunned and shamed by society than by dying. Don’t forget that less than 4 years after the Titanic sunk, women were presenting men with white roses on the street for not hurrying off to be slaughtered in the trenches.

    Also, Heinlein was a “flaming liberal” in his early adult life, as described by Issac Asimov. Heinlein himself admits that his earlier novels are clouded by this naive political worldview. To his credit he grew out of it.

  91. info says:

    ”It does happen to be true that if, by some catastrophe, the human race were reduced to one man and 100 women, the group would have a real hope of long term survival. It would be a bad experience, but they’d probably have great-great-grandchildren, however dysfunctional the first few generations might be. ”

    Commenting on the 1 men 100 women scenario even as just One must also consider the moral and genetic quality of the men and women involved as well as the genetic variation that is required to allow leeway to adapt to whatever situation arises.

    It is in realistic terms a disaster as the effective population is below what is needed for survival.

    Consider that lets say such a man does really have children with those women. But then its half-brothers and sisters marrying each other and so forth. This is very risky as that can mean all the bad latent genes can come out and kill a lot of their offspring or make them weak in ways that they are more likely to die in general and the smaller the breeding pool the more likely they will all die.

    Then there are the chance events that could happen like infectious diseases,parasites and so on.

    If people have similar genetic makeup a disease that infects one of them can kill all of them.

    The Amish is a good example of a bad founder effect when one considers the small pool of settlers they came from. They do have their unique diseases because of the small breeding pool.
    https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/genetic_disease_is_ravaging_la.html

    But I think they are populated enough that when our medical system goes down although many of them will die many bad diseases will over time be purged by horrific death.

  92. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    info, Neilsen says “it’s been a long road,” implying that giving birth at 54 took much effort and expense. She gives no details.

    Perhaps she used an egg donor?

  93. mark says:

    It appears the modern christian church is just a twisted up version of mayan familial culture, where the great mother ruled all and spoke through the wife:

    “Now inasmuch as the foundation of all Maya social life was the Feminine element they grew to look upon the woman as the embodiment of that principle as being a safer guide than the man and therefore they assumed that it would be better for a man to be under obedience to some woman than to follow his own inclinations and if he must be guided by any woman who was better for this function than his wife As all were under the guidance of the Great Mother it followed that the human mother was the proper interpreter of that Great Mother while she lived and after her death the man’s wife as his second mother was to fill that function After the marriage the King was supposed to obey his Sister Wife and therefore she exercised the real rule over the country She did not come to the front before the people but rather ruled her Brother Husband in the home and molded his character Thus we have the practical application of an idea which is held by many at the present time viz the wife is the interior or Spiritual Expression of the Family and as such the inspiration of her husband who gives expression in an outward way to that which is given him by his wife The Queen as the expression of the Divine Mother was therefore recognized as the Guide of the King who merely interpreted her will to the people in his official conduct What the Queen was to the King so in a less degree was the wife to the husband throughout the entire nation In every instance the wife was the head of the husband so far as the Inward Principles were concerned though the husband was the visible head of the family

    We might express this matter in other terms by saying that the husband was the formal head of the family while the wife was the real head of her husband We do not find so much difference in this arrangement and what is in practical operation in a great many families at the present time with this exception that whereas in the present day the husband assumes to be the head of his wife and she therefore has to rule him through diplomacy in the Maya family life she was recognized by all the husband included as his Spiritual Director The real relationship might best be indicated by saying that the wife exercised pretty much the same influence over her husband that the Confessor exercises over a Catholic She was in fact his Confessor and Spiritual Adviser It was for her to reveal the Law to him for was not she the natural mirror of the Great Mother and were not all subject to the Great Mother in every thing The obedience of the husband to his wife was therefore in reality obedience to the manifestation of the Great Mother It was therefore outwardly that the husband was the head of his house in reality he was subject to his wife as the Power behind the Throne who guided and disciplined her husband who was little more than her mouthpiece while she was both the Heart and the Directing Intelligence of the Household”

  94. Dave says:

    Consider that lets say such a man does really have children with those women. But then its half-brothers and sisters marrying each other and so forth. This is very risky as that can mean all the bad latent genes can come out and kill a lot of their offspring or make them weak in ways that they are more likely to die in general and the smaller the breeding pool the more likely they will all die.

    That conclusion is doubtful at best. As a matter of fact, it is unlikely.
    If the accounts of Genesis were to be believed, then that was the exact description of all of our ancestors. We all descended from parents and grandparents who married their half-siblings and other very close relatives. Even Abraham married his half sister, and their offspring turned out quite well.

    Genesis 20:11-12
    And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

  95. Luke says:

    I know without having to check in Nielsen’s specific case that she used another, much younger woman’s eggs. The odds of a chromosomal trisomy (Down’s is just the most likely one) for a genetic mother aged just 49 is 1 in 9. By that age, it’s got to be around even. Nielsen may not have known this, but her expensive private doctors assuredly did. Also, virtually no fertility clinic would touch a case where a 54-YO intended parent mother wanted to use her own ova, as failure would be assured, and that would damage their all-important success statistics.

  96. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Elite” private girl’s school now accepting trannies: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/nyregion/new-york-schools-brearley-transgender.html

    Some of New York City’s most prestigious private girls’ schools have begun opening their doors to transgender students.

    The Brearley School on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, which is among the most academically rigorous institutions in the city, announced on Monday that all applicants who consider themselves female are welcome to apply. And if students no longer identify as female after they enroll, they can continue on at the school.

    The Spence School, another elite school on the Upper East Side, announced a similar policy in May.

    “Brearley reaffirms its mission as a leader in girls’ education, and going forward will consider all applicants who identify as girls,” the school said in a policy statement called a Statement on Gender Diversity. “In the instance that a current Brearley student no longer identifies as a girl, the school is committed to supporting the child and the family as appropriate to navigate the challenges inherent in being a transgender student in a girls’ school.”

    How is it possible for so much of society, to so quickly, accept this insanity?

  97. Paul says:

    @Dave

    “This is very risky as that can mean all the bad latent genes can come out and kill a lot of their offspring or make them weak in ways that they are more likely to die in general and the smaller the breeding pool the more likely they will all die.

    That conclusion is doubtful at best. As a matter of fact, it is unlikely.”

    Not only is it not unlikely, but it is a very likely scenario. The difference is in the accumulation of mutations throughout generations. There is even a term for this: the genetic clock. It puts an upper limit on the number of generations we’re removed from Noah (or if you like: the first human couple). And no, mutations are predominantly not beneficial.

  98. Otto Lamp says:

    “Commenting on the 1 men 100 women scenario…”

    This scenario requires the women to support themselves. As we’ve seen in modern society, when women become “working women” their fertility rates go down–they have fewer children.

  99. Otto Lamp says:

    “How is it possible for so much of society, to so quickly, accept this insanity?”

    Because to not do so is to open themselves up to destruction by the left.

    It’s compromising in the short term to survive in the long term. In the long term, they don’t want to accept trans. But, not accepting them means they might not survive the short term.

    We’re going though our own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which put political correctness and conformity to the new standards over logic and tradition.

  100. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    It appears the modern christian church is just a twisted up version of mayan familial culture, where the great mother ruled all and spoke through the wife:

    From whence does that long quote come?

    It’s very difficult for me to believe that the Maya culture (by far the most advanced in the Western Hemisphere, before colonization) was matriarchal. Even so, it’s an interesting possibility. What I know about those guys is limited to Feynman’s comments.

    Boxer

  101. pariah says:

    Dave said: “If the accounts of Genesis were to be believed […] Even Abraham married his half sister, and their offspring turned out quite well.”

    If you believe the biblical narrative, then that was around four thousand years ago. Their genetics would have been better than modern humans as they were closer in time to the original creation of Adam and Eve. Therefore, you can’t accurately apply those ancient practices to a modern scenario and expect the results to be as favourable.

  102. freebird says:

    I am so pleased with the evolution of the posters upon this blog after nigh a decade.
    The resistance, the anti-bodies to the disease known as feminism are being formed.
    For the first time we have a man in power who will so NO to the SJW’s, halt!
    Enough is enough,the pushback,the lashback, the revolution,the reversal of the pendulum is happening.
    Thank the Patriarchal God of the Christian faith the Christian Soldiers will rise again.
    The jack-boot of the passive aggressive pig-calling Feminazi will be lifted.
    Men will become men again.
    I love the smell of Trump-derangement syndrome, it smells like victory in the morning.

  103. freebird says:

    OMG you’ve stumbled into man-territory!
    Let me see your war-face.
    Let me hear your war-cry that my spirits might be lifted!

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Over at Instapundit there is an article/discussion offering chivalry as the antidote to feminist charges of toxic masculinity.

    Laughable. An absolute fail to pass the laugh test. Doubling down on an approach that has not only failed, but actively aided feminism for the last 40 years is just ridiculous.

    Quoting 1970’s era Heinlein from the “Lazarus Long” timeline is no way to build a civilization. Incest has definite problems…

  105. rocko says:

    I’m a tad late to the party, but I want to raise a point I don’t think anyone else here has raised. I’m going off the movie, but I did notice that when the order “women and children” was given in the Titanic, it was mostly rich women and children who boarded the boats. The poor women and children? Fuck em. They can also be replaced. Plus they were mostly Irish and Italian women. Imagine having to share your boat with mick and dago broads? Eww, gross!

    The silver lining to this happening today, especially with social media, is in the event a boat sinks, I can bet you anything that it’s going to be the liberal feminist white women the first to scramble out of those boats. If we take the craft that every time some pretty white girl goes missing the media loses their marbles, I think I have a pretty good argument here.

  106. Frank K says:

    How is it possible for so much of society, to so quickly, accept this insanity?

    Maybe not so much accept it, but simply choose to remain silent as the price for speaking up can be quite steep. If you work for Corporate America, you know of what I’m saying. Indoctrination programs, many whose attendance is mandatory, are legion. I recall one where the lecturer said that 10% of the populace is homosexual. No one dared challenge that number. It was too dangerous. We all sat in that stupid seminar for the day so we could tick off the checkbox and be done with it. Oh well, at least a decent lunch was provided.

    There were some funny moments in one of those seminars. A ball busting female colleague complained about there being couches in many ladies room. “Why is there a couch? Are women supposed to be weak or something?” A male colleague replied that his wife used the couches in the ladies rooms while she was out and about to nurse their children when they were infants, and that she appreciated the privacy and convenience. The look on the ball buster’s face was priceless.

    Fortunately my current employer is not on that bandwagon and I have been spared such nonsense for a while.

  107. seventiesjason says:

    Saw it at IBM. The IBM logo in rainbow flag colors for “pride” 2002…..and EVERYONE was to display somewhere in their office or cubicle. Disagee? You’re a homphobe, you hate the environment, you want blacks on a platation, and women beaten……oh, you also want all Mexicans in the field working.

    Disagree with ANY of the dikats today…..you are lumped into the opposite. Doesn’t matter if you personally don’t have these opinions. DIsagree with one, you are of course “worse than Hitler”

    Sat in many diverity workshop in those days……….and always the same……the poor women, the poor blacks, the poor Latins, the poor LBGTQYHDFJJELLSJKJHJSA……

    YET…..YET notta one mention of Asians being some opressed minority

  108. seventiesjason says:

    I also went to a pretty decent polytechnic for grad school. Had a seminar where some woman was telling us all that “women actually invented the Internet….yes, back in the middle ages……..weaving tapestries. Yes……it was true, this was the foundation for the world wide web”

    NOTTA ONE challenged her. Not the grad level professors. Not one future engineer, not one future tech writer (me) not one future architect, not one theorist. No one challenged this speaker. It was accepted as truth. She spoke for over an hour of how this “Internet” was actually the creating by women….because they are “communal and caring” by instinct.

    No mention in classes later on of this hairbrained statement “absurd” or “nonsense” (didn’t want to offend the few women in the classes)

    People back then probably thought “yeah, so what…..back to work”

    My Generation back in the 1990’s in college and grad school COULD have stopped this. We didn’t. We were too busy studying, partying, drinking, drugging, and trying to get sex.

    Shame on us. This could have been stopped

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    rocko
    I’m going off the movie,

    Mistake. Use a search engine, there’s a lot of material out there. The only movie about Titanic worth watching is A Night to Remember.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/A_Night_to_Remember_(1958_film)

    Among the many films about the Titanic, it has long been regarded as the high point by Titanic historians and survivors alike for its accuracy,[2] despite its modest production values[3] when compared with the 1997 Oscar-winning film Titanic.[2][4]

  110. King Alfred says:

    @Jason RE: “My Generation back in the 1990’s in college and grad school COULD have stopped this. We didn’t.”

    I respectfully disagree with this premise. Those of us who were vocal in opposing these perversions in the 1990s were publicly chastised by our pastors, punished by our teachers, professors, and administrators, excluded from the job market, ostracized by the dating market, and generally reviled and hated. As a father, I have learned that many problems can be avoided by carefully “stacking the deck” to ensure that the choices presented to my children are all satisfactory insofar as it is possible. Satan’s minions also know this and stacked the deck against us generations ago. There was no possibility of success for our generation as a whole based on the poor choices and corrupted philosophies of prior generations. Our only recourse is to stack the deck in our favor and in favor of our children in those areas where we still have any power or influence to do so.

  111. seventiesjason says:

    Disagree Alfred. Look at Jordon Peterson, and others………they actually have struck a nerve. If we had actually “laughed” and treated these early PC police like a “bratty little sister” and used concise discussion. It could have been stopped or the tide SLOWED to the “fringe” where it belongs…..where it should have stayed.

    We were ALL too busy bullsh*tting each other, or trying to get a job…..sure we would laugh them off around friends saying they were “crazy” at parties…..and deluding ourselves with our own arrogant logic of “its a phase, when they actually go out into the ‘real world’ they will mellow down a bit”

    No one is laughing now. People’s jobs are ruined. Careers halted. People’s lives messed up. Smeared. Lied about and tried in the court of public opinion.

    It could have been stopped. It SHOULD have been stopped. We were lazy. Indifferent or self-absorbed. This……..if there is a fault of ‘educated’ class of Gen X…..this was it.

    we talked among ourselves, and were too afraid of what the infamous “they” would say. We could have done it.

  112. Keith says:

    Speaking as someone from Gen X that remembers the PC nonsense in its embryonic stages, it was rightfully mocked and became a punchline on the playground fairly quickly.

    But instead of its supporters allowing the fact that it was all a little silly, they went to college, graduated and became professors teaching this nonsense and allowing it to flourish to the point that some comedians have avoided performing on campus because the audience was just too sensitive about non-PC material.

    It was like some perverted hydra. It kept coming back stronger.

  113. R says:

    Jason :NOTTA ONE challenged her. Not the grad level professors.

    Back in the 2000s, I taught classes at UCLA Extension (their adult education division) as a part time “instructor” (my title). All Extension teachers are part time instructors. An instructor is like a lecturer. Not on the tenure track.

    Before becoming an instructor, you must take free teaching classes at UCLA. These classes gave me the impression that students were customers. Our role as instructors was to please them. To give them a pleasant, positive experience, so they’ll sign up for more classes. This was never stated outright. But everything was geared toward making the students feel comfortable.

    We were taught how to speak to students. How to phrase things when correcting them, so nobody’s feelings were hurt.

    If someone was wrong, instead of saying so bluntly, and publicly embarrassing them, you’d say, “That’s a very good point. Thank you. But perhaps we could also look at it this way …”

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dalrock, the above post is from me, Red Pill Latecomer. Somehow the name didn’t spell out.

  115. seventiesjason says:

    Keith…..agreed. I was there too! When our professors, deans, administrations, and fellow GenX students started to implement this upon the rest of us……..we could have said something in the CLASSROOM. We could have told the admin “this new revised student handbook is drivel” we could have spoken up at lecture series on campus, or reader-to-reader series and said “No!”

    We could have studied and debated this in the dorm rooms with our friends and had calculated, logical answers to stand up to this in the classroom, in newspaper editorials. We expected Rush Limbaugh, or some sane voice out there to just “put an end to it”

    I found it funny in the mid-late 1990’s Bill Mahars show was called “politically incorrect” and it was the most politically correct show out there…..big whoop…..cuss words used!

    We didn’t do a thing as age group. We didn’t. We instead took the very Homer Simpson attitude of “let someone else do it” because I am too busy learning game / trying to get this gal to like me / just agree and believe what I want / skiing / drinking / partying / looking for a job / going to the new restaurant / complaining about it / just wishful thinking that it would just ‘go away’

    The other side was organizing, implementing, and cornering the conversation and discussion year by year. Now?????

    We got excatly what they wanted: contolled speech, slogans, diktats and dogma………or to quote John Lennon “and now it’s all this…….”

  116. King Alfred says:

    Objections noted. I still believe that those of us who came of age in the 1990s were still at least a generation too late to change the course. I believe this was recorded in 1983: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

  117. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 9:42 pm:
    “When our professors, deans, administrations, and fellow GenX students started to implement this upon the rest of us……..we could have said something in the CLASSROOM. We could have told the admin “this new revised student handbook is drivel” we could have spoken up at lecture series on campus, or reader-to-reader series and said “No!””

    I did all that in California college in the late 90s. I complained to the profs, debated my fellow students and publicly told off the sodomites until I was basically Emmanuel Goldstein to half the campus. I did everything you call for and more, and it did no good whatsoever so far as I ever knew. The situation today is not the result of human effort or lack thereof.

  118. info says:

    @Dave
    Note that our genetic code has a lot more build up of bad mutations since the fall due to corruption so the above examples would be far less true now.

  119. tkatchev says:

    That conclusion is doubtful at best. As a matter of fact, it is unlikely.
    If the accounts of Genesis were to be believed, then that was the exact description of all of our ancestors. We all descended from parents and grandparents who married their half-siblings and other very close relatives.

    Not really. Genesis is intentionally vague on this point. One other interpretation is that Adam’s sons interbred with apes. This is in line with the general logic of Man’s Fall (“be ye as gods”) and explains the mysterious “sons of God” and “daughters of man” mentioned later.

  120. Opus says:

    Life Update

    My Bankers have terminated my account. Overdrawn? Dishonest? Perish the thought. My crime: telling the female teller that I was less than happy about the rainbow-coloured festooning of the banking-hall. I have their letter telling me that I am a very naughty boy and that they take very seriously their commitments to Homosexuals. I have replied saying a number of things including that they are a Bank not a Church and that I am a Customer not an Heretic.

    Behind all that what it really is about is that the Bank Manager is swimming in pussy and wishes to keep rogue males such as myself, away – apart from him the only other male has gay-voice (I am sure it is put on but we get the message) and so the manager has a Soft-Harem of well over a dozen young females and he is white-knighting his strong empowered women including the teller who needed the smelling salts when I made plain my views. Manginas never receive extra-curricular favours from women. The teller has been super nice to me since the incident – women love bastards.

  121. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Note that our genetic code has a lot more build up of bad mutations since the fall due to corruption so the above examples would be far less true now.

    Hilarious to read a so-called Christian write such tripe.

    Not really. Genesis is intentionally vague on this point. One other interpretation is that Adam’s sons interbred with apes. This is in line with the general logic of Man’s Fall (“be ye as gods”) and explains the mysterious “sons of God” and “daughters of man” mentioned later.

    You guys have zero faith in your own God, if you have to rely upon pseudobiologists like “info”, or speculate about bestiality, in an effort to explain your own text. (Note Leviticus 18).

    There are a number of more plausible scenarios on offer, including:

    *The old Jewish texts as symbolic literature, and
    *God simply making it happen.

    God has no obligation to explain Himself to people in Dalrock’s comment section. That’s the definition of God. He wrote the rules, and he can bend them. Even if he didn’t, it’s the height of hubris to think that you have a complete knowledge of the rules anyhow.

    The bible doesn’t pretend to be a history/physics/biology/medicine journal, and we shouldn’t read it as one.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  122. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    I did all that in California college in the late 90s. I complained to the profs, debated my fellow students and publicly told off the sodomites until I was basically Emmanuel Goldstein to half the campus. I did everything you call for and more, and it did no good whatsoever so far as I ever knew. The situation today is not the result of human effort or lack thereof.

    You did far more good than you think, and far more than the trash in the Southern Baptist Convention are doing, right now. Those cucks aren’t doing shit.

    When the feminists come, it’s your job to resist them. That’s a basic obligation of being a man.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  123. James K says:

    OT: on women who kill their husbands:

    The woman who murders her husband has nearly always ceased to think of him as such, and cannot really believe that he ever stood in that relationship towards her. It is only a tiresome insistence on the part of the law that makes her drastic step necessary. She loves another man who is her husband “in the sight of God,” and it is to her both unreasonable and indecent that the first man should be obstructing her path.

    – F. Tennyson Jesse (great-niece of Alfred Tennyson), Murder and Its Motives, (1924).
    Cited by Theodore Dalrymple, https://www.city-journal.org/html/quiet-evenings-reading-15844.html

    I guess the heart of woman (and man) has not changed much in 94 years. Then as now, women attributed divine origin to their sexual desires. What is new is the Churchian belief that they are correct!

  124. earl says:

    ‘God has no obligation to explain Himself to people in Dalrock’s comment section. That’s the definition of God.’

    He doesn’t have the obligation…however that’s what the Gospel is about. God the Son explaining God the Father and the kingdom of Heaven.

  125. earl says:

    Keep the Bible for what it is…the Word of God.

  126. seventiesjason says:

    Gunner…..as a group……..sure a few people were standing up. Most of the sheeple were not for the reasons I listed above. Most couldn’t stand this PC nonsense, most did nothing……..because that would mean no nookie, and pretty much a stressful college undergrad experience and we all know it was a place where it was a party and ski school with 20K a year price tag (for me from 1989-1993)

  127. earl says:

    ‘Meant no nookie…’

    Amazing how worshipping sex takes men away from the truth. Then again…nothing new under the sun.

  128. purge187 says:

    “The silver lining to this happening today, especially with social media, is in the event a boat sinks, I can bet you anything that it’s going to be the liberal feminist white women the first to scramble out of those boats.”

    Good. Let them drown. There needs to be more Feminists like Tamara Cincik who learn the hard way.

  129. Boxer says:

    most did nothing……..because that would mean no nookie

    Wow! Times have changed. I created a living hell for the SJW crowd in school, and many’s the feminist girl who was defiled as a result.

    There’s really no excuse for doing nothing. Shit like:

    We’re going though our own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which put political correctness and conformity to the new standards over logic and tradition.

    is laughable. Mao shot people for arguing with him. Being a contrarian in modern America makes wimminz like you (not the wimminz you want anything long term with, but a few of them are fun) and gets you friends among the more timid crowd. Moreover, the feminists are always idiots, and arguing with them is a fish/barrel scenario, in which they collapse into trigglypuff hysterics when they’re disagreed with. It’s no-risk and priceless entertainment.

    Boxer

  130. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 9:35 am:
    “Gunner…..as a group……..sure a few people were standing up. Most of the sheeple were not for the reasons I listed above.”

    The sheeple never will. NEVER. You should know this from Scripture. How many times did “the people” spontaneously do right in the Bible? It was always individual men and even they usually did good reluctantly.

  131. earl says:

    The easiest way to be a contrarian to a feminist is to be a father figure.

    Now if it repels her…all the better.

  132. Oscar says:

    @ Earl

    The easiest way to be a contrarian to a feminist is to be a father figure.

    Now if it repels her…all the better.

    Ain’t that a fact?! You should see the looks my family gets when my nine kids spill out of our Sprinter van!

  133. earl says:

    An actual father is even better.

    I’m not one…but it’s a good test of heart to see where the woman stands on that.

  134. Oscar says:

    @ Earl

    If I understand the term correctly, a patriarch is a father of fathers, so at least a grandfather. I’m not there yet, but I’m looking forward to pissing off feminists even more by my mere existence.

  135. So to change the world, one ONE person just needs to stand up, because you know…..the sheeple never will….and “the word of God says so”

    Well then we don’t need church, ministry, nor anything….since it’s just between “me and God”

    The other side fully doesn’t do this. They’re winning. They organize. They show up. They obstruct. They smear.

    Us? It’s still “let someone else do it” and then the sheeple will follow….but they won’t because they never have.

  136. Kids are a cost center if mom is working in HR pushing meaningless paper, but nobody wastes energy on paper-shuffling in an isolated village of 101 people. That’s subsistence agriculture, where women do actually useful work all day. In that kind of economy, kids are historically a profit center, always and everywhere, until you hit Malthusian limits (a long way off in this hypothetical). Maybe that changes drastically if there’s no daddy around the farm, but why assume so? There’s no carousel to ride. No brunch. No cocktails. Vogue and Cosmo are out of print. No Kardashians to keep up with. No TV.

    There are a lot of African cultures where the women grow food, while the men live separately and don’t strain themselves too much. They have plenty of kids, well above replacement. You have to work harder and as a team in a climate like Sweden has, but the sex ratio will even out in two generations.

  137. Bee says:

    Oscar,

    “Ain’t that a fact?! You should see the looks my family gets when my nine kids spill out of our Sprinter van!”

    You and your wife are being fruitful and good examples.

    Disapointing to see how many Protestant church leaders have only 1 to 3 kids. Paige and Dorothy Patterson only had 2 kids. James Dobson, only two kids.

  138. seventiesjason says:

    My dad was the eldest of 14………not because of the times and Polish Catholism……….but for the fact the family had a FARM that had to be worked. When they arrived in the USA (after the Communist regime collectivized the property in early 1946) they were dirt farmers and eeked out a living running a small dairy farm.

    We tend to praise “the farmer” with false narratives (that Dodge commercial few years back for example) yet……farm kids drive tractors, handle dangerous equipment, fertilizers, unruly animals, and work when out of school….or in my dad’s case….drop out because the farm needs full time work. The banker and politician don’t care that the crop failed and the best insurance only covers 20%………..the mortgage brokers still demand and expect payment.

    Where I grew up…..most small farms in New York State went bust in the early 1960’s. The big deal there and in Vermont is inheriting the “family farm” and selling it to a developer for luxury homes for people not from the region.

    If farm work was regulated under labor laws, most farmers would be jailed, or fined out of existence for breaking every child labor law on the books.

  139. Sharkly says:

    Opus says:
    I have replied saying a number of things including that they are a Bank not a Church and that I am a Customer not an Heretic.
    LOL, But you are a heretic for being less than happy about the rainbow-coloured festooning of the banking-hall.

    Jordan Peterson points out that Leftist thought elevates the group identity over the individual identity. Western civilization was built on the God given rights of the individual. Americans once found them to be “self evident”. Your individual opinion, and freedom of speech is less important to them, than faggots as a group reigning untriggered over you as an individual Cisgender male expressing your heretical belief.
    Thus “Black lives matter”. Not the western “individual lives matter”, or even “all lives matter”.
    Leftists are here to deconstruct western civilization, and reduce us back to tribal warfare!
    They are here to break us into grievance groups constantly at war with each other, the proletariat at war with the bourgeoisie, women against men, Black against White, young against old, deviants against the morally straight, and Etc. The left has gone way too far when they insist on equality of outcome, and they naturally will indeed kill you as an individual to enforce their decivilizing sectarian beliefs. The left has gone off the reservation/plantation(racist, sexist, ageist, sectarian, Etc.) when they say your group identity is more important than your individual identity.

    I heard on your BBC today that “The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) has removed Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from one of its awards over racist views and language.”
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/us/laura-ingalls-wilder-book-award-trnd/index.html
    “This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder’s legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness.”

    Inclusiveness for what individual?(Laura, the reader?) Oh, it is inclusiveness for a couple groups of people.(American Indians & Blacks)
    Integrity and Respect for what individual? Again I believe they’re deferring to groups over the individual.
    Responsiveness to some individual snowflake who didn’t like the books? no, responsiveness to assumed group grievances again.

    Perhaps this worldview could be more easily dismissed if it were entirely fictional, but the “Little House” books are semi-autobiographical, and recount Wilder’s own childhood growing up on the Great Plains.
    Dang it, we cant have Laura recounting true stories of armed Indians showing up at their cabin and demanding food and tobacco before they would leave. That might imply a stereotype of some Indians as having been freeloading and prone to vices. Why if there was any merit to such historical stereotypes; You would expect to see many Indians today who would be living in places reserved for them by the government, demanding a check monthly, and subject to rampant alcoholism and drugs, and…
    Can’t rightly blame it on the Whiteman and Western Patriarchy, if Laura points out some of them, individually, have always been that way.

    At other points in the series, African-American characters are called “darkies”.
    Wow! That’s bad. for the insinuation to get any darker we would have to be flat out calling them Black!

  140. BillyS says:

    Petersen talks of God-given rights? Which audio is that?

  141. BillyS says:

    Bee,

    Dobson’s son was adopted, so some other things may have kept them from having more children, but I completely agree with you that too many evangelicals fall below the replacement value, let alone are fruitful.

  142. Bee says:

    BillyS,

    Thank you. I did not know that.

    There are some exceptions, Dennis Rainey has 5 kids. The pastor that married me had more than 5 kids. Anecdotal, but I think they are in the minority.

  143. Sharkly says:

    @BillyS
    Petersen talks of God-given rights? Which audio is that?
    You misunderstood me.
    The sentence(Complete Thought) that begins with “Jordan Peterson”, ends with the little dot called a period. The next sentence(complete thought) is my thought, cribbed from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
    Sorry, for any confusion I may have caused you. No worries!

  144. info says:

    Part 1 from 1911 paper on women who murder husbands:

    Not since the dark days in the Middle Ages [Renaissance, actually, 1656] when 366 women are said to have formed a Roman Sisterhood of Death, and most of them poisoned husbands, has the world been shocked by so many deaths caused by women as in the United States in the latter days of the year 1911.

    Within a few months writers for the press have been called upon to recount an appalling series of crimes. If the cases that obtain extensive publicity are criteria, they force the conclusion that more husbands are being killed by wives by husbands.

    It is cited, merely as a curious coincidence, that this increase in the number of women’s crimes comes at a time when women are more active in public affairs than ever before in history. Doubtless it would be unfair to hint at any connection between the two conditions. The fact they exist simultaneously is given for what it is worth. But it cannot be denied that while some women are showing – rather convincingly, it must be admitted – the right of the sex and political leadership, other women are showing with equal conclusiveness the truth of Poet Kipling’s recent dogma, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male.”

    ~ Women in History Often More Ferocious Than the Sterner Sex ~

    The long list of recent crimes committed by women or attributed to them bears out a theory held by the criminologists from Lombroso down. And that is that while women are less inclined to acts of violence than men, on account of their physical weakness, when they do become criminals their crimes are characterized by a cruelty and relentlessness not found in male offenders. [Editor’s note: In my view, events and crimes, subsequent to 1911, show that men can be as cruel as women: full sex-equality is demonstrated in sociopathy. (St. Estephe)]

    When a woman turns to murder she becomes ferocious. The bloodiest murders of the French revolution were not half so cruel as the fierce-eyed, wolfish females that urged them on. [Note: What this sentence identifies is now known as “Proxy violence,” a mode particularly favored by women (as well as political leaders), whereby males are used to do the work.] Mme. Defarge, who sat at the guillotine with her knitting and counted the heads as they fell into the basket, was a true characteristic of them.

    In the early biblical days Jael lured Sisera, the friend of her house, to sleep, promising to shield him from his enemies, and as he slept she took a nail and drove it through his temples and into the floor below. And from that day until the last husband murder in today’s paper such crimes when committed by woman have been unspeakably brutal and inhuman.

    The idea of a woman turning murderess is so repugnant to the average man that he scarcely can believe it possible. And the story of society’s leniency to women criminals is as old as the mountains of India, as old as the Ganges or the Nile, old as the pyramids with all their secrets. And back of all of it is unwillingness of one man to believe that the women he knows to be infinitely softer, more tender, more abhorrent of violence than he could dabble her delicate hands in human blood. And some singer spoke the truth when he said such things as this:

    Cold eyelids, that hide like a jewel
    Hard eyes that grow soft for an hour;
    The heavy white limbs and the cruel
    Red mouth like a venomous flower.
    When these are gone by with their glories,
    What shall rest of thee then, what remain,
    O mystic and somber Dolores,
    Our Lady of Pain?

  145. info says:

    Part 2:
    ~ Perhaps Leniency Toward Women Murderers Account for It ~

    Whether this characteristic leniency of society toward women malefactors is responsible for the Amazing increase of husband murders of late is a matter, of course, of speculation. That criminologists should think so is not to be wondered at.

    The Anglo-Saxon people are pretty thoroughly convinced, as a general thing, that capital punishment is a great deterrent of murder. The thing is easy enough to demonstrate, the advocates of the extreme penalty say. Switzerland abolished it and murders increased so rapidly that it was restored as an experiment. Murders immediately decreased in number.

    Practically the same thing has been found true in France. For years the guillotine was in disrepute. And while its knife rusted in idleness France gave to the world some of the most appalling murders in the history of crime. The restoration of the death penalty was demanded by popular necessary.

    Even in the United States murders have increased in commonwealths that have abolished the gallows. There is a great city on the border line of the two mid-Western states in one of which hanging in the extreme penalty for murder and the other life imprisonment. Newspaper men of that city say they have had to record many more atrocious murders in the latter than in the former.

    If this be a true test, as it appears to be, justified by the fact, the criminologists strengthen their theory by applying it to women murderers. In late years but one woman has been put to death by process of law for murder. This woman’s crime was committed in a [sic] Eastern state and was most atrocious. She wished to be rid of her husband, with whom she had quarreled. She sent word she wanted to make up and named a trysting place of their sweetheart days.

    ~ Everything Done at Trial Is Favorable to Accused Women ~

    Judge Blanton, at Fort Worth, called a grand jury together and instructed them to look into the case. The jury reported it had no indictments to return. The Judge sternly reminded them of the Matheson affair and ordered them to do their duty, with a hint at citations for contempt if they failed.

    Tardily they returned an indictment. The woman was immediately served with a warrant and 100 Abilene citizens, some of them millionaires, offered to sign her bond. Two leading attorneys volunteered to defend her.

    The trial was altogether favorable to her. The jurors were selected from the first 20 men called to the box. None was asked if he opposed capital punishment. The woman told her story. There was a hint that the negroes had shot at her and that she fired to protect her own life. It took the jury about ten minutes to reach a verdict of acquittal.

    This, of course, is an extraordinary case. If conditions were reversed and a man stood in the same place, he also would have been acquitted in short order by a Texas jury, for the South still recognizes pretty clearly the right of every man – or woman – to preserve the sanctity of the home.

    A jury at Ontonogan, Mich., a few days ago returned a verdict of acquittal for Mrs. Laura Stannard, charged with murdering her husband. The woman is a believer in Spiritualism and is convinced that her husband’s spirit was with her throughout the trial.

    Stannard died at Greenland, Mich., last March and a post-mortem examination proved that he had died of strychnine poisoning. He was a habitual drinker and his wife was very anxious to break him of this habit. A servant girl testified at the trial that Mrs. Stannard told her she had intended to give her husband a tablet in his coffee to stop his drinking.

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-are-so-many-wives-killing-their.html

  146. ray says:

    Here’s one for the Supreme Dark Lord and his subjects:

    http://www.raptureready.com/category/israel-watch/

  147. Paul says:

    The command to be fruitful and multiply is a command to the whole of humanity (else Jesus would have sinned). I think we already accomplished that goal.

  148. Damn Crackers says:

    @Dalrock and others:

    Not sure if you read this, but you may want to throw out whatever St. Paul says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/06/24/metoo-conservative-christians-women-column/715654002/

  149. Oscar says:

    @ Bee

    You and your wife are being fruitful and good examples.

    Five of ours are adopted. We have four biological children. Still well above replacement rate, of course.

    Here’s what the Washington Post published on the subject of religiosity and fecundity back in 2015.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/12/charted-the-religions-that-make-the-most-babies/?utm_term=.b35757635ffb

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/05/fertility.png&w=480

  150. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    I guess I don’t understand your response of yesterday, but it was me who took this thread off-topic, so I’ll try to bring it back…

    The other side fully doesn’t do this. They’re winning. They organize. They show up. They obstruct. They smear.

    Us? It’s still “let someone else do it” and then the sheeple will follow….but they won’t because they never have.

    Men have a duty to resist the feminists simply because they’re men. For clarification, I’m not talking about physical violence. That’s unnecessary anyway. All you have to do is play Gunner, and start talking.

    Feminists are all physical cowards who are 100% screech and no action. They show up in large crowds and make a spectacle. What I used to do was merely catcall from the sidelines. Eventually, the leader of the mob would have to address me directly (they’re too stupid to resist this, even though a child could tell them it’s a mistake.) I’d subsequently be charming and funny, and in a very short time, the small cadre of blue-hairs would be left alone, and all the liberal kids who came along for the show would either wander off, or come over to my side. Then you had a few deranged loons in the “free speech zone” on campus, who were the targets of derision for everyone. If you try this, you’ll be amazed at how easy this is to do. Just play “devil’s advocate” and ask sensible questions that the kooks can’t answer.

    The other side only looks like it’s winning, because your side is full of cucks who won’t do shit. You can get all dejected, and wave the white flag, or you can look at it as an opportunity for free entertainment, and be amused. Either way you have to deal with these people, so the choice is yours.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  151. earl says:

    @info

    Great find…proves once again…nothing new under the sun.

    There have always been ruthless women and white knights to protect them.

  152. earl says:

    Not since the dark days in the Middle Ages [Renaissance, actually, 1656] when 366 women are said to have formed a Roman Sisterhood of Death, and most of them poisoned husbands, has the world been shocked by so many deaths caused by women as in the United States in the latter days of the year 1911.

    At least they were more blantant about what their sisterhood was about back then.

    We have a same sisterhood of death today…but they don’t call themselves that.

  153. earl says:

    Just play “devil’s advocate” and ask sensible questions that the kooks can’t answer.

    In this case since it’s a den of feminst wimminz…you are more likely playing ‘God’s advocate’.

  154. No Boxer…….I don’t think you’re getting it. Perhaps I am not making myself clear…….years of drug use…..and the aftermath have made me…..well…..a little dimwittted in expressing complex topics

    We’re not winning. yes, yes….everyone here speaks up everyday……..and is fighting this all day long and is making huge inroads against feminism…..well, after Nazism was defeated…..every rank and file German citizen was “against” Hitler and his party from “day one” and was speaking out constantly, and standing up to it daily……..and the reality was………”big whoop” all real underground did was have their circle of friends and plots that failed, lacked courage or just were too dreamy on “what could be”

    Also, much has been made of this “good German underground” but the reality is….it was very, very small, spineless and ineffective,

    I am a member of the Libertarian Party…..their monthly newsletter is a joke. I have been hearing “major victory” every month since the 1990’s and they make it out when some local Libertarian in Spokane gets appointed to the local “school board” that this is a major victory for their state, and the party.

    Kind of sounds like here.

    Folks here have said “oh, you just have to raise your family blah, blah blah” (this stance has accepted defeat, just coccoon yourself, go to church and everything will be okay).

    We had a chance back at the end of the 1980’s and into the 1990’s…..and my generation who WAS in college, in the trenches dropped the ball big time. Our excuse was apathy, and for those who were saying something? Your arguments were ineffective, obviously………..

    I have tried even in my Corps in Fresno….and they look at me and say “You should read a book called The Bible…because it says “we win” and we don’t have to worry.”

    I was reading all over the news that Trump has ushered in an era of no more “due process”
    and frankly, countless lives have been ruined (and a TON more are going to be) by Political Correctness.

    A win at this point for our side will be a reset, or some major economic calamity that will make the ‘great recession” look like a blip on the map

  155. earl says:

    Also, much has been made of this “good German underground” but the reality is….it was very, very small, spineless and ineffective,

    Nazism was defeated…so it wasn’t ineffective.

    Much like any evil organization when it starts falling apart is when it’s at the height of its power. This is true in the OT, NT, and all throughout history when some major ethos against God took the stage. Now is the time to have more faith it’ll be defeated than to lack faith and be defeated.

  156. Cane Caldo says:

    @mark

    It appears the modern christian church is just a twisted up version of mayan familial culture, where the great mother ruled all and spoke through the wife:

    Where can I find the rest of what you quoted? It’s amazing to see this idea crop up again and again across disparate cultures and times.

  157. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    Nazism was defeated…so it wasn’t ineffective.

    Nazism was defeated by the combined might of the Anglosphere, the USSR, and the countries whose land they seized from the Nazis, not by the German underground. The German underground was definitely ineffective.

  158. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    We’re not winning. yes, yes….everyone here speaks up everyday……..and is fighting this all day long and is making huge inroads against feminism…..well, after Nazism was defeated…..every rank and file German citizen was “against” Hitler and his party from “day one” and was speaking out constantly, and standing up to it daily……..and the reality was………”big whoop” all real underground did was have their circle of friends and plots that failed, lacked courage or just were too dreamy on “what could be”

    Again, you’re buying into the nonsense that we’re living in an era where we’ll be sent to a concentration camp if we laugh at the bluehairs. Another defeatist equated modern America with Mao’s cultural revolution. This is laughable.

    I don’t know exactly what your point is, other than to make other antifeminists feel dejected and prompt them to give up. I don’t think this is what you’re communicating, given the fact that you’re a street preacher — a living example of the opposite sentiment. Our communicative troubles might be due to your drug abuse, but then again, it might be my advanced, untreated syphilis. Who can say?

    In closing, I’ll just end up repeating myself, and encourage the young brothers to see this world for what it is, and to appreciate the feminists for what they do, namely, provide better people with free street entertainment. The fact that looney feminists aren’t getting arrested for calling for “kill all men” might be a weakness in society, but if so, it’s a weakness that you should exploit. It means you also won’t get arrested for pulling their chains and watching them dance to your tune. You’ll have to deal with them anyway, and I find it more fun to approach them this way, than to give them the respect they haven’t earned.

    Best,

    Boxer

  159. Boxer…….no, I don’t think being sent to ‘concentration camp’ is coming. I do think and know that most of us will be “put aside” though in one way or another. Unable to get employment. Accusations made and being stripped of our ability to work, perhaps consume, or have a career…..or have a career ruined.

    I find most of the sentiment today though on our end as very ineffective. I do believe we have “lost” the culture war…..and I was an active participant on the other side. Too much work to be righteous and no shortage of cannon fodder on the other side to be eaten up by drugs, drink, consumerism, sex and callousness (wait that’s in the church too…..)

    Here in California, I have accepted the fact that in many ways “i’m already dead……so what can anyone really do to me…..and with this, since I have accepted this….it is now imparrative to stay alive as long as possible”

    AS for the German underground. All of them were caught in the end. All of them. All of them paid with their lives. All of them were stripped naked, hung from meathooks and piano wire in Trepowter / Berlin. I saw this place. I was there.

    Despite how ineffective they were…..they were still caught. All of them were protestant pastors, catholic priests, and officer in the salvation army…..and their respected flocks in their congregations. Average people. We hear much about the vaunted officer corps in the German military……and some did pay dearly……most…no, just about all may have had personal opinions…..but just about all did nothing.

    Not one journalist. Not one college professor. Not one social justice warrior. Not one feminist died this way by standing up to Hitler….in fact…..all the above were pretty much avid supporters of the regime.

    Today……i don’t believe it will come to this…but I do believe that many of us will be forced to the fringes eating grubs and crushing pine nuts into flour.

    As fort brain rot from an STD. Impossible. REALLY impossible.

  160. earl says:

    The German underground was definitely ineffective.

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

    The church played a BIG role in this. You’ll also find the same things when it came to eventually toppling the big communist player. Read up how Austria drove out Communism without resorting to militaristic war.

    https://americaneedsfatima.org/The-Holy-Rosary/expelled-by-the-rosary.html

  161. Mostly church members Earl…yes, agreed. Effective? No. The church (Catholic) played a bigger role in toppling Communism in Poland and Hungary. Fitting since Pope John Paul was Polish, and the Catholic Church throughout the centuries played the unwitting role of being stewards of Polish history, culture, language and art whenever the Germans got ambitions, and the eastern Slavs got a bit pushy.

  162. feministhater says:

    Mankind, which had just suffered the horrors of the World War I, would have peace, Our Lady promised, if it heeded her words. If not, she warned, even more terrible conflagrations would ensue with entire nations vanishing from the face of the earth; the Church, founded by her divine Son, would suffer persecution; and the Holy Father, Christ’s Vicar on earth, would be subjected to many trials.

    So that men might more readily believe her message, the Blessed Mother performed a miracle during her last appearance at Fatima in October 1917. As witnessed by thousands of onlookers—believers and skeptics alike—the sun danced repeatedly in the sky, then plunged ominously earthward, as though it would fall upon the crowd below.

    Who performed those miracles again? God or the holy Mother?

  163. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    The church played a BIG role in this.

    I’m aware of that, particularly Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is featured in the article you posted. I’m also aware that they accomplished very little. In other words, they were ineffective. By the way, that’s not a criticism. It’s just an observable fact. Nor does it mean that their efforts were in vain.

    Bonhoeffer and his peers were like Jeremiah preaching to an unrepentant people. Note that most of Israel’s greatest prophets (Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah) ministered during Israel’s worst rebellions, and they all failed to turn Israel back to God.

    Those prophets aren’t great because they were effective, they’re great because they were faithful to God and His word. That’s what matters. The same is true of Bonhoeffer and his peers. But the fact remains that they were ineffective in defeating Nazism.

    You’ll also find the same things when it came to eventually toppling the big communist player.

    Yes, the Church was far more effective against Communism in some places, especially Poland.

  164. feeriker says:

    The church played a BIG role in this.

    Correction: SOME –as in about five percent— of Germany’s churches, their clergy, their lay leadership, and their members actively stood up and resisted the murderous pagan barbarism of the Nazis.

    The rest? They were Gute Deutscher, mindless, conformist little Prussian droids who either enthusiastically did der Fuehrer’s bidding, or who apathetically went along with the flow, for whatever reasons and excuses they intended to spout before God on Judgment Day. Bonhoeffer, Niemoeller, and the Scholl siblings were the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Indeed, I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that many of their “fellow Christians” were happy to see them suffer the fates that they did for being Schlechte Deutscher.

    Just like in Amerika today, where most “churches” are just social clubs full of worldly nationalists seeking a pseudo-biblical cover for their Caesar worship, endlessly twisting Romans 13 for their perverse ends. Come the day of persecution for American Christians (a day very soon upon us), we will soon be able to intimately empathize with the four Germans I mentioned above. No more than five percent of Americas “Christians” will do the right (and righteous) thing either.

  165. Agreed Feeriker. When the time come…..and if it indeed comes…….I will pay with my life if required for Christ. At this point I was granted a second chance, sobriety, an honest life. Not perfect or spectacular…….never I viewed Christ as Santa Claus. I have counted “the cost” and when or if it comes to this. Yes, I am ready. We have been told that we will be “dragged into the temple courts” and “flogged” for professing Him, and Him alone…..

    I owe so much to Christ, if the “cost” came for me to die for what He did do for all of humanity???? I’m ready at this point.

    Father Wrexelbahn and Salvation Army Lieutenant Rudiger and some members of the respected flocks paid the price as well for standing up and with the underground. Dieter Bonoeffer is the most famous of these folks…….in the German Command, Rommel gets all the credit for being “ready” to join the resistance…..only because he was “dashing” and “handsome” but the real hero of the German Command against Hitler was Colonel Claus Von Staffenberg. That’s the guy who did the deed. Carried the bomb into Hitlers bunker, placed it….and was going to help lead the post-overthrow and coup. He died by a firing squad somewhere in the maze of Chancelly in 1944….probably killed quickly so Himmler would not get a hold of him, thus getting more ‘conspirators’ who were ‘lukewarm’ NAZIs. Dead officers tell no more.

  166. earl says:

    Those prophets aren’t great because they were effective, they’re great because they were faithful to God and His word. That’s what matters. The same is true of Bonhoeffer and his peers. But the fact remains that they were ineffective in defeating Nazism.

    I suppose if you consider God was the effectiveness behind defeating the Nazis through several different means…no less than making the Germans dumb enough to invade Russia as winter was approaching or the Allies making better weather forecasts.

    https://www.history.com/news/the-weather-forecast-that-saved-d-day

  167. Eh…so many variables Earl. Victory for Nazi Germany????? Quick knockout of the Soviet Union, or the UK was pretty much it. Otherwise the manpower of the Allies (which VASTLY outnumbered German in count for count in human bodies) they could have never kept up with. Hence their defeat.

    Maybe if the attack on the Soviet Union came in April instead of June? Even if Germany did not attack the Soviet Union…….their navy was just not ready on any level to to a sea landing on the British Isles. Focused on oil supply in Africa and the Middle East? Secured a “fortress Europe” to withstand an allied invasion? Who knows. The only way….in the end Germany could win was a fast knockout. Otherwise, a war of attrition would (and did) doom them.

    Personally here….and this is just me……..Hitler really didn’t think the British had the stomach to fight. He thought they would sue for peace or back out after the defeat of France. Hitler also thought the Soviet Union would just “fall apart” or as he stated “all we have to do is kick down the door, and the whole rotten mess will collapse on itself” boy was he wrong on that. Never underestimate a Slavic.

    Who knows. There were close calls. A billion ‘what if’s” and lots of life lost, most of Europes’ ancient cities were laid to ruins…….and it was one of the most fascinating times in history.

  168. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    I suppose if you consider God was the effectiveness behind defeating the Nazis through several different means…

    Well, yeah. God was ultimately in control during WWII, just as he was ultimately in control when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Assyria and conquered Judah.

  169. feeriker says:

    Maybe if the attack on the Soviet Union came in April instead of June?

    Hitler’s catastrophic blunder was in making Germany fight a multi-front war, something that is generally a stupid move on anyone’s part, especially if they’re fighting an enemy or enemieS with more manpower or resources than themselves. He should have either pounded Britain into submission or negotiated a peace deal with them before even thinking about attacking the Bear.

    Inre the Soviet Union, Hitler might (though still highly doubtful) have postponed the inevitable for a little while and both held his gains for a bit longer and lessened eventual losses if he had made taking Moscow the Wehrmacht’s first priority. He HAD to have known that the destruction of the source of the Soviet Union’s central planning would have caused (what little was by then left of) the Red Army to come unglued. Yes, the Russians would have eventually regrouped and counterattacked with an unbelievable ferocity that would still have destroyed the Wehrmacht in the east. However, it would have taken them much longer to pull off in the absence of diktats from Stalin and the Central Committee in Moscow (the country had been so effectively paralyzed by Stalin’s terrifying purges that no one moved without his expressed permission) and the German gains and advances more difficult to repel.

    Anyway, sorry to digress/hijack. I think many here would agree that “alternative historical theories” are too tempting to completely resist whenever the topic arises.

  170. Kevin says:

    This post seems to be making the assumption that women and children first arises from chivalry (“stems directly from … romantic chivalry”). This post does not address children at all. How is preservation of children before men a result of chivalry?

    Women and children first is an evolutionary imperative that far outdates modern or even pre modern ideas of chivalry. And women and children first impulses are practiced by animals. They may be misplaced impulses in today’s world but it’s wrong to argue that they are modern notions. Argue all you want about chivalry as a disease but arguing biology is chasing chivalry is nonsense.

  171. Paul says:

    “Women and children first is an evolutionary imperative”

    Please spare me this evolutionary bullsh*t, it’s just dressed up storytelling.

    Women and children first? Because evolution!
    Male lions killing cubs? Because evolution!

    Mankind has capabilities for rational and moral decisions, and we use it. We are not mandated to blindly follow some inherent biological drive.

  172. rdchemist says:

    @Paul

    “Mankind has capabilities for rational and moral decisions, and we use it. We are not mandated to blindly follow some inherent biological drive.”

    Of course we have the capability for rational action.

    But our instincts are forever with us and can drive certain behaviors, especially in times of crisis.

  173. Paul says:

    There you are wrong. Our instincts don’t drive our behavior, they only have limited control over our impulses. We are called to not live as mere animals and follow our impulses, but rather be their master. That’s the whole calling of humanity, and humanity only.

  174. Keith says:

    @Paul

    ” Our instincts don’t drive our behavior, they only have limited control over our impulses.”

    Good that you acknowledge that we have instincts. Although evolution of our higher order brain functions can attenuate or amplify those instincts.

    So yes, we do have control over our instincts.
    But there are prisons full of people that have refused or failed to exercise this control.

    “We are called to not live as mere animals and follow our impulses, but rather be their master.”

    But animals we are. More specifically, mammals. Even more specifically: primates.

    The fact that God called on one particular primate (humans) to be masters of our domain doesn’t really change how we were created.

    Now, I was reading your response to find our where I was wrong, but couldn’t find anything.

    Note: rdchemist and Keith are both me. I’m on two devices that keep switching the names depending on where I log in.

  175. seventiesjason says:

    Was walking outside my office building to take a stretch today in the early afternoon. As I was exiting the lobby, a very pregnant woman was coming in. I held the door for her, and walked past her to exit. She said “Wow….thank you, chivalry isn’t dead”

    No wedding ring or engagement ring.

    I I just smirked politely and continued through the door. Thing is. I would have held that door for anyone coming in. A man, woman, child, any color…..

    it’s just basic “manners” and everyone wonders why everything is going to pot…….if everyone would just follow the so-called “golden rule” out and about on the stree / social settings the world would turn much easier tha it does.

    This woman was surprised by my route-action-response……..makes me wonder……in order to get pregnant I would suppose she got horizontal with some guy in the past eight months or so………..you would think the guy in question would have some chivarly or decorum, or manners of some sort…….but with women today, you gotta be Chad (and you don’t need any manners) or be a crusty turd (and you wouldn’t dare have manners) for a woman to perform this ‘sacred’ duty with you.

    Boggles the mind. Gorgeous day here.Now out on my patio. Screen door closed on patio Listening to the early ‘Moody Blues’ play on my turntable, speakers at a very comfortable volume from inside the aprtment……sounds great as the sun sets on my patio, evening tea, cat sleeping on the one adirondack chair out here. Wi-fi signal works out here.life is pretty good. Moments like this do make me glad I don’t have a woman in my life.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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