Fortunately they had a strong woman to row them to safety.

In my last post I shared accounts from Lifeboat 8 on the Titanic demonstrating the chaos and loss of life the chivalrous WACF policy caused.  Ida Strauss and her husband perished after Isidor chivalrously refused to enter the lifeboat, and his wife refused to be saved while he perished.

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.

Mrs. Emil Taussig was only saved because she was physically thrown into the lifeboat:

“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.

There was yet another problem with refusing to allow able bodied men to accompany their families in the lifeboats.  Someone needed to row the boats.

“When we came on deck,” said Mrs. Taussig, “Capt. Smith was preparing the eighth boat to be let down. There was only one seaman in sight, but a number of stewards had rushed up between the crowding men and women. The Captain turned to the stewards and asked them if they knew how to row. They answered ‘Yes’ hastily, and four of them were allowed to jump in.

“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.

[Mrs. Taussig] said that her husband, who was abandoned while the half-filled boat was lowered, was an expert oarsman and volunteered his services to the Captain.

But he was ordered back,” she said, while the four stewards who couldn’t row at all were permitted to jump in.

In another account this is spun as a feelgood story of girlpower coming to the rescue, filling in where feckless men were too incompetent to do the task:

The officers were strict on the port side of the ship and allowed only women passengers to enter the boats. Mrs. Penasco was persuaded to enter it together with her maid, Fermina Oliva. When the lifeboat was in the water, she realized her husband probably would not survived and had to be comforted by the Countess of Rothes. About 20 or 22 ladies had found seats in the boat, including Mrs. Straus’ maid and Mrs. Allison’s maid. There were four crew; two seamen, a steward and a kitchen hand. There were probably about 26 people in the boat. In the words of Mrs. Swift:

Slowly we dropped down, down and down until the keel of our tiny craft struck the sea and the captain shouted to pull over to a red light in the distance…we also began to realize that the seamen were not oarsmen. One was unable to pull the long heavy oar with any strength and Mrs. Swift took his place….the weak and unskilled steward and some of the other men sat quietly in one end of the boat. The countess of Rothes was an expert oarswoman.‘ (New York Herald, Friday, April 19, 1912)

It is interesting to see that over 100 years ago the narrative of strong women taking over for incompetent men was already firmly entrenched.  Moreover, the speed with which the narrative changed is astounding.  The memory of the chivalric sacrifice of the men left on deck disappeared in a matter of seconds.  The instant the lifeboat hit the water, the new girlpower narrative suddenly sprung forth, fully grown.

Titanic’s lifeboats were designed to hold 65 people.  Since there were only 26 people on board there was room for another 39 men on Lifeboat 8.  But had these 39 men been allowed to board (and survive), we wouldn’t have nearly as romantic a story, and we also wouldn’t have an empowering story of women stepping in and saving the day where feckless men failed.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Titanic, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to Fortunately they had a strong woman to row them to safety.

  1. Pingback: Fortunately they had a strong woman to row them to safety. | @the_arv

  2. FTW Guy says:

    Hi Dalrock, Thanks for your excellent posts.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Something like this incident is shown in A Night to Remember, by the way, but I had thought that it was a 1950’s scriptwriter addition. Truly interesting to see how quickly women benefitting from “helpless females saved by chivalry” can pivot to “strong, independent women” at all levels from macro to micro.

    Why, it’s almost as though women want to control everything around them as long as they don’t have to take responsibility for the outcome…

  4. earl says:

    Funny, when things are truly out of control is when we see women revert back to being submissive to their husband. Even to the point of dying with the guy.

    It’s when women need to control everything is when rebellion is at the forefront.

    But he was ordered back,” she said, while the four stewards who couldn’t row at all were permitted to jump in.

    And the four stewards rewarded those in authority with lotsa sex…except they were dead. Good job, white knights!

  5. earl says:

    I suppose the moral of the story is there’s more than one way for a man to sacrifice to save the group. Being alive and using your skills to get the weaker to safety is just a much saving lives as giving up your seat so another can live.

  6. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    Funny, when things are truly out of control is when we see women revert back to being submissive to their husband. Even to the point of dying with the guy.

    Is this submission, or is it merely self-interest? Recall Dalrock’s earlier argument, in which he made the case that a wimminz is coldly calculating the odds of survival: alone on a lifeboat v. with husband on sinking ship.

    If you accept this interpretation, then you must conclude that wimminz don’t give a shit about their men either way. The husband is as he always has been, a combination of attack dog and lifting machine. Better in the minds of a shortsighted wimminz to stay with this piece of farm equipment/livestock, than to get in the lifeboat and leave him behind.

    Best,

    Boxer

  7. What was going on in that ship? I can understand–though I disagree with–the “women and children first” policy, but refusing to let men onto a half-empty boat even after all the women on board have been evacuated strikes me as psychopathic spite.

  8. “wimminz ”

    Give me a break.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    Is this submission, or is it merely self-interest? Recall Dalrock’s earlier argument, in which he made the case that a wimminz is coldly calculating the odds of survival: alone on a lifeboat v. with husband on sinking ship.

    If you accept this interpretation, then you must conclude that wimminz don’t give a shit about their men either way. The husband is as he always has been, a combination of attack dog and lifting machine. Better in the minds of a shortsighted wimminz to stay with this piece of farm equipment/livestock, than to get in the lifeboat and leave him behind.

    I don’t read it this way. I don’t doubt that they cared for their men. I’m also sympathetic as to their fear of separating from their men in a time of danger.

  10. earl says:

    Is this submission, or is it merely self-interest?

    I’d argue both. If wimminz understood the great rewards submission to their husbands have for their self-interests perhaps it would make a comeback.

    The reason why wimminz love the rebel mode now is the monetary and feelz rewards are great for their self-interests.

    It’s a nutty hypothetical…but what would happen if the wimminz were offered 10 grand to get on the boat and reject her husband’s wish to stay on the sinking ship?

  11. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    I don’t read it this way. I don’t doubt that they cared for their men. I’m also sympathetic as to their fear of separating from their men in a time of danger.

    I suppose I read your earlier synopsis through my own lens; but, now I’m curious as to how you differentiate authentic care (sorge) from a utilitarian desire to play the best odds.

    Like you, I’m sympathetic. I don’t think this is (for the most part) a conscious process. Even so, while your interpretation is more charitable than mine, it’s not necessarily more defensible.

    Best,

    Boxer

  12. modsquad says:

    If your intention was to kill the passengers Jacob Astor, Isa Strauss and Benjamin Guggenheim, then actions assisting any man had be denied to ensure the deaths of your intended. Likewise, the more men who died, the greater the camouflage over your intended victims.

  13. Boxer says:

    I’d argue both. If wimminz understood the great rewards submission to their husbands have for their self-interests perhaps it would make a comeback.

    The reason why wimminz love the rebel mode now is the monetary and feelz rewards are great for their self-interests.

    It’s a nutty hypothetical…but what would happen if the wimminz were offered 10 grand to get on the boat and reject her husband’s wish to stay on the sinking ship?

    That’s a very good response, for which I have no quick comeback.

  14. Dave says:

    …refusing to let men onto a half-empty boat even after all the women on board have been evacuated strikes me as psychopathic spite….

    You sure got that right. Those who refused to let the men get on the boat had already calculated that they, themselves, would probably end up going down with the ship. So, they wouldn’t allow other men to get safely away in lifeboats, even if no women were harmed in the process.

    And it’s still going on today.

    The cucked judge at the so-called family court would eagerly ask the divorcing guy to maintain his former wife’s standard of living while his own needs was completely ignored.

    The sex-starved blogger advocating for “Yes means yes” would want men to feel cold shivers down their spines when contemplating sex with a woman, because of the potential problems that sex could get them into.

  15. This sounds like a conspiracy by the stewards to make room for themselves. Get rid of the men, and the stewards have twice as much of a chance of getting a spot.

    Of course, without any men the stewards need to be on the boats to row them. And if women and children refuse to leave their husbands and fathers, that’s even more room for the stewards.

  16. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    I’d argue both. If wimminz understood the great rewards submission to their husbands have for their self-interests perhaps it would make a comeback.

    Women’s rebelliousness towards their husbands is not motivated by a lack of understanding, or ven (primarily) emotion. It’s primarily a spiritual matter that dates back to Genesis 3.

  17. Opus says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Whether true or not there is a continuous rumour in these parts that British movies are historically accurate whereas American movies are not but if that is true that is not saying a lot because English movies frequently are much embellished or downright economic with the truth or as with The 49th Parallel so dishonest and inaccurate that I feel an apology to our usual enemies coming on. Haven’t seen A Night to Remember for ages – don’t think Kenny More was much known in America – but Honor Blackman is in the cast. “I must be dreaming”.

    Trying to think of a British war movie where a woman did anything useful but apart from Sylvie Sims assisting pushing that ambulance up the sand-dunes in Ice Cold in Alex I can’t think of anything. I don’t count Carve her Name with Pride (which has nothing to do with the letters L,G,B or even T) where Virginia McKenna’s only purpose is to die at the hands of the most evil Nazis ever (until the next movie with Nazis), though Cloudburst has a few girlies cracking codes. Why am I gaining the feeling that no one reading at Dalrock has even heard of these masterpieces of cinematic entertainment all filmed by-the-way in black and white.

    On reflection last year I much enjoyed Dunkirk but can it be true that at Dunkirk there really were only three Spitfires?

  18. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    The reason why wimminz love the rebel mode now is the monetary and feelz rewards are great for their self-interests.

    Perhaps some are, but I think overall selfishness is a better explanation. My ex has her own life back for herself in her mind. It is built on rebellion, but it was her desire all along. She wouldn’t have married me in the first place, in spite of hearing from God, if so many of the women in her church had not paired off with men as they came in. I think that fear of being left out caused a temporary override to her selfishness, but it couldn’t last the distance.

    Boxer,

    I think you are missing that the societal constraints and atmosphere are different now. My grandmother contended quite a bit with my grandfather, but she was faithful to him until the end of her life, even after he died. An example is that she drove a long ways every Sunday to go to the Latin mass RCC service a ways away in spite of remaining Lutheran in her heart. It was a symbol of commitment to him. That would almost never happen today.

    Women may be the same at the core, but we have brought out a much worse variant today. Perhaps it is a bit of evolution, like finding a certain type of moth does better when that color can hide better in the environment. The women today that are very selfish can seem to get by better, at least for a season. Judgment day will eventually come, both in society and in the next life.

  19. Opus says:

    I thought that the following might be of some interest:

    My Maternal Grandfather was a Master Mariner and gained his first command during The Great War. After that conflict he returned to the Union-Castle line where he captained a succession of merchant ships until his retirement in 1939. His employers had a rule or policy which forbad relatives from travelling on the same ship as their employed relative – I have no idea what the position was for other ranks but that was the position for the Captain. One can only speculate as to the reasoning behind this: thus when my Mother and Grandmother travelled to South Africa in 1936 all my Mother could do was wave at her Father as his ship passed theirs travelling in the opposite direction. In 1937 my Grandfather’s ship was holed near the Canary Islands by a mine but happily the ship was able to limp into Marseilles yet one can imagine what it might have been like had my Mother and Grandmother been on that journey and the damage of Titanic proportions. At the subsequent inquiry my Grandfather was exonerated of all blame. Viva Franco!

  20. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    I suppose I read your earlier synopsis through my own lens; but, now I’m curious as to how you differentiate authentic care (sorge) from a utilitarian desire to play the best odds.

    I think the answer is I’m not trying to do so. I don’t question why the women who entered the lifeboats did so. Likewise I don’t question the women who elected not to. The same goes for the men. Reading their accounts, my gut reaction is:

    1) Sympathy for people who either died, or endured a truly horrible ordeal.
    2) Disgust at the captain’s decision, which exchanged large numbers of lives for romanticism.

    My main point in the series is that the longing for the good ol days of WACF is perverse. I wrote a series (or two) about this when Concordia went down. If WACF had been attempted on Concordia there would have been a much larger loss of life. At the very least, you would have had a huge traffic jam in the lifeboat staging area due to thousands of desperate (and entirely unneeded) farewells. This desire for needless sacrifice of men is downright grotesque.

  21. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: English movies frequently are much embellished or downright economic with the truth or as with The 49th Parallel so dishonest and inaccurate that I feel an apology to our usual enemies coming on.

    I read that it’s now a thing in Britain to portray the past as diverse. Modern BBC dramas depict the Victoria Era as populated by blacks and Indians, working as cops and police inspectors, workers and aristocrats, alongside whites, as though England had always been diverse.

    I don’t know how much English input there was (I think it was filmed in Ireland), but in the short-lived TV series Camelot King Arthur had several black knights, albeit in minor roles. There was one major black character, a woman, who was a confidant to Morgan. It was explained that her ancestors came to Britain with the Romans.

  22. Lost Patrol says:

    It is interesting to see that over 100 years ago the narrative of strong women taking over for incompetent men was already firmly entrenched.

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

    “Brown helped others board the lifeboats but was finally persuaded to leave the ship in Lifeboat No. 6.[1] Brown was later called “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” by authors because she helped in the ship’s evacuation, taking an oar herself in her lifeboat and urging that the lifeboat go back and save more people. Her urgings were met with opposition from Quartermaster Robert Hichens, the crewman in charge of Lifeboat 6. Hichens was fearful that if they went back, the lifeboat would either be pulled down due to suction or the people in the water would swamp the boat in an effort to get inside. After several attempts to urge Hichens to turn back, Brown threatened to throw the crewman overboard.”

    Someday it will be revealed that Lady Penelope Buffington-Smythe and her husband were actually on the bridge at the Captain’s invitation shortly before the iceberg was struck. She, an expert coxswain, assessing the ship’s course and speed with a practiced eye, tried to warn the Captain of the impending iceberg strike; but was condescendingly (though gently) rebuffed. This will be taught at schools along with a warning for boys to always heed womanly wisdom. It will also require another Titanic movie.

  23. earl says:

    Women may be the same at the core, but we have brought out a much worse variant today.

    Rebellion to authority…both encouraged, promoted, and financially rewarded. Anyone against this rebellion is subsequently called a sexist and may lose their livelihood. That’s your reason why they are much worse today.

    Wimminz back in the day had the same rebellious tendencies…however things like stonings, stake burnings, shaved heads, etc at least presented some dire consequence to these actions. Anymore it’s more like divine justice & mercy has to win out to prove to the wimminz their rebellion is unacceptable.

  24. earl says:

    ‘Disgust at the captain’s decision, which exchanged large numbers of lives for romanticism.’

    Shows the importance of good sober leadership versus white knighting for lotsa sex.

  25. Pingback: Fortunately they had a strong woman to row them to safety. | Reaction Times

  26. Frank K says:

    I read that it’s now a thing in Britain to portray the past as diverse. Modern BBC dramas depict the Victoria Era as populated by blacks and Indians, working as cops and police inspectors, workers and aristocrats, alongside whites, as though England had always been diverse.

    The Narrative will be shoved down everyone’s throats, which is why I cut cable TV out years ago. My understanding in the UK is that if you have a TV in your home that you have to pay the BBC tax, even if you don’t have an antenna and just watch streaming channels.

  27. Frank K says:

    The sex-starved blogger advocating for “Yes means yes” would want men to feel cold shivers down their spines when contemplating sex with a woman, because of the potential problems that sex could get them into.

    If by “contemplating sex with a woman”, you mean fornication or adultery, then one should get “cold shivers down your back” but not because of $metoo or “yesmeansyes.

  28. earl says:

    If by “contemplating sex with a woman”, you mean fornication or adultery, then one should get “cold shivers down your back” but not because of $metoo or “yesmeansyes.

    Never ceases to amaze me how many men & women forget or deny there’s a spiritual component to unlawful sex as well. It was only a matter of time before things like metoo and yesmeansyes became a thing.

    I still wouldn’t play into the trap of only woman’s consent makes the sex legal or moral…we’ve seen them revoke consent post haste if the feels change. Keep it to how God designed it…in marriage with your lawful spouse.

  29. Darwinian Arminian says:

    In my last post I shared accounts from Lifeboat 8 on the Titanic demonstrating the chaos and loss of life the chivalrous WACF policy caused. Ida Strauss and her husband perished after Isidor chivalrously refused to enter the lifeboat, and his wife refused to be saved while he perished.

    I think you’re right about this, and there’s some evidence from another “sinking ship” story that offers some further evidence in favor of the theory. The interesting thing is that this one also gets used by tradcons to insist that “Women and Children First” in the best interests of everyone involved, even when the evidence seems to show something much different.

    A while back, Al Mohler posted a piece on his website comparing two famous shipwrecks that occurred fairly close in time, and with passengers from similar cultures: The Titanic in 1912, and the Lusitania in 1915. Both were British ocean liners en route to American ports they never reached; The Titanic sank after hitting that iceberg, and the Lusitania was torpedoed by a German U-boat. The big difference between the two was in how fast each ship went down. The Titanic took two hours to sink, while the Lusitania ended up under water only 18 minutes after it had been hit. Mohler insists that this time difference caused a different pattern of behavior amongst the men on the Titanic, giving that ship’s passengers a better outcome than what was experienced by those on the Lusitania:

    “The difference was remarkable. Aboard the Titanic, the men generally behaved with great concern for women and children, doing their best to get the women and children into the precious and insufficient seats in the lifeboats. Hundreds of men died with the Titanic, demonstrating a commitment to put the welfare and lives of women and children above their own. Aboard the sinking Lusitania, the scene was very different. Women and children were less likely than men to survive that disaster, because the men used their natural strength and speed to take the spaces on the lifeboats, with women and children forced out of their way.

    As The New York Times summarizes: ‘On the Titanic, the study found, children were 14.8 percent more likely to survive than adults, while on the Lusitania they were 5.3 percent less likely to do so. And women on the Titanic were 53 percent more likely to survive than men, while on the Lusitania they were 1.1 percent less likely to do so.’

    TIME Magazine offers further detail:
    ‘The results told a revealing tale. Aboard the Titanic, children under 16 years old were nearly 31% likelier than the reference group to have survived, but those on the Lusitania were 0.7% less likely. Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania. For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%.’

    So on the Titanic, women and children were more likely to survive than the men by large disparity, but on the Lusitania, men selfishly made an effort to save their lives and ended up with only about a 1% better chance of surviving than women or children — and were still more likely to perish in certain key demographics. There’s only one problem with comparing only these numbers: They leave out a far more significant piece of evidence that Mohler mentions at the beginning of his piece and never comments on again, probably because it would have unravelled his entire thesis:

    “The great ocean liner that was built as unsinkable struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912 and sank early the next morning, taking 1,517 of 2,223 lives on board . . . Less known to many is the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which was torpedoed by a German U-boat on May 7, 1915, taking 1,198 of 1,959 lives on board.”

    So that means that there were 706 survivors of the Titanic — about 32% of all on board. The Lusitania, by contrast, had 761 survivors, which was still more than the Titanic in spite of the fact that there were fewer people on board the Lusitania. This means that the Lusitania saved roughly 38% of its passengers, a far better number than the Titanic managed. While I’m not a fan of the idea of “equality,” it should also be pointed out that the Lusitania managed to reach some semblance of this in the survival rate between groups better than the Titanic did. True, the men were slightly more likely to live, but the numbers were never higher than 6% for any group, far better than the double-digit disparities that put the Titanic’s men at a disadvantage. Add also to this that all of these better numbers were accomplished with only 18 minutes to act before the ship went under and with far less time to organize for the best chances of survival.

    And yet, to Mohler it’s still nothing more than a moment of failure in the character of the ship’s men. Why? Because more males should have died in comparison to the number of females that were saved — all for the purposes of manners and decorum:

    “Aboard the Lusitania, young males acted out of a selfish survival instinct, and women and children were cast aside, left to the waves. Aboard the Titanic, there was time for men to consider what was at stake and to call themselves to a higher morality. There was time for conscience to raise its voice and authority, and for men, young and old, to know and to do their duty.”

    Christianity is supposedly a religion that celebrates the death of Christ as the atonement for all. So why does it have such a knack for producing leaders that are so eager to declare that more men must offer themselves up as human sacrifices to the god of chivalry?

    Link to Mohler’s article is here: https://albertmohler.com/2010/03/05/women-and-children-first-a-tale-of-two-ships/

  30. earl says:

    “Aboard the Lusitania, young males acted out of a selfish survival instinct, and women and children were cast aside, left to the waves. Aboard the Titanic, there was time for men to consider what was at stake and to call themselves to a higher morality. There was time for conscience to raise its voice and authority, and for men, young and old, to know and to do their duty.”

    Why don’t tradCONs just say it…they worship wimminz and chillens and want men dead.

    How many of those selfish young men went on to marry and create families…families with wimminz and chillens that wouldn’t of existed for tradCONs to worship if they young men just weren’t so selfish?

  31. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    earl: I still wouldn’t play into the trap of only woman’s consent makes the sex legal or moral…we’ve seen them revoke consent post haste if the feels change. Keep it to how God designed it…in marriage with your lawful spouse.

    In 1979, an American court ruled — for the first time — that a husband can be found criminally guilty of raping his wife. Until then “marital rape” was an oxymoron. If a man was married to a woman, he could not be prosecuted for raping her. The marriage contract implied consent.

    http://time.com/3975175/spousal-rape-case-history/

    By 1983 … 17 states had gotten rid of the rules that made spousal rape impossible to prosecute. … Today, spousal rape is illegal throughout the U.S.

  32. earl says:

    Until then “marital rape” was an oxymoron. If a man was married to a woman, he could not be prosecuted for raping her. The marriage contract implied consent.

    And it still does. Thanks nanny state for ruining marriage in another way.

  33. earl says:

    As the year opened, a man in Salem, Ore., was found not guilty of raping his wife, though they both stated that they had fought before having sex. But, even as the verdict was returned, a National Organization for Women spokesperson told TIME that “the very fact that there has been such a case” meant that change was in the air—and she was quickly proved right.

    Not shocking a den of rebellious female would love this case.

    The case believed to be the first-ever American conviction for spousal rape came that fall, when a Salem, Mass., bartender drunkenly burst into the home he used to share with his estranged wife and raped her. It’s not hard to see how this case was the one that made the possibility of rape between a married couple clear to the public: they were in the middle of a divorce, and the crime involved house invasion and violence. As TIME noted, several other states had also adopted laws making it possible to pursue such a case, though they had not yet been put to the test.

    That’s not rape and that’s not breaking and entering…that’s a case of a rebellious woman using divorce and the power of the state to kick a man out of the authority of his own house. You can’t break and enter into your own property.

  34. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It’s curiously appropriate that, though the above cases occurred in different states (Oregon and Massachusetts), both were in towns called Salem. A name that evokes witchcraft.

  35. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Oops, wrong email.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Earl, @FrankK

    You two are confused if you truly believe that a man has to actually have sexual intercourse with a woman in order to be accused of rape or other sexual misconduct. The kangaroo court circus on some campuses already demonstrates that. “Women don’t lie about rape” has been embedded pretty deeply since the 1980’s…

    Plus affirmative consent aka “Yes Means Yes” and its derivative “Enthusiastic Consent” are currently confined to the university hothouses. That means we can expect them in the wild in the next 10 years, adding another stick to the misandric fasces wielded by the state in protection of helpless women.

    tl;dr
    Don’t get cocky.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    Off Topic but relevant: Jordan Peterson allegedly tweeted about God recently. It looks like a legit tweet to me. Perhaps his medications were affecting him.

    God is the mode of being you value the most as demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception and action.

    Anyone care to explain this little plate of word salad?

    Tweet archived here: https://archive.fo/xU4fy

  38. earl says:

    You two are confused if you truly believe that a man has to actually have sexual intercourse with a woman in order to be accused of rape or other sexual misconduct.

    I’m aware…there’s a famous story in the Bible with Jacob and Potiphar’s wife that talks about a false rape claim. She was horny and trying to come on to him and he was rejecting her for obvious reasons (sinning against God).

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+39&version=NABRE

  39. earl says:

    Correction…Joseph.

  40. Jeff Strand says:

    The Real Peterman: “What was going on in that ship? I can understand–though I disagree with–the “women and children first” policy, but refusing to let men onto a half-empty boat even after all the women on board have been evacuated strikes me as psychopathic spite.”

    I posted this on the previous thread, but I’ll repeat it here. As it answers your question.

    There was miscommunication in the orders given. The captain, when he gave the order to abandon ship, ordered “Women and Children FIRST”. Somehow, this ended up being interpreted as “Women and Children ONLY”. And a lot of people died, quite unnecessarily, as a result of this confusion.

  41. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    Pastor Doug Wilson touched on the topic of courtly love:

    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-mortification-of-courtly-love.html

    A gallant knight would select his lady fair, somebody else’s wife, would dedicate himself to her, take a token from her, and then ride off to do great feats on her behalf and in her name. As these things often go, the celibate part of this project was sometimes honored in a less than stellar fashion, but what can you do? It was still a noble idea, right? The fact that we often wound up with four bare legs in a bed should not be allowed to dampen our youthful idealism.

    In this case, he’s relating it to the “Revoice” conference, which is an attempt to sanctify celibate homosexual relationships.

  42. Jack Russell says:

    Mohler should read up on history and stop trying to be a white kinigit. The Lusitiania was carrying weapons and munitions at the time it was sunk. From what I read, the torpedo blew up munitions which greatly damage the ship, which is why is sunk faster. There was another major ship sinking in the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Empress of Ireland struck a Norwegian ship in dense fog. This incident vanished quickly from the headlines due to WW1. There is a documentary on the Empress of Ireland. May be on Vimeo or Youtube.

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

  43. Original Laura says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    I’m more familiar with the story of the Titanic than with the Lusitania, but I did read a Hollywood mogul’s biography at some point. His small daughter was alone on the Lusitania with a nanny on the final voyage. The nanny and child were in their room when it became clear that the ship had been hit. The nanny grabbed the life jackets and the child and started running up the stairs to the upper decks. Most of the first and second class parents were in the dining rooms eating at the time of the explosion, and they ran toward their staterooms to get their children, but it was already too late, as the lower levels had already flooded.

    The child the nanny was caring for was one of the relatively few who made it out alive, and they only survived because the nanny didn’t hesitate. The circumstances and the timing of the explosion(s) meant that the children simply didn’t have time to get out.

  44. BillyS says:

    Somewhat Earl, but my grandmother did not have legal issues keeping her loyal to my grandfather after his death.

  45. Sharkly says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    God is the mode of being you value the most as demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception and action.

    Anyone care to explain this little plate of word salad?

    It appears to me that this is what he is saying:
    That how you chose to live, which is clearly shown by your actions and what you think, shows what you truly worship or deify.
    Or, Your religion is actually shown by what you do and how you think, not by what you claim to believe.

    It is sort of a statement of a pragmatic way to ascertain what a person really believes in. It doesn’t give much value to oaths or credo.
    I however think the profession of faith is important, because God asks us for it.

    Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

  46. westray says:

    “One was unable to pull the long heavy oar with any strength and Mrs. Swift took his place”

    Ugh, men….so disappointing. If men can’t have upper body strength then the women will just take that role too…ugh. Leave it to a woman to have upper body strength. Reminds of the German beer ad in which the woman shames the men in the stein holding competition.

    “Superior arm strength? Yup, that’s our space now too.”

  47. BillyS says:

    AR,

    That is why I don’t like Petersen. I think he is much more against the values I hold than many realize.

    I know hating Vox is a thing for some here, but he does have good details in almost all cases. (I disagree with some conclusions, but the facts have been accurate as far as I recall.)

  48. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: some women use sex as a weapon. This chick used a weapon to get sex.

    http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/montana-machete-assault-295730

    A machete-wielding Montana woman broke into her ex-boyfriend’s home, directed him to disrobe, and then forced him to have sex with her, according to police.

    As detailed in a criminal complaint, Samantha Mears, 19, entered the victim’s Great Falls residence Friday when he was not home. When the man returned, Mears “confronted him from behind with a machete.” Mears then allegedly told the man to “get on the bed and remove his clothes.”

    The victim told police that he complied with Mears “for fear of his safety,” adding that he “did not feel he could leave the room at that time without being hurt by Mears.”

    They grow ’em rough up there in Montana. Right, Scott?

  49. Sharkly says:

    Congratulations Scott, on your retirement, and your move to Montana. Via con Dios.

  50. earl says:

    I imagine Montana girl will get something like 90 days in prison and 2 years probation.

    Had it been the other way around the national media would pick it up…things like toxic masculinity and white privilege would be discussed ad nauseum by CNN/MSNBC/Fox anchorbots and the public would demand the man receive the death penalty.

  51. Boxer says:

    Dear Sharkly:

    It appears to me that this is what he is saying:
    That how you chose to live, which is clearly shown by your actions and what you think, shows what you truly worship or deify.
    Or, Your religion is actually shown by what you do and how you think, not by what you claim to believe.

    That’s the way I read it too… He’s basically paraphraising the “This Is Your God” scene from that great old B-movie, They Live.

    Boxer

  52. Striver says:

    Boxer and Earl,
    Women have agency. Jesus was very consistent on this point. Rebuked those who sinned, gave credit to proper behavior.
    It’s one thing to complain about women going unpunished for bad behavior. Quite another to pretend there is no way they can do good, or not do bad, that their nature is immutable, that they are somehow unlike men in the ability to sin or not sin.
    When I rebuked my ex for blowing up our family, I compared her negatively to my own mother and my sister in law. The ex was fond of saying how she was better than both these women. She isn’t, she’s worse. Because she blew up her marriage and these two women did not. Because she sinned where these women did not.
    If women can sin, they can not sin. We should be able to point out the difference. The two of you are going too far.

  53. Derek Ramsey says:

    earl – “It’s a nutty hypothetical…but what would happen if the wimminz were offered 10 grand to get on the boat and reject her husband’s wish to stay on the sinking ship?”

    It would not have made a difference.

    Whether it be chivalry, socioeconomic calculus, or the evolutionary mandate, it is in the best interest of society to save those who are least dispensable: children, those with children, and the young who may yet bear children. A woman will do whatever was required for her children, even if that meant sacrificing herself or leaving her husband to die. Few are the women that would choose differently. But the Taussig and Straus children were all adults. Both husband and wife were comparatively dispensable and they knew it. 18 year old Ruth Taussig was saved without a fuss.

    @ Dalrock – “Disgust at the captain’s decision, which exchanged large numbers of lives for romanticism.”

    There were a lot of factors at play. One was the capacity of the lifeboats and the confusion surrounding it. Another was the belief that not everyone on board could be saved. Still another was the class of individual (1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, or crew). Lack of crew training played a significant role as well. Let’s put them all aside for sake of argument and focus on WACF.

    It’s interesting to compare the boats launched from each side. Almost all of the male passengers saved were on the starboard side. On the port side, mostly women and children were saved. If all else were held constant (such as boat capacities) and both sides behaved as the starboard side, a few dozen additional lives would have been saved but many of the women and children would have been lost. It is because of the WACF policy that as many women and children were saved. Given the chaos and varying factors mentioned, it was surprisingly effective.

    It’s not clear at all from the evidence that WACF resulted in a large number of lost lives because it’s impossible to truly isolate that factor from all the other critical factors.

  54. Sharkly says:

    http://ktvq.images.worldnow.com/images/17056632_G.png?auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=800&lastEditedDate=20180625174336

    Before marriage, they’re deadly crazed for sex with you.

    Somewhere midway between that young woman, and my wife, is a healthy outlook on sexuality.

    I must be quite subtly Blue Pill programmed towards women’s crimes. Because, I wasn’t too alarmed by the young woman’s crime of breaking & entering, and armed rape, and biting him on the arm for not lasting longer during sex, but when she intentionally peed herself on his bed afterwards, that part is just wrong! What kind of crazed maniac could do that? Has she no sense of hygiene? That’s not very lady like. Her parents should be embarrassed for raising her to do that.

  55. feeriker says:

    Why don’t tradCONs just say it…they worship wimminz and chillens and want men dead.

    How many of those selfish young men went on to marry and create families…families with wimminz and chillens that wouldn’t of existed for tradCONs to worship if they young men just weren’t so selfish?

    What would make anyone think that “male” tradcons have any better grasp of logic or cause and effect than the women they worship?

  56. Nick Mgtow says:

    Dear Dalrock: I had mixed feelings about this movie. As you like Christian movies or movies with a Christian tone, you might enjoy to watch this one.

    I believe I viewed this one one Father’s day weekend.

    The Longshot. A movie about girl power, fatherhood in a bad light, matriarchy…men useful only in women’s eyes and girl power eyes…

    Best regards. Nick.

  57. ray says:

    RPL — “It’s curiously appropriate that, though the above cases occurred in different states (Oregon and Massachusetts), both were in towns called Salem. A name that evokes witchcraft.”

    Hebrew language has no word for coincidence. Doesn’t apply to their metaphysics.

    The above ‘curiosity’ is a good example why. Saturated in gleeful rebellion, whether past or present.

  58. ray says:

    BillyS — “I know hating Vox is a thing for some here, but he does have good details in almost all cases. (I disagree with some conclusions, but the facts have been accurate as far as I recall.)”

    Pointing out true things about the self-named Supreme Dark Lord is not hatred. It’s pointing out true things.

    Your kneejerk, passive-aggressive coupling of pointing out reality as ‘hating’ is typical of Feminist or Marxist tactics. Beneath a man. And here I thought you were Christian. :O)

  59. Paul says:

    Some vital pieces of information were missing:

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/26/machete-wielding-woman-forced-ex-strip-naked-climbing-top-sex-7662078/
    http://www.kfbb.com/story/38505998/machete-wielding-woman-threatens-ex

    “Then Mears and the victim engaged in intercourse during which she bit S.D. on the arm and continued having intercourse with him after he had tried to get her to stop. Afterward, Mears sat naked on the bed with the machete in hand which the victim provided multiple pictures of to investigators. An argument ensued when Mears is alleged to have ripped off a piece of trim from the wall and purposely peed on the bed.”

    “She claimed that she was the victim, had been kidnapped by her ex, and was using the machete in a bid to defend herself”

    “Mears claimed that she had been kidnapped by her ex-boyfriend and that he had given her a machete to protect herself. ”

    “According to a police report, officers who spoke to Mears were concerned she was suffering from a mental illness.”

    “Two days before the attack Mears was accused of strangling the same man and was released by cops on her own recognizance.”

    “This is not the first time, however, that Mears has shown violence towards the victim. Two days prior to this incident, Mears was released on her own recognizance after being accused of Strangulation of a Partner or Family Member, the victim in that case also being S.D.”

    “She is now charged with Aggravated Burglary, Assault With a Weapon, Unlawful Restraint, Partner or Family Member Assault, and two counts of Criminal Mischief.”

    Some points:
    – she already strangled the victim before, but no measures were taken against such domestic violence.
    – although she claimed she was kidnapped, raped and abused, the police did belief the man in this case
    – she is not charged with rape
    – the police couldn’t believe her behavior and thought it was the result of a mental illness.

  60. Opus says:

    Despite any appearances that might suggest otherwise American and England are quite different. In England if you have a Television set then you must be licensed to own it and the cost is now £145.00 per annum which is even more in $$$$$. It is no longer the case that owning a Dog requires a licence and it was never the case as is suggested on Monty Python that a Cat required a licence (it’s a joke). I think that is perfectly clear and Americans who cannot understand this reveal their strangeness.

    So far as dark-skinned people playing English Kings and the like on Television it is only the inherent dislike of fellow countrymen in Americans that makes this seem strange. Unlike America no Briton was ever (as we sing) a slave and so there is thus no possibility in English Television of giving the role of a slave or native person to either a black person or a (tomahawk) Indian because we did not have any and we have to provide work for our Black actors. We are in any case colour blind – just look at our soccer team in Moscow! – you had to check the shirt to know who were and who were not the Tunisians though we did thump the Panamanians 6-0.

    Although you never see a Negro or Asian in old newsreels it would not be entirely true to say that there weren’t any dark-skinned people in England before the recent influx – Wordsworth in The Prelude when writing of London refers to the negresses in their fine Muslin, Gandhi studied in London where he was admitted to the Bar and Samuel Coleridge Taylor the composer of Hiawatha had a Scottish Mother and Nigerian Father and was given considerable assistance by none other than Edward Elgar. So you see we are not like you but we don’t like being invaded, either by Germans, the French or anyone else though it looks even if it is not the case as if that is what has now happened. It is difficult to deny that we hate Frogs and Krauts far more than those from our former Colonies (now renamed Commonwealth – but we all know that is code for colony). We are always happy to see foreigners – and equally happy to see the back of them, too.

  61. Jim Christian says:

    Feckless. Yes, it is the men who are feckless.

  62. Boxer says:

    Dear Striver:

    Women have agency. Jesus was very consistent on this point. Rebuked those who sinned, gave credit to proper behavior. It’s one thing to complain about women going unpunished for bad behavior. Quite another to pretend there is no way they can do good, or not do bad, that their nature is immutable, that they are somehow unlike men in the ability to sin or not sin.

    There’s no question you’re correct about this. Christianity (and similar disciplines) is about convincing people that repressing and sublimating their instincts is in their long-term interests. My main goal, in trying to deconstruct instinct, is to try getting at strategies of manipulating people into overcoming them.

    At this point I don’t want to paraphrase him (because I don’t think I completely understand the details) but Dalrock has identified two competing instincts in female behavior. I think it’s valuable to understand people’s basic drives. You’re of course correct, in alluding to men having instinct also. Contemporary society still does a good job at repressing male instinct.

    When I rebuked my ex for blowing up our family, I compared her negatively to my own mother and my sister in law. The ex was fond of saying how she was better than both these women. She isn’t, she’s worse. Because she blew up her marriage and these two women did not. Because she sinned where these women did not. If women can sin, they can not sin. We should be able to point out the difference. The two of you are going too far.

    I can’t speak for Earl, but I don’t know if I am going far enough. There are females who give themselves over entirely to instinct, and just do what they want, from one moment to the next. I call these females ‘wimminz’ and condemn them. How am I being unfair to them, specifically? It seems like I’m just making general claims that are similar to your own criticism of your ex (which you were right to make).

    Best,

    Boxer

  63. rocko says:

    “Is this submission, or is it merely self-interest?”

    Definitely both. Especially if we see how “strong and empowered” wymminz in the entertainment industry like Khloe Kardashian act once they find their rich and powerful “alpha”. They’ll act like submissive housefraus.

  64. Striver says:

    Boxer,

    Jesus was not a sociologist. He did not care about how people were raised, their environment. He evidently lived in a pluralistic society where there was a large mix. The woman at the well with the five ex husbands? Obviously, even back in that day she was able to get away with her behavior in whatever peer group she was in.

    Jesus expected everyone, including that woman, to know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of societal conditions or upbringing. It’s a central theme. The woman at the well knew what she was doing was wrong even without Jesus. My ex knows what she is doing is wrong, regardless of how easy or hard society makes it. My mother was a good wife to my father, went above and beyond the minimum requirements. Even back then it was quite possible for a woman to be a shrewish, gossipy, contentious wife. I saw others.

    So I think the woman on the Titanic was capable of knowing right and wrong and acting accordingly, not just calculating her self interest. Or staying with her husband because of “tingles.”

  65. Oscar says:

    rocko,

    They’ll act like submissive housefraus.

    I wouldn’t go that far.

  66. Oscar says:

    Striver,

    The woman at the well with the five ex husbands? Obviously, even back in that day she was able to get away with her behavior in whatever peer group she was in.

    Not entirely. The fact that she was drawing water at midday indicates ostracism. Women drew water in the morning. They still do in places where that’s still a daily necessity. She was likely drawing water an midday because the other women didn’t want her around.

    Also, recall that she was a Samaritan, not a Jew. The Samaritans did not follow the Law of Moses.

  67. Hmm says:

    “I read that it’s now a thing in Britain to portray the past as diverse. Modern BBC dramas depict the Victoria Era as populated by blacks and Indians, working as cops and police inspectors, workers and aristocrats, alongside whites, as though England had always been diverse.”

    One of the Shakespeare companies has indicated that they will accept people of any gender or race for any role. Hamletta, anyone?

  68. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Also, recall that she was a Samaritan, not a Jew. The Samaritans did not follow the Law of Moses.

    I thought the Samaritans accepted the first five books of the Torah. (The ones attributed to Moses.)

  69. Hazelshade says:

    Darwinian Arminian says:

    June 26, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    @Darwinian Arminian–yeoman’s work right there.

  70. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer @Sharkly

    Peterson is just another Jungian intellectual fraud who claims he knows/is like God to enter a new age. Goes back to Joachim de Fiore at least. A millennial era heralded in by a few knowledgeable (Gnostic?) elite, such as Order of the Just, Frankists, Lenin’s Vanguard, psychoanalysts, etc. Whether Jewish or Christian, the pride of knowledge really leads to the first and only heresy.

  71. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    The Jews didn’t really follow Moses well either, which is one of their ongoing problems noted in the Scriptures.

    The woman at the well was definitely not popular with the women in her town, as noted. She was alone, not one of the crowd of multiple marriage women.

  72. Damn Crackers says:

    @Opus – In honor of your British heritage and the nature of this post, I wondered if you ever watched the show Snuff Box:

  73. earl says:

    “She claimed that she was the victim, had been kidnapped by her ex, and was using the machete in a bid to defend herself”

    “Mears claimed that she had been kidnapped by her ex-boyfriend and that he had given her a machete to protect herself. ”

    What? He kidnaps her and then he gives her a weapon to protect herself?

    Honestly these victim stories women come up with after instigation are becoming more laughable by the day.

  74. Opus says:

    @Damn Crackers

    I don’t have a television and hence avoid the licence fee. I enjoyed the clip you linked.

    Vox Day has made what appears to be a compelling case against Peterson though I have to admit that some of his clips such as the one where he explains why men earn more than women are persuasive and he did make mince-meat of that Feminazi who interviewed him for C4. I observed that he was not good on history and thought little of it but Vox draws out the implications.

  75. Oscar says:

    Red Pill Latecomer,

    I thought the Samaritans accepted the first five books of the Torah. (The ones attributed to Moses.)

    It’s complicated.

    The Samaritans originated with the Syrian conquest of northern Israel, and the subsequent deportation of the vast majority of the Israelite population from the North (Samaria was its capital).

    2 Kings 17:24 The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Avva and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.

    The Samaritans blended the Law with their own pagan traditions.

    2 Kings 17:27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Take there one of the [Jewish] priests whom you carried away into exile and let him go and live there; and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land.” 28 So one of the priests whom they had carried away into exile from Samaria came and lived at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord.

    29 But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived. 30 The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, the men of Cuth made Nergal, the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31 and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 They also feared the Lord and [r]appointed from among themselves priests of the high places, who acted for them in the houses of the high places. 33 They feared the Lord and served their own gods according to the custom of the nations from among whom they had been carried away into exile.

    Although, by the 1st century, the Samaritans became more “Jewish”, we still see that blending of pagan and Jewish traditions.

    John 4:19 The woman said to Him [Jesus], “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

  76. Mad_Kalak says:

    @Opus

    Vox Day makes a case against everybody who isn’t Vox Day.

  77. Oscar says:

    By the way, that blending of Jewish and pagan traditions is one reason why the Jews separated themselves from the Samaritans.

    Another reason was the Samaritans’ opposition to the Jews rebuilding the temple and Jerusalem when Persian emperors Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes authorized them to.

    In other words, it wasn’t simple racism, as it’s often portrayed today.

    Additionally, it was understandable for the Samaritans to oppose the Jews’ return to Israel and Judah. After all, by that time the Samaritans had been living in Israel for over 200 years – roughly as long as the US has existed.

    Like I said, this stuff is complicated.

  78. Damn Crackers says:

    Even though criticisms against Peterson are valid, I do think he’s best when he sticks to what he knows, like clinical psychology and Jungian analysis (whether you believe it or not). And yes, he did have a few good take downs of liberal presenters (unfortunately, he caved to many as well).

    Peterson’s problem is his entire metaphysical system (read Maps of Meaning) is built off a hodgepodge of bits and pieces of others philosophy, evolutionary psychology, and sheer lunacy.

  79. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar…

    It’s complicated… The Samaritans originated with the Syrian conquest of northern Israel, and the subsequent deportation of the vast majority of the Israelite population from the North (Samaria was its capital)…

    This is a fantastic summary. Thanks for writing it. I know a little about the contemporary Samaritans (I’ve been to one of their synagogues, had the P.R. approved version from a tour guide) but wasn’t entirely sure they were the same people as the Biblical ones.

    The Samaritans blended the Law with their own pagan traditions.

    They make the claim that it’s the Halachic tribes who are pagans. From my perspective, both groups seem like very strict monotheists; but, they’re not my people, so I can’t know.

    There are a lot of groups that do this, and its pretty similar to the LDS / Community of Christ bickering. Both of those groups claim to be the only original Mormons, when in fact, neither group existed until a couple of generations after the foundation. It’s the narcissism of small differences at play.

    Boxer

  80. RichardP says:

    @Oscar: it was understandable for the Samaritans to oppose the Jews’ return to Israel and Judah. After all, by that time the Samaritans had been living in Israel for over 200 years …

    According to Wikipedia, the Samaritans claimed to be part of, and descendants from, three tribes of Israel. They disagreed, not over the rebuilding of the Temple, but on which location was the correct place to rebuild it. If true, then they were part of the Northern Kingdom for much longer than 200 years. And, to the extent that Samaritans migrated into the Southern Kingdom, those carried off to Babylon were only gone for 50 years or so. Any Samaritans living there would have only had the run of the place for 50 years or so, not 200. If they were displaced by returning Jews, they were only displaced from places they had taken over that were left vacant by those carried off to Babylon. The Samaritans would not have been displaced from places they were living in at the time the Jews were carried off to Babylon.

    Given that the Samaritans were part of the Northern Kingdom that the Southern Kingdom separated itself from over religious differences (simple version), and given that the Samaritans were not carried off to Babylon and so did not morph into the Rabbi-centric version of the faith that sprang up among the Jews there, it makes sense that there were serious differences of opinion between the Samaritans and the returning Jews over the proper observance of the faith as practiced by their forefathers. The Wikipedia article on Samaitans has a good overview of who the Samaritans were and are, plus a good selection of references at the bottom for further study.

  81. Oscar says:

    Boxer,

    They make the claim that it’s the Halachic tribes who are pagans. From my perspective, both groups seem like very strict monotheists; but, they’re not my people, so I can’t know.

    The Samaritans blended Jewish and pagan traditions before Christ. After Christ, the Hebrew Christians (including some of the Apostles) took the Gospel to the Samaritans, and Samaria essentially Christianized.

    5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them. 6 The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the [d]signs which he was performing. 7 For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. 8 So there was much rejoicing in that city.

    14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

    The Bible doesn’t record what happened after the Apostles, and I’m not familiar with Samaritan history from then until now, so I don’t have a strong opinion either way.

  82. RichardP says:

    Boxer posted while I was typing. The Northern and Southern Kingdoms separated in large part over differences in how their faith should be carried out. The Samaritans were part of the Northern Kingdom – which had originally been part of the whole of the 12 Tribes of Israel. So – in this case – the Samaritans would not have been making any claim to being the “original” anything, as did the “Mormons” in Boxer’s example. Historically the evidence strongly suggest that the Samaritans were part of the original. The argument is not over who was original but over whose intepretation and observance of the faith of their fathers most closely resembled the actual faith of their fathers. The expression of faith observed by the Samaritans was part of the expression of faith of the whole Northern Kingdom before those ten tribes were carried off and lost to history.

    An aside, but still sort of related: In the Bible, Jesus claimed that he came to his own (those of the Southern Kingdom) and his own did not receive him. It would be interesting to know, if the Northern Kingdom had not been carried off but still existed at the time of Jesus, whether the Northern Kingdom would have accepted or rejected Jesus.

  83. Oscar says:

    RichardP,

    According to Wikipedia, the Samaritans claimed to be part of, and descendants from, three tribes of Israel.

    They were, probably. The Assyrians did not deport all of the Israelites. In fact, King Hezekiah of Judah sent them an invitation to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem after the deportation.

    2 Chronicles 30:5 So they established a decree to circulate a proclamation throughout all Israel from Beersheba even to Dan [northern Israel], that they should come to celebrate the Passover to the Lord God of Israel at Jerusalem. For they had not celebrated it in great numbers as it was prescribed. 6 The couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with the letters from the hand of the king and his princes, even according to the command of the king, saying, “O sons of Israel, return to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that He may return to those of you who escaped and are left from the hand of the kings of Assyria.”

    But the Israelites left in northern Israel (Samaria) were still unfaithful.

    2 Chronicles 30:10 So the couriers passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them.

    The Samaritans were (are) descendants of both the unfaithful Israelites left by the Assyrians, and the people the Assyrians brought in to replace the Israelits they deported, but mostly the foreigners brought in by the Assyrians. The Samaritans were both nationally mixed, and religiously mixed.

    That was precisely the problem. Like I said, it’s complicated.

    If true, then they were part of the Northern Kingdom for much longer than 200 years. And, to the extent that Samaritans migrated into the Southern Kingdom, those carried off to Babylon were only gone for 50 years or so. Any Samaritans living there would have only had the run of the place for 50 years or so, not 200. If they were displaced by returning Jews, they were only displaced from places they had taken over that were left vacant by those carried off to Babylon. The Samaritans would not have been displaced from places they were living in at the time the Jews were carried off to Babylon.

    You’re overlooking a very obvious point. The Samaritans knew that if the Jews returned to Judah, eventually the Jews would displace the Samaritans, not only in Judah, but in Israel as a whole, which is exactly what happened. After all, by Christ’s time, Galilee was, once again, part of Israel. Galilee is the northern limit of Israel.

    By Christ’s time, the Samaritans had been relegated to a minority population that occupied a small region around the city of Samaria.

    My point is that the Jews had concrete reasons for their animosity towards the Samaritans, and the Samaritans had concrete reasons for their animosity towards the Jews. It wasn’t simple bigotry, as most Christians assume today.

  84. earl says:

    ‘It would be interesting to know, if the Northern Kingdom had not been carried off but still existed at the time of Jesus, whether the Northern Kingdom would have accepted or rejected Jesus.’

    From what I read in the brief story at least that town the Samaritian woman was from accepted Him as it says many of them came to believe.

  85. earl says:

    It’s one thing to complain about women going unpunished for bad behavior. Quite another to pretend there is no way they can do good, or not do bad, that their nature is immutable, that they are somehow unlike men in the ability to sin or not sin.

    Where did I say they could do no good? They have free will choice as much as men do.

    What I don’t like is when they rationalize their bad behavior by saying they had no control over it…like they have no agency. When in contrast you never hear a woman rationalize their good behavior by saying they had no control over praying to God or submitting to their husband.

  86. Gary Eden says:

    I find it interesting this bastion of anti-feminism struggles to understand why a wife would rather die with her husband than live without him.

    It’s not just self interest. Nor is it fear or submission. It’s much much deeper than that, and the reason highlights how foreign marriage then is to our thinking today.

    You could put it this way: she loves him so much she can’t imagine life without him. That alone is foreign to most marriages today. But it is deeper than that, much deeper.. A good marriage becomes ‘one flesh’. In that her purpose and identity mold with him. She exists to serve and please him; without him her life becomes meaningless.

    This is deeper than love; it is identity, meaning, being.

    You see a glimpse of this in the old ways of formal address. My wife wouldn’t go by ‘her name’, or even ‘Mrs. her name’, but ‘Mrs. Gary Eden’.

  87. earl says:

    ‘Why did you cook that delicious meal for your husband and family?’

    It just happened…I had no control over the produce, the recipe, the pots and pans. It’s their fault this meal happened.

  88. Oscar says:

    Earl,

    I swear, the smoker and the fridge conspired with each other last weekend to smoke those ribs!

  89. BillyS says:

    It was the Assyrians, not the Syrians. I am not sure the exact territorial difference compared to now, but they were different nations then.

  90. BillyS says:

    The split between North and South was because of those picking a non-Davidic king. That is not a minor religious difference. It was what God allowed though. None of the kings in the North (which became known as Israel) were faithful to God’s Law. The South had its struggles and ultimately failed, but a few kings did well there.

    The Samaritans were a result of the Assyrians moving in other peoples into the area after the conquered it, mixing with a few that somehow escaped the movement from the North of those who were already there (at the same time). Things went bad for those who moved in, so Assyria had some religious figures come in to teach them a variant of Jewish belief and that stopped the bad things (like severe lion attacks) so it got integrated into the society.

    Thus the Biblical evidence is that they did not have the direct connection to Jacob, for example, that the lady at the well claimed.

  91. BillyS says:

    [2Ki 17:24-28, 32-33 NKJV] 24 Then the king of Assyria brought [people] from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed [them] in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities. 25 And it was so, at the beginning of their dwelling there, [that] they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed [some] of them. 26 So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, “The nations whom you have removed and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the rituals of the God of the land; therefore He has sent lions among them, and indeed, they are killing them because they do not know the rituals of the God of the land.” 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Send there one of the priests whom you brought from there; let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the rituals of the God of the land.” 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD. … 32 So they feared the LORD, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. 33 They feared the LORD, yet served their own gods–according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away.

    More could be copied, but this indicates they had little tie to those of Jewish descent that were originally there, except for perhaps the priests that were brought back in.

    Note that the Scriptures earlier state that Jews from all the Tribes migrated South when the split came, so all the Tribes were present in the South, contrary to some who claim otherwise. They were also part of the later return under Ezra and Nehemiah. Nothing more (that I know of) is said about the Samaritans.

  92. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    [2Ki 17:23 NKJV] 23 until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, [as it is] to this day.

    The indication here is that all were removed.

    Am I missing someplace where it says otherwise?

  93. Oscar says:

    Billy,

    Yes, you’re missing 2 Chronicles 30, which I already quoted above.

  94. Back living in the Bay Area of Califonia….and found an excellent Indian restaurant where I live (no buffet which means better than average).

    In traditional India restaurants MEN wait tables, and women cook the food. This place upheld this. I came in with my spring / summer parka on, looking all rude-boy. I enjoyed a spicy….burning, on fire
    meal of chicken tika marsala, stuffed onion-garlic kulcha, nana, rice, and two cups of hot marsala tea.

    The meal was delicious, service was excellent and my waiter was ethnic Indian but had a British accent. He was born and raised in ‘west London’

    Not one of the women who worked there made a peep. It was an enjoyable meal. A few couples, but no clatches of women sqawking about what was bothering them at the moment. The decor was a ‘british colonial viceroy’ feel. I liked it. I will be back and hopefully no rowing women will ruin this place.

  95. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 2:37 pm:
    “The split between North and South was because of those picking a non-Davidic king. That is not a minor religious difference. It was what God allowed though.”

    The split occurred as a response to Solomon’s oppressive tyranny and Rehoboam’s threat to double down. The only two tribes that didn’t leave were Judah, David’s tribe and presumably the designated beneficiary of the oppression, and Benjamin which was so close to Judah-controlled Jerusalem that it probably didn’t have a choice.

    The only reason Jeroboam didn’t work out was he taught the people to worship at the high places instead of Jerusalem. Guess he didn’t want all those valuable offerings going to his political rival.

    @ 2:46 pm:
    “The indication here is that all were removed. Am I missing someplace where it says otherwise?”

    Jeremiah 52:15-16: “Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile some of the poorest people and those who remained in the city, along with the rest of the craftsmen and those who had deserted to the king of Babylon.But Nebuzaradan left behind the rest of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields.”

  96. RichardP says:

    Re the origina of the Samaritans – the Wikipedia article covers this subject fairly well, with resources listed at the end of the article for further study. It is also useful to click on the link to the tribe of Ephraim that is given there.

    The Samaritans claim to be descended from 3 of the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom. It is a rare blood line, if there are any, that remains pure – so it is probably that some foreign blood was mixed into the Samaritan group. But not overwhelmingly so.

    From here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

    Genetically, modern Samaritan populations are found to have “much greater affinity” genetically to Jews than to neighbouring Palestinian Arabs.[17] This suggests that the Samaritans remained a genetically isolated population.

  97. Oscar says:

    Gunner,

    Jeremiah 52 covers the Babylonian deportation of Judah, not the Assyrian deportation of Israel.

  98. Oscar says:

    RichardP

    Genetically, modern Samaritan populations are found to have “much greater affinity” genetically to Jews than to neighbouring Palestinian Arabs.

    I see no one here claiming that the Samaritans are related to the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs arrived with the Muslim conquests, around 635 AD.

    The Samaritans are descendants of the people that the Assyrians moved to Israel to replace the Israelite population they deported, and the Israelites the Assyrians left in Israel.

  99. Oscar says:

    The Assyrian conquest of Samaria took place in 720 BC, 1,355 years before the Palestinian Arabs arrived. They’re completely separate issues.

  100. Lost Patrol says:

    @ seventiesjason

    Off to a good start it seems. Are you going to update Airstrip One with your initial impressions of the new job and digs?

  101. Yes, LP. I have been very busy. Setting up my new bank account was a hassle. My demands at work are actually a bit stressful. Tons of new software systems to learn for billing, work orders, contracting, purchase orders, sub-contractor negotiation. I am the property manager at the largest office building in Santa Rosa, not huge…but ten floors. The property is full, and is a higher end professional / office complex for the region.

    I am doing well considering. The tenants like that there is a manager on property, and with my style……..a personal visit is always better than a form, or phone call, or a “go to the web-page and click on this link” My admin is my age, was probably a real looker back in 1992 (as we all were).

    I am enacting late fees. Tenants always pay, but we have folks paying all over the place when they “feel” or “remember” paying the rent. In August I have already implemented “rent is due no later than the 5th of the month” or late fees will be levied”

    Several tenants (the women owners of business) have already told me “I have no right….” and indeed I do. The lease states, that they all signed that the property manager has full right to levy late fees if rent and building financials are an issue.

    They are.

    A funny story involving a mom and rebellious teenage daughter in the building lobby. Lots of yelling. Noise. Cussing. I came out of the office and “offered to help clear this matter up” (in my business friendly language means: TAKE IT OUTSIDE).

    The Santa Rosa Police were called. I will elaborate on my site soon.

    My supervisor likes what he sees in me so far, and the unit I have in the building is awesome. I am the only person who lives on property, and its on the ground floor, but secluded on the back side and I have a large patio and small yard. Not the best place (built in the 1980’s) but it does have a laundry hookup, and dishwasher. About the size of my one bedroom apt in Fresno. I can come up the alley, open the iron gate, then roll up to my patio, and I have access from the patio to the alley and I can park my scooter safely on my own patio!

    It’s a nice city and the north San Francisco Bay is great, quaint and very smug liberal in general. I’ll be fine.

  102. That was very interesting, Darwinian Arminian. Thank you.

  103. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 4:49 pm:
    “A funny story involving a mom and rebellious teenage daughter in the building lobby. … The Santa Rosa Police were called. I will elaborate on my site soon.”

    Kewl.

    “It’s a nice city and the north San Francisco Bay is great, quaint and very smug liberal in general. I’ll be fine.”

    Excellent. Life owed you a good break.

  104. RichardP says:

    @Oscare: The Samaritans are descendants of the people that the Assyrians moved to Israel …

    That is a repeat of what you already said. I provided information that says the Samaritans disagree with you. The Samaritans claim that they already existed before the movement of outside folks that you refer to took place. No one is debating whether that movement of outside folks into the northern parts of Israel took place. What is being debated is whether that is what started the Samaritan clan. Can you provide any evidence, or links to evidence, other than simply repeating the moved some folks in … ?

  105. Cloudbuster says:

    I find the whole rowing story hard to believe. I first rowed a boat probably in my pre-teens. It’s not rocket science. I find it almost impossible to believe that four male stewards were unable to row unless they were seriously injured. This was in a time when all but the most privileged of men lived quite physical, active lives from a modern perspective.

  106. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Cloudbuster

    That was my first thought also upon reading the account. If a man of middling intelligence has never pulled an oar in his life it might take all of 3 minutes for him to figure out how to make it work. Another 3 minutes for four rookies to figure out cooperative rowing and make headway.

  107. Boxer says:

    I see no one here claiming that the Samaritans are related to the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs arrived with the Muslim conquests, around 635 AD.

    Testimony from modern Samaritans, genealogical records, and DNA testing refutes this.

    Fayyad Altif: ‘when Islam came, because it believes only in one god, Samaritans found it very easy to move to it. Also because of the pressure they suffered during the early Islamic period, when many Samaritans moved to Islam until there were only five families left in all the Middle East.(18) I don’t know how they gathered together but they understood that they must come to live together in Nablus, because it is very near to Mount Gerizim. From that time on the community lived only in Nablus’.(19)

    http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/I/Ireton_S_01.htm

    The Jewish folk religion developed the same way all other religions did, and it splintered along the way. Modern Halachic Jews and contemporary Samaritans seem to both be descended from the same original Canaanite people. See Coggins. Samaritans and Jews. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1975. for another source.

    Best,

    Boxer

  108. Oscar says:

    RichardP

    That is a repeat of what you already said.

    No. That’s a dishonest edit of what I wrote. By cutting the sentence in half, you changed its meaning. Deal with my entire statement honestly, and we can converse.

  109. seventiesjason says:

    rowing a lifeboat full of people the “high cold sea” is not easy…….almost like a teaspoon stirring the ocean……..one woman doing this….all-by-herself I find very, very hard to believe. I am not a sailor…..but I have taken many a canoe / guideboat directly into headwind on countless Adirondack lakes and ponds. Not an easy feat to keep trim and moving into a wind. I cannot imagine what it would be like on the ocean…….and rowing…..WHERE??????????? New York City a thousand miles away or whatever….the British isles far behind maybe just as far…….

    That sister ship that rescued many of the survivors camr to the rescue…..rowing????? slap my butt white but there wasn’t much “rowing” going on out there

  110. Opus says:

    @Jason

    the difficulties of setting up a new bank account – you and me both – tell me about it!. Glad to know your move already seems to be working out for the better.

    Your observations as to the pointless of rowing – where? – is excellent.

    I saw an old documentary on Youtube that seemed persuasive and which asserted that the ship lieing at the bottom of the sea is not Titanic but its sister ship Olympic – names switched – insurance scam. Either way a ship sank, there were insufficient life-boats and those life-boats such as they were, were not as they should have been, full. You do realise: this was a British disaster.

  111. seventiesjason says:

    California has two large evil banks……Bank of America and Wells Fargo. No one out here can figure how these banks are still in business. Lousy service. High fees. Businesses use them, so probably that’s why.

    I joined a credit union up here. It’s been almost three weeks and I am finally getting the whole thing in line. I should have just kept my money in SACU (Salvation Army Credit Union).

    I thnak God I took out most of my cash before I opened this new account, or I would have been up the creek. Really up the creek.

    Britain has had plenty of disasters in its long history. Burgoyne at Saratoga comes to mind in 1777. Always the big kids on the block get more attention for when something goes wrong than when something goes right!

    June 2019. I am taking you to dinner / drinks when I am in London!

  112. BillyS says:

    It seems Boxer and RichardP completely ignore or discount the Scriptures, though not surprising. I noted the clear evidence there, which some of us take quite seriously.

  113. RedPillNoob says:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44399028

    @Dalrock would love to hear your comments on this and how it shows the feminine-primary market it growing in the “professional world”.

  114. Sharkly says:

    June 27, 2018 at 12:53 pm
    Gary Eden says:
    I find it interesting this bastion of anti-feminism struggles to understand why a wife would rather die with her husband than live without him. … she loves him … But it is deeper than that, much deeper.. A good marriage becomes ‘one flesh’. In that her purpose and identity mold with him. She exists to serve and please him; without him her life becomes meaningless.
    This is deeper than love; it is identity, meaning, being.

    Great comment!
    A widow’s life still has meaning, but it is usually far more trivial, and they often wax wanton against Christ. I understand choosing to go out at your best, rather than descend into irrelevance and decrepitude after the loss of one’s greatest purpose.

    1 Timothy 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man. 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

    I also noticed that it was the woman(now a widow) who was expected to have been washing the feet of the saints. Funny, the false teaching churchians told me that only the “servant-leader” (husband) was to be doing that and every other sort of thing for her, because Christ said that in the church(not the family) those who would lead, should be the servant of all, and he demonstrated this through the sacrament, washing their sins away with His blood, foreshown by washing them symbolically with water. Somehow, that is used to reverse God’s Patriarchy and make me perpetual houseboy to the holy vagina in the family realm, and yet in the church realm, the hirelings don’t serve me as plainly commanded by Jesus, but instead slander husbands like me from the pulpit. The churchians preach an intentionally backwards and bizarre reversing of God’s stated intent on so many matters now.

    I quit going to hear the paid hirelings. And now I fellowship here. I get a lot more interaction here, and the anonymity of the internet emboldens many for Christ. At church, the hirelings can’t be offending their flock of rebellious whores with talk about them helping their husbands.

    FWIW, I wanted to wash my wife with water, but due to her ‘Intimacy Anorexia’, she was intentionally too frigid to let me. And when I washed her with the Word, it got reported as verbal abuse to churchian hirelings who contradicted the Bible(based upon their feeling that Christ wants me to be perpetually defrauded and accepting of it) and insulted me for it, and then, God’s word consequently unheeded, it got reported to divorce court. One pussy hat wearing preacher even told my wife to get a restraining order with the divorce, because she wouldn’t ever be “safe” from my beating her up with Bible verses. Fortunately a secular court worker dissuaded her, saying that would prevent any chance of reconciliation, which she is publically pretending she wants, while privately she engages in evil distancing behaviors to prevent intimacy, and has refused all invitations to get joint marriage counseling.

  115. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock,

    I have noticed that you recently had a spate of posts about Chivalry/courtly love and how Feminism can be traced back through there. Some people questioning some of your points made very good points themselves. As though your bias in scouring of old bard tales for traces of feminism left you less than scholarly in some of your conclusions. I defer to your intuition about this sort of thing, as I wasn’t around when chivalry was in its heyday. But, I wonder what the purpose is in tracing Feminism’s roots back through there? Is this leading up to some grand unified theory of Feminism through history?
    William Shakespeare said:
    Life is as tedious as a twice-told tale,
    Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.

    I guess I’m at a loss for the relevance of those posts?

    If we take the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, we realize that the #MeToo movement and husbands White Knighting for their women, even putting innocent men in prison, is older than the pyramids! And Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, murdered a whole town in revenge of her honor. I think we can say that elements of female rebellion run all the way back to Eve. And Adam listened to her instead of God. If Feminism, and female rebellion is traceable from sometime after day 8, what is the significance of linking it to chivalry and courtly love? Clearly it is a sin that has been with us from the beginning. And clearly men have felt led to protect women, often even from consequences, since forever also. Thus men usually enable women’s rebellion at least to some degree. I see no shortage of relevant current events. Why the medieval predilection? Why draw at the anachronistic threads of chivalry now fading into obscurity? If you were even to unravel all of chivalry, then what? Shall we curse our fathers for their ignorance while we enable far worse excesses? Do you surmise this historical exploration of middle age chivalry will lead us to the way out from Feminism? Do you think that was the sole path it came in by? I’m curious why, being the Christian manosphere “eye of Sauron”, you chose to now spotlight on arcane chivalric literature?

  116. Jim Christian says:

    Instead of trying to change White feminists, maybe we should replace them with minorities. White feminism is the problem. The answer resides in the win of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NYC this week. Weaponize the races against the White feminists of the Democrat Party and we’ll see change and quickly.

  117. Jim Christian says:

    Give White women no where else to go, they’ll come back home, so to speak. There is a White power structure at the top of the Liberal entities of academia and the Democrat Party. Smash it and you will have smashed feminism. Weaponize women of color against White feminists in power. Thoughts?

  118. Gunner Q says:

    Jim Christian @ 7:21 am:
    “Instead of trying to change White feminists, maybe we should replace them with minorities.”

    It didn’t help in California. This was a unanimous decision:
    http://gunnerq.com/2018/06/29/fried-ice-the-handgun-edition/

  119. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is anti-diversity. It should be scrapped: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/opinion/2018/06/26/ode-to-joy-has-an-odious-history-lets-give-beethovens-most-overplayed-symphony-a-rest.html

    The author suggests that Canadian symphonies should instead promote Canadian composers.

    We have the 19th-century ideal of strength in unity — expressed in the “Ode to Joy” — scraping up uneasily against a 21st-century ideal of strength in diversity. The change in perspective makes some people afraid and angry. It makes others hopeful and optimistic.

    Until we see whether we can achieve a paradigm shift or whether we fall back into something like the genocidal chaos of the mid-20th century, I think we should press pause on Beethoven’s Ninth.

    I, personally, would be satisfied to never hear it again. …

    Besides, shouldn’t we be encouraging — and showcasing — Canadian composers who might be able to galvanize us into attention with something homegrown?

  120. Boxer says:

    Give White women no where else to go, they’ll come back home, so to speak. There is a White power structure at the top of the Liberal entities of academia and the Democrat Party. Smash it and you will have smashed feminism. Weaponize women of color against White feminists in power. Thoughts?

    Why would you want these feminist sluts “back home,” and what sort of hell do you think that a feminist will raise, once she gets there? Who will pick up that bill? It will have to be the specific simps that want to serve them, rather than the general male population.

  121. BillyS says:

    They would have to have the bottom completely come out of their life view. Just having them back home would just corrupt home as Boxer notes.

  122. BillyS says:

    Sharkly,

    The fact that Joseph wasn’t killed by Potiphar indicates that he didn’t believe the charge, but that he felt compelled to take action. He would have executed Joseph if he believed the charge.

    A question that is never addressed is how many other slaves she did sleep with. Not great for Potiphar. I can’t believe that Joseph was the only attractive male slave. That is outside the point of the story though, so we don’t know more.

  123. Jim Christian says:

    Boxer: I really don’t care where the current generation goes. But their children, seeing they have no place there at the DNC might come to the realization of their biological imperative. Blacks and Mexicans, etc., WILL close out White women. White women are only strong under the protection racket staffed by White men. With White men disinterested (and with no power in any case) in the feminist interest, where will White women then GO? Looking at the landscape, they won’t have many options. The faster this process occurs, the better.

  124. Jim Christian says:

    They would have to have the bottom completely come out of their life view. Just having them back home would just corrupt home as Boxer notes.

    They would come back with a radically-altered attitude.

  125. Jim Christian says:

    “Instead of trying to change White feminists, maybe we should replace them with minorities.”
    It didn’t help in California. This was a unanimous decision:
    http://gunnerq.com/2018/06/29/fried-ice-the-handgun-edition/

    They’re all White. White feminists need to be flushed from liberal bastions. Sooner the better.

  126. Gunner Q says:

    Jim Christian @ 10:08 am:
    “They’re all White.”

    They’re obviously not and the proof is in their names. From courts.ca.gov, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye is the first Asian-Filipina and second woman Chief Justice. Other judges: Ming Chen, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Leondra Kruger and now-retired Kathryn Werdega. Does that sound like a Johnson family reunion?

    Racially colorblind men shouldn’t try to “weaponize women of color against White feminists in power”. You aren’t tall enough for your own ride.

  127. Boxer says:

    Dear Jim Christian:

    Boxer: I really don’t care where the current generation goes. But their children, seeing they have no place there at the DNC might come to the realization of their biological imperative. Blacks and Mexicans, etc., WILL close out White women. White women are only strong under the protection racket staffed by White men. With White men disinterested (and with no power in any case) in the feminist interest, where will White women then GO? Looking at the landscape, they won’t have many options. The faster this process occurs, the better.

    You’re assuming that all pale-skinned people ought to be of one mind on things. Note: to the racial purists among my people, you’re all objectively mystery meat scum, and you have much more in common with mestizos than with us. Those of us who marry one of you (no matter how ‘white’ you might look) are subtly ostracized.

    Most of the so-called white people, who push white nationalism here, are objectively not white at all. Scott, who is an interesting guy, and a great writer, is a Serb. No disrespect, but Serbs are a 100% mixed-race population. Same goes for the “dark lord” Vox, who many of you guys worship. He claims to be a Native American.

    The bottom line is that so-called white nationalists want healthy white people, who care about their families and communities, to give up those meaningful loyalties, and throw their money behind foreign people, simply based on pale-skin. There’s a lot of diversity among the peoples you want to lump together, which is why this is neither viable nor healthy.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  128. Boxer says:

    It seems Boxer and RichardP completely ignore or discount the Scriptures, though not surprising. I noted the clear evidence there, which some of us take quite seriously.

    You’re criticizing most devout Christians, with this bit of sophistry…

    https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=72851

    The bible isn’t a textbook on history or anthropology. Many of the stories contained in it were meaningful adaptations from earlier works (like the Sumerian heroes that became Noah and Moses, etc.)

    Boxer

  129. Gunner Q says:

    “Many of the stories contained in it were meaningful adaptations from earlier works (like the Sumerian heroes that became Noah and Moses, etc.)”

    How do you know they didn’t get the stories from us?

  130. Boxer says:

    How do you know they didn’t get the stories from us?

    By “us,” who do you mean?

    Those stories (Gilgamesh, Sargon of Akkad) were extant a thousand years before Jews existed, and were being told 2500 years before Jesus.

    The bible acknowledges this itself, by listing Abraham as a guy who departed Ur.

    Boxer

  131. Opus says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    I have difficulty with the last movement of Beethoven 9 and really wish he had stuck with a purely orchestral finale indeed he originally wrote such but in the event it became the finale of the Opus 130 String Quartet. Did you know that Beethoven 9 was a British Commission? and so Canadians should be loyally proud to play it.

  132. “This desire for needless sacrifice of men is downright grotesque.”

    It truly is. It’s almost as if men aren’t men unless they are being cast aside like chaff.

  133. Gunner Q says:

    “Those stories (Gilgamesh, Sargon of Akkad) were extant a thousand years before Jews existed, and were being told 2500 years before Jesus.”

    Ah, okay. You were just saying the legends predate the Bible. It’s common these days to hear claims that the Christianity is a pastiche of other religions but that wasn’t the point you were making.

    Never mind.

  134. earl says:

    Most of the so-called white people, who push white nationalism here, are objectively not white at all.

    I have no clue what white nationalism is anymore or what counts as being a ‘white’ person. Is it the amount of melanin in your skin, where your fathers came from, what special track of land your fathers held, which Nordic god you worship? It seems like it’s the boogie man the left likes to use to incite fear in the other races.

  135. Jim Christian says:

    Jews, Whites, tomato, tomahtoe. When the darker, brillow-headed minorities and wise Latinas start in on Whites in the DNC, you’ll see, there will be an exodus. Already with Obama, with Lynch, it’s a giant matriarchy. And the colors are getting their share. They’ll wind up with MORE than their share. In that Party, they’re going to wind up with all of it. They’re nibbling at the edges everywhere. Sharks, and blood is on the water. White feminists are going to give it up. And it’s going to happen far faster than you think. After all, the last White Democrat President was Bill Clinton. All the Whites since, losers. Groundwork is laid, White feminists lose elections. Blacks win. Latinas win.

    You can’t fight Demographics. Top it off, White women have been aborting for 50 years now, too. Not as many to begin with. But they started all this, it will be ok to see them to their end. White feminists are truly the enemy of men and their institutions for the past 60 years. I have absolutely no reason to see them, as a political entity, survive.

  136. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    Ah, okay. You were just saying the legends predate the Bible. It’s common these days to hear claims that the Christianity is a pastiche of other religions but that wasn’t the point you were making.

    I don’t even understand what pastiche of other religions entails. Christianity is its own religion, or at least, it’s its own family of religions (Catholics, Protestants, etc.)

    Christianity is certainly syncretic, in that it incorporates earlier good ideas. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Augustine all endorsed the adoption of Hellenistic philosophical ideas into Christianity. That’s not really a big deal. All religions seem to have borrowed earlier ideas and compiled them.

    What the evangelical atheists will tell you is that Christianity is “not true” because there isn’t any historical evidence for many stories in Christian texts. What the atheist types really mean is that Christianity is “not useful.” They won’t ever say this explicitly, because they can’t back that claim up. They simply want to equivocate. I know, because a lot of them are my friends, and I’m the type of sadist who enjoys making them chase their tails.

    As far as truth goes, you can always point to mathematical expressions. The phrase “two and two equals four” is not strictly true, either. There isn’t any such metaphysical being that corresponds to the subjects of that proposition. Where’s “two” at? What does “two” smell like? The reality is that lots of consistent systems are very useful, despite the fact that they don’t correspond to facts in the world. Arithmetic is one such system. Christianity is another.

    People who argue with you have a duty to explain why Christianity is any less useful than mathematics, and they can’t. And that’s that.

    Best,

    Boxer

  137. Boxer says:

    Jews, Whites, tomato, tomahtoe. When the darker, brillow-headed minorities and wise Latinas start in on Whites in the DNC, you’ll see, there will be an exodus. Already with Obama, with Lynch, it’s a giant matriarchy. And the colors are getting their share. They’ll wind up with MORE than their share. In that Party, they’re going to wind up with all of it. They’re nibbling at the edges everywhere. Sharks, and blood is on the water.

    None of these groups of people have anything in common with me. None of them have anything in common with you, either. So, who cares?

    White feminists are going to give it up. And it’s going to happen far faster than you think. After all, the last White Democrat President was Bill Clinton. All the Whites since, losers. Groundwork is laid, White feminists lose elections. Blacks win. Latinas win.

    I should care about Bill Clinton; just because he shares my complexion? Why?

    Suppose I had a choice. I could go live in public housing, for free, among the whitest people on earth, namely, Afghan refugees; or, I could live next to Scott, who posts on Dalrock.

    By your logic, I should choose to live in welfare haven with the Afghans, rather than next door to the descendant of Mongolian Turks, Semites and Slavs. After all, it’s more important to be close to people that I have a common ancestor with, than it is to have a decent neighborhood to call home, with a well-educated neighbor who is concerned with the family life. Never mind the fact that my relatives speak an alien language, have unfamiliar customs, and a nefarious, unpredictable propensity for incredible violence.

    Do you see how silly this all sounds?

    You can’t fight Demographics. Top it off, White women have been aborting for 50 years now, too. Not as many to begin with. But they started all this, it will be ok to see them to their end. White feminists are truly the enemy of men and their institutions for the past 60 years. I have absolutely no reason to see them, as a political entity, survive.

    One of the great upsides of feminism is the fact that it is a genetic dead end. If you really believe in all this HBD stuff, then you should celebrate the fact that the feminists are busy aborting the genes that caused them to be susceptible to it in the first place. I find that a tenuous ethical position, but I do understand it.

    Some of the worst White women are Mormon women. Those who are feminists are are my relatives, and I don’t give a damn what happens to them. They’re troublemakers, who need to be humbled.

    Boxer

  138. earl says:

    One of the great upsides of feminism is the fact that it is a genetic dead end.

    It’s a genetic dead end like homosexuality…but like homosexuality they recruit the next generation into their ethos. And it’s not hard to see the means they do it with…academia, the idiot box, advertisements, general forcing from the state. Until this changes where more fathers and mothers keep the marriage together and teach and guide their children they will be a player.

    Besides we’ve already seen white female feminism morph into the ‘intersectionality’ nonsense. They aren’t giving it up…they are already mutating it.

  139. Sharkly says:

    Gunner Q says:
    Racially colorblind men shouldn’t try to “weaponize women of color against White feminists in power”. You aren’t tall enough for your own ride.
    LOL, I agree. I have never heard that particular retort. It is funny, I’ll have to remember that one. Starting a race war to forestall the advance of Feminism doesn’t sound advisable to me. I don’t claim to be a prophet, but somehow, I foresee many unforeseen negative consequences to that. Are race based politics in America not already destructive enough of unity and the divine blessings that flow from unity?

    Boxer says:
    Most of the so-called white people, who push white nationalism here, are objectively not white at all. … you’re all objectively mystery meat…
    I agree. Unless someone can(with certainty) trace their every ancestor back to somebody mentioned in a Bible genealogy, their genetic origin is a mystery. And also all of mankind is related, so there is that too. Perhaps us “White” people should instead claim our White purity based upon how easily we sunburn. /s LOL It makes more sense!

    I don’t wear the pointy hatted sheets with eye holes, out of hate, but because I’m so White I’ll spontaneously combust like Dracula when exposed to the sun. /s So the rest of you poser mulatto affirmative-action Frat-boys can stop wearing your girly gowns to your masquerade balls where you, in disguise, take turns expressing how afraid Blacks make you feel. I am the palest & purest, I’m “nearly albino”, my real name is Whitey Honkey McCracker, and Blacks don’t frighten me, not even the really dark ones. So y’all can get over your fear too! Y’all mongrels, wear the sheets and pointy hats to trap the stink of y’all’s Afro Sheen. You’re all secret Black aficionados, role playing as haters, for what you fear, and consequently respect, and then consequently desire. Wash your filthy melanin stained sheets you racially adulterated Wannabe Wiggers! Worship my Whiteness!
    Sharkly: Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the Whitest of them all?
    Mirror: Ouch! Sharkly, the Whiteness of your skin is painfully blinding me. Make it stop!
    Sharkly: No Mirror! First bow to my Whiteness, lest I further pale with rage and thereby destroy you forever.
    Mirror: Eeeeeeey! I’m melting!
    Sharkly: To the Abyss! You were but a dim reflection of my luminous Whiteness.

    Burn your crosses in the dark you racially adulterated pigs. I, the true White, give off my own light. I phosphoresce, I radiate luminous brilliance, I am an angel of light. Worship me! I will make you free. Bind yourselves unto my bright star. Put my name on your forehead. Follow me through the illusion of death. Rush through it. White Pride heaven is waiting on the other side. Trust me, I’m the angel of light.

  140. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’m astonished at the rise in anti-white hate over my lifetime. As whites decrease in number, will we become as vulnerable as whites are in South Africa?

    It doesn’t matter whether you identify as white. The Left identifies you as white. The Left won’t let you forget it. And the Left is implementing policies to harm you and your children for being white.

  141. Jim Christian says:

    “Starting a race war to forestall the advance of Feminism doesn’t sound advisable to me.”

    To forestall the advance of feminism? Are you KIDDING, Shark? I’d say the horse left the barn, youngster. Who said anything about a race war? You boys are like a damned sewing circle. My shtick is for women of color to take their places in government, academia, in politics, to displace White feminists from the seat of power from which they’ve done mucho-damage, specifically to White men. A political fight over jobs and privilege between women of various hues. They already kill Whites, race war is on, Whites just aren’t objecting yet. Many years reading here, the threat has been defined specifically as the damage done by feminism. Whatsa mattah, ladies, too tender for that cat fight? Race war? It couldn’t get any worse for a catfight between color-factions of women. I’d say that was well on its way, gents. Here now. All of it on US, White men. So I’d like to sow a little discord among the ladies. It’s already being done, I’d like it to accelerate. Women of color are noticing who it was that improved their lot from feminism. Time to pay up. It would be lovely for White feminists to become the out-of-work useful idiots they’ve made of Blacks and Hispanics the past 60 years. They are monsters, they used race-as-weapon against the men of their own race in order to get ahead. I’d love to see the reverse.

    Lots of race-virtue signaling going on. Must be a lot of politically-correct wives looking over your shoulders, gents. Advocating a race war? Hardly. But you could hardly state it isn’t on, in any case. Why should White feminists have benefited to such degree from the hatreds they fanned these many years, again, against the men of their own race?

  142. Jim Christian says:

    “I should care about Bill Clinton; just because he shares my complexion? Why?”
    Box, you’re submissive to the race-based politics working against your own interest. Did I say you should care about Bill Clinton, one of the great race-baiters after Obama? Where does it say I said THAT? You’re feeling guilty for your Whiteness. Now, it’s just a hue, not a heritage of success, education and modern advance, you forgive the Nth-Wave feminism that’s wrecked the environment for young men. I’m not saying go KKK, but why the hell can I not notice the racial politics of all this? They certainly have against me and my own. You’re White-Knighting for the feminists that wrecked the social and political and academic environment. Anyone that doesn’t derive satisfaction that White feminists in the workplace, government and academia will be flushed by POC, sooner the better, might as well go get a rainbow-hued pussyhat and go find the next march far as I’m concerned. The enemy has been addressed for a long time here. That the White feminist enemy is now confronted by the same racial politics as we men have scares some of you folks. Is that White Knight? Fear of the Darks? Tired of the fight? Why would the White feminist reverse-racists and their gay/tranny allies being flushed by Catholic Hispanics and Black Baptists (who both despise gays and trannies) bother grown men? Women drew these battle lines decades back. If you aren’t going to think of them in the same terms as they do, no wonder it’s all lost.

  143. Sharkly says:

    Jim Christian,
    Apparently I have trouble following your reasoning. You seem to be saying that angry black women are the most volatile and vicious element of our society, so let’s work to empower them, and maybe they’ll attack or displace some of our more mild enemies. What could go wrong?

    That sounds naïvely optimistic. I’m still confused. I hope I got that wrong though.

    It also seems to me you’re coming from the left sided mindset of grouping people and pitting the groups against each other, instead of trying to see folks as individuals, and sway them by what appeals to them individually or to all people. As though you’re suggesting that if we put some fried chicken and some bottles of red hair dye in a cage, we could sit back and watch Blacks and feminists fight for it. Instead of imagining that a greasy lipped red afroed Black Feminist president, empowered worse than any before might emerge. I’d hate to foster our own antichrist. Why not realize that all people want respect, compassion, belonging, and offer that to bring them our direction? I’m not sure we’re in a race war, minorities still kill far more of their own. I think Black men have been raised as bastards disrespected by others including their women and are consequently full of anger. There may be some at war, but we can still de-escalate it. It seemed to me that the races were getting along pretty well prior to Obama’s election. And after a horrible 8 years of divisive leadership, Trump is quietly making inroads into the “Black vote” in spite of the malicious media assault.
    If you haven’t been aware of the #MeToo movement, they seem to be calling for men to be displaced from positions of power. And the White man is especially persona non grata. So if we empower black ladies to take offices, they’ll most likely be displacing mainly White men until something changes.
    Also if what you say is true, most of this is going to happen whether we facilitate it or not, so grab some popcorn.
    FWIW sowing discord is not my mode. I’ll leave that up to you.

    Ephesians 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
    Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

  144. Scott says:

    To be precise, I would note that my walk down the DNA analysis path revealed (which I wrote about at the the time) that I am about 40% Serb and the rest is Anglo with a tiny bit Scandinavian. Looking back through the records, I have a paternal great-great grandfather with the name Vonchina, which probably accounts for that less than perfect 50/50 split I have no idea the story behind him. He lived in Serbia though, and all the rest of the patrilineal stuff going back as far as I could find is Serb. The they are/were actually Montegran Serbs, for even more precision.

    My moms side is ALL names like Leach, Benton, Cooper, Mattheson, Brownlowe, as far back as the eye can see. That’s the mostly Scot side.

    I think there is some utility to what Jim Christian is discussing, as well as RPLs comment which was mixed in there. In the end, it doesn’t matter how nuanced and sophisticated ones knowledge of the ethnicities within what we call “white” is–a la Boxer. Its only interesting to “us” as far as that goes.

    “Social justice” is the dominant ideology and framework for which “they” approach these problems. And when they look at me, my wife and my kids they do not care if I self-identity this family as Serbo-Scot-Irish. They see “white devil.” It is because of this, I keep wondering if the creation of the term “white” was a deliberate attempt to destroy ethnic identity, pride, discovery, etc. It is incumbent on me and my wife now to celebrate what we think makes us who we are. American “whiteness” is doomed to fail as an identity now.

    Most recently, as a function of the fact that my kids are the ages they are, I am finding interest in the study of epigenetics, in particular what impact it has on linguistic development. Specifically, my two boys have dialectical anomalies that they could not have picked up from listening to me and Mychael talk. They both sound like a bit like Sean Connery. We call the two of them the highlanders.

    The region of Monetgro that my dad came from is also relatively high elevation, low humidity and great for farming. I truly believe this is why I am averse to places like Texas and the south with its punishing levels of humidity and zero presence of mountains.

    This would become rambling if I don’t stop. The point is, all of those little nuances and super-cool things that may have been lost to my kids had I not started asking these questions are just rolled into the BS, intentionally vague, intentionally pejorative “white” in order to make families like mine feel like we have no past. Nothing good or noble to look back on. Nothing of our history to be proud of. Like “white” people just came down to North America like evil aliens from another planet, infected the natives with diseases, bigotry and alcoholism and need to be eradicated to form a perfect, tolerable existence for everyone else.

    Every dad like me who refuses to let that narrative take hold in his family is a “racist” and you have to deal with that reality.

  145. Scott says:

    Coupe of editing/punctuation errors in that one. Didn’t go back and re-read.

  146. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: To be precise, I would note that my walk down the DNA analysis path revealed (which I wrote about at the the time) that I am about 40% Serb and the rest is Anglo with a tiny bit Scandinavian.

    I wouldn’t put too much trust into DNA testing companies: http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2522-inside-shady-world-dna-testing-companies.html

  147. Scott says:

    Because parody/satirical magazine like Craxked found a couple of users and employees to crap on the entire science of DNA?

    My family history from the birth and marriage records maps perfectly on to the results I got.

    And all three of the major companies agreed.

    The point was, whether you use DNA or just your families narrative data you will be seen as “white” and therefore harmful to the planet.

    I have both, fully aligned with each other.

  148. seventiesjason says:

    would someone please tell me when the “race war” is over. It would be anti-climatic at this point

  149. Scott says:

    For my money, I don’t think there will be a race war. I think it will be political/philosophical.

    Folks who express or harbor or even entertain/make room for the kinds of ideas that are talked about in places like this will simply be shut out of employment, housing, polite company to the point where the consequences of non-compliance will be unbearable. They will simple start saying the right things so they can survive.

    That’s the situation my dad escaped from, and unfortunately, it followed him here.

  150. seventiesjason says:

    I have never had a problem with “other races” other than my own. Partly for the fact that I just treated people the way I wanted to be treated. Sure, have I disagreed with someone because they were Latin? Yes. That goes for all creeds and races, and groups……but it had nothing to do with their color. It had more to do with behavior. Usually in public.

    I’m more anti-lazy / entitled. No crime in being that guy who cleans toliets. You have some general respect from me by holding a job. I don’t care if you move a pile of stones all day from point A to point B. You are doing soemthing. I have more of a problem with the culture of poverty / welfare / entitlement more than anything…….and I grew up in rural white America. Saw plenty of it there. It ain’t just a minority thing

  151. seventiesjason says:

    I have tried three different DNA companies. Have to say, all matched the same…..sure a percentage off here, one added there…..but accurate. Was more surprised I have more French blood than Slavic (the Napoleonic Wars left a ton of Frenchmen in Poland) and the Hugonauts (French Protestants) who fled France. settling in the UK. All said I was .09-1.1% Nigerian as well. More shocked about the French DNA though……grew up in a household that really disliked “the French”

  152. Scott says:

    Jason-

    Yes, it is fairly common for white Americans to talk like that. To say “I don’t care about your race, just your behavior.” In fact, it’s related to what I wrote above. It is a requirement to talk like that to stay above water.

    And on the whole, it is a good policy to just meet every individual where they are, and hold them to the exact same standard of behavior no matter what their background. In fact, even the Bible commands this.

    Here are the problems with it.

    1. In the macro. only whites are required to do this. All other groups are allowed to use whatever stereotyping, hate, and prejudice against whites (or to associate/not associate with whomever) they want, with impunity.
    2. Simply noticing that the aggregate behaviors of groups vary wildly between those groups is a sin, and especially if those groups tend to paint a non-white group in a unfavorable light. This is true even if you hold to the policy of treating everyone the same.

    In other words, a very large, dominant plurality of the country holds you to a standard that no one else is held to, because you are “white.” That simply cannot continue forever.

  153. seventiesjason says:

    Agreed Scott, but when I have on the rare occasion got into the “race / ethnic” talk with casual friends who don’t match my Euopean ancestry….and I say this, they tend to be more shocked that I say this, and I have noticed that they really don’t know what to say, or answer because they know me from my actions towards them in general (manners, treating people as I would like to be treated) that I am not “a hater” or whatever the weekly smear is.

    Totally agree with you though. Saw it in college as well………..the funny thing though, everytime I have been accused of “white privledge” in California……….and I have lived here since 1995…….it has ALWAYS been by a white liberal who came / comes from a higher eschelon / economic social order of white that I came from or am a part of now.

  154. Scott says:

    Any time a discussion where race is going to be involved, it is required to throw in the “i’m no racist” disclaimer (or the equivalent) to provide moral cover.

    What is concerning now, is this is no longer an acceptable preamble to such conversations. The social justice beast cannot be satiated at this point by simply agreeing to its rules of engagement prior to the start of debate.

    It was probably a stupid idea to argue in bad faith like that from the beginning.

  155. seventiesjason says:

    I have never thrown that “I’m no racist” into a convo since getting away from the sheltered world of undergrad and grad school.

    I made a joke to a black casual friend once, and he “got it” and we laughed hard over it. I just said “Hey, if you’re under my thumb and so oppressed by me, how come I can’t you to come over and do my laundry and wash my dishes?”

  156. seventiesjason says:

    …and “Hey, give me back my watch……” lol. Humor between different groups will diffuse and perhaps lead to a better understanding. You could at least joke thirty years ago. Today, everyone is so “uptight” about it……..personally I think relations were better in say 1989 than they are today. No thanks to the PC movement, the “media” and the modern Democratic Party

  157. Boxer says:

    Dear Jim:

    Please see below…

    Box, you’re submissive to the race-based politics working against your own interest. Did I say you should care about Bill Clinton, one of the great race-baiters after Obama? Where does it say I said THAT?

    Well, you mentioned him in your argument, as the “last White Democrat President…” Why should I care? National politics is full of parasites, and the color of one or the other is sorta peripheral to the fact that I don’t want any of those guys noticing me.

    You’re feeling guilty for your Whiteness.

    Wrong. I just won’t buy into the identity politics, because it’s a dead end.

    Now, it’s just a hue, not a heritage of success, education and modern advance, you forgive the Nth-Wave feminism that’s wrecked the environment for young men.

    I’ve spent years writing about feminists. Most of the people I’ve criticized are wealthy white wimminz from privileged backgrounds. Some of them are Mormons — traceable relatives of mine. I can’t wait to see them all humiliated. (That day is coming, bitches.)

    I’m not saying go KKK, but why the hell can I not notice the racial politics of all this? They certainly have against me and my own. You’re White-Knighting for the feminists that wrecked the social and political and academic environment. Anyone that doesn’t derive satisfaction that White feminists in the workplace, government and academia will be flushed by POC, sooner the better, might as well go get a rainbow-hued pussyhat and go find the next march far as I’m concerned.

    You’ve just described a situation in which my deadly enemies are being defeated by a bunch of people who aren’t related to me. Why should I care if a Mormon feminist is put out of her unearned makework sinecure? More to the point, why should I roll out the red carpet, and hold the door to welcome her back into the fold, all chivalrous like?

    I’m not a Christian. I don’t have to turn the other cheek. She’s my enemy, and she deserves everything she’ll get.

    The enemy has been addressed for a long time here. That the White feminist enemy is now confronted by the same racial politics as we men have scares some of you folks. Is that White Knight? Fear of the Darks? Tired of the fight? Why would the White feminist reverse-racists and their gay/tranny allies being flushed by Catholic Hispanics and Black Baptists (who both despise gays and trannies) bother grown men? Women drew these battle lines decades back. If you aren’t going to think of them in the same terms as they do, no wonder it’s all lost.

    All is lost for whom? My life is great. Peak feminism happened in like 2012, and I’m enjoying the spectacle.

    Here’s another thought experiment…

    Two white men speak their minds. Whitey No. 1 goes to a busy, public, American street corner, and calls random people “nigger” and “gook.” Whitey No. 2 tells his own wife “NO, you can’t go fuck some other men tonight.”

    Who is more likely to get arrested, beat up by cops, and thrown in jail?

    Best,

    Boxer

  158. Scott says:

    I have no doubt that all those individual stories that people share about their one on one relationships are true. The reason I know this is because my life is like that too.

    Where all the lovey-dovey good cheer dries up for me is when a woman is blocked on the highway from obtaining urgent medical care for her daughter by a BLM protest because she is white.

  159. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    To be precise, I would note that my walk down the DNA analysis path revealed (which I wrote about at the the time) that I am about 40% Serb and the rest is Anglo with a tiny bit Scandinavian. Looking back through the records, I have a paternal great-great grandfather with the name Vonchina, which probably accounts for that less than perfect 50/50 split I have no idea the story behind him. He lived in Serbia though, and all the rest of the patrilineal stuff going back as far as I could find is Serb. The they are/were actually Montegran Serbs, for even more precision.

    My buddy Joe goes on like this, too. He’s descended from tons of people who featured in the American and Texan revolutions. He’s sorta hung up on his grandmother, who was a blue-black negro. I think he goes through life trying to apologize for his 25% African heritage, or something.

    Calling him not white isn’t an insult. It’s just a fact. I also suspect that it’s sorta unhealthy to spend all your time concerned with something that you’ll never be able to change. I’m not a psychoanalyst, though. Maybe you can set me straight.

    Where all the lovey-dovey good cheer dries up for me is when a woman is blocked on the highway from obtaining urgent medical care for her daughter by a BLM protest because she is white.

    Why doesn’t the woman just run them over? It’s a highway, not a playground.

    Best,

    Boxer

  160. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    Totally agree with you though. Saw it in college as well………..the funny thing though, everytime I have been accused of “white privledge” in California……….and I have lived here since 1995…….it has ALWAYS been by a white liberal who came / comes from a higher eschelon / economic social order of white that I came from or am a part of now.

    What Scott and Jim Christian seem to want is for us to abandon our parents/kids, families, neighbors and communities, and give all our allegiance to strangers and foreigners, based upon concepts like skin color. They have yet to honestly address the meaning of this request.

    It seems to me that normal people have varying levels of allegiance, in a configuration that resembles nested sets. One’s first allegiance ought to be to oneself, and perhaps his own children. The second ought to include all members in the first set, but also include his parents, wife and perhaps siblings. The third ought to include more distant relatives, and perhaps people he works with. The fourth ought to be the people in his immediate community.

    Only when one gets way outside these personal acquaintances, who have a proven history of being solid people, can one start talking about “race” or “nationality.” Yet, the identity politicians among us seem to want us to include all the people in the “race” category in the first set. Along with ourselves. Why is this? Does it make sense to do that?

    Boxer

  161. Scott says:

    Boxer-

    For some (actually, I would call it “many”) the arc of their families history is important. (I also believe there is a genetic component to even this).

    It is impossible for me to see myself as a singular, unmored from those who came before me, atomized individual with a hard start and end. No context for how I got here. No concern for how my children will integrate and honor the struggle that resulted in their existence. Philosophically, that’s how libertarians think, and its why that version of liberalism is dying.

    If it’s just me, I would kill myself. And that’s the truth.

    I went on to explain, in that same comment that some of the heritabile traits my kids received add flavor and texture to those stories. Sort of a “ah ha! So that’s where they got that.”

    I understand there are those who are so unilaterally uninterested in such things as to make them these monk-like stoic dispassionate rationalists, but I am not one of them. I care about where I came from and how to perpetuate the very best parts of my ancestors through my kids. That actually makes me pretty normal.

    What I really resent is that its only bad when “white” people do it.

    I hate no one. I am indifferent to other ethnic stories. But mine has been de legitimized by the American experiment in individual uber alles.

    I met a guy the other day with the last name Belanger.

    He pronounces it “BEE lange ER” and has no idea where it comes from, how he got it, etc.

    How sad.

  162. Scott says:

    I’m lost.

    This is exactly how I have my life organized:

    It seems to me that normal people have varying levels of allegiance, in a configuration that resembles nested sets. One’s first allegiance ought to be to oneself, and perhaps his own children. The second ought to include all members in the first set, but also include his parents, wife and perhaps siblings. The third ought to include more distant relatives, and perhaps people he works with. The fourth ought to be the people in his immediate community.

    So I don’t know what we are arguing about.

  163. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    I don’t know what we are arguing about.

    If I read you and Jim Christian correctly, you seem to be arguing that I should give my allegiance to people who look like me, despite the fact that many white people have done nothing to deserve it.

    I explained in some detail here:
    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/06/30/identity-politics-and-you/

    Best,

    Boxer

  164. Scott says:

    95 percent of the people in those concentric circles you described (at least in my case) look like me.

    It’s a function of sociology/social psychology.

    People tend to select in to groups that are like them on many dimensions, even subconsciously

    Similarity of look is one of those dimensions.

    Some of us are more sensitive to it than others, especially when those dimensions of homogeneity start to degrade.

    In the current climate, it’s only bad when people who look like me notice.

  165. Gunner Q says:

    “So I don’t know what we are arguing about.”

    White America was betrayed by white Americans. Suggesting that we should be most loyal to our own people is a sick joke when they’re the ones who are STILL going far out of their way to destroy us, their own heirs.

    You’re arguing that people should care first about their own… correct… and Boxer is arguing that those in power obviously don’t and therefore we owe them nothing… also correct.

    The appeal of white nationalism is the fantasy that we whites can trust our elders to not betray us to the scum of the Earth for free.

  166. seventiesjason says:

    There is nothing wrong about your heritage, your customs, your lineage and learning about it and being ‘proud’ of it so to speak. The DNA thing was interesting, I won’t base my life now of being, trying, or acting more ‘culturally’ French (perish the thought) because I have discovered I am more French than Polish, even though I carry a very ethnic Polish last name. Nor will I justify my love of Motown and Soul music because now I found out I am 1% black or whatever. I base that more on my British sensibilities……..and despite this, and my love of my mothers lineage…………I still love to razz the patriotic Subjects of The Crown about being a proud US Citizen.

    It’s just fun. It just is.

    1970’s fusion jazz rockers “Steely Dan” once said in a line of song (Deacon Blues from 1977)
    “I cried when I wrote this song…..sue me if I play too long…..this brother is free, and I’ll be what I want to be”

    I am so isolated as an island at this point in so many areas…….complex……..it boils down to we like the things we like for what they are.

    Politically I have not fit into California since Governor Wilson left office twenty years ago…..doesn’t stop me from living and enjoying this place. Despite the vanishing dream it is…..enjoy the decline……….remember too, in this agnostic atheist area of the USA is the place I came to Christ. So go figure.

  167. Novaseeker says:

    The appeal of white nationalism is the fantasy that we whites can trust our elders to not betray us to the scum of the Earth for free.

    The problem with white nationalists and their ilk is that they seem to fail to recognize that the principal divisions in our society run right through the white population — that is the fight. Whites are divided, always have been really, and remain so. The leaders of the anti-Trump faction are whites — the almost entirely white elite class in the coastal cities, and in the bigger metros of the interior as well. The real “war” in the US is between different factions of whites — non-whites are still really a pawn that is being used by one group of whites to outbalance the other group of whites, and that other group of whites “fought back” by electing Trump in 2016. White nationalism will never smooth over these divisions, because the principal political and cultural antagonism in the US runs between different groups of whites — there is no solidarity at all there, and there never will be. The two forms of white America are simply too different culturally — something which makes any kind of idea of “white solidarity” on a large scale patently silly.

  168. Scott says:

    To be clear I’m not a “white nationalist.”

    I believe in nations and my observations and common sense tell me that a “nation” is a tribe, writ large.

    A group, homogenous on SOME dimensions, that carved out a place on the map. They have a common bond, on SOME level. America has no such bond. Not ethnicity, not culture, not religion, nothing.

    Ask any American to define what it means.

    You will get 300 million answers. That’s not a nation.

  169. Opus says:

    I recognise an American immediately and never mistake an American for a citizen of any other nation – not even Canuckians can mislead me. You just do not recognise yourselves for what you are because you are too close to observe accurately your characteristics.

    Peter Hitchens says that we are in a pre civil-war situation and I suspect that if he is right then America is also in such a situation. He may be wrong.

  170. Novaseeker says:

    You will get 300 million answers. That’s not a nation.

    I agree. My point is that the division isn’t ethnic/racial — that’s the progressive point of view. The division is more fundamental and results from the near total atomization of the society and culture down to the level of the individual. The U.S. does have some common threads that run through the culture, but they are thin … they aren’t thick enough to support a truly national consciousness and culture. It used to be a bit more cohesive when the dominant culture was white anglo protestantism (even if not everyone took it seriously), but that has been broken and not replaced with anything in particular other than individualism, so you have division between people in all sorts of ways — white nationalism overlooks this and pretends it either doesn’t exist or shouldn’t exist, yet the biggest divisions we have culturally are between different kinds of whites.

  171. seventiesjason says:

    Opus. When we meet I dare say, aside from my modern American California Venacular (the kind of English you hear spoken in American movies, TV and game shows) you will not be able to tell if I am an American. I suppose if I wear khakis over in London, that might be a giveaway……or a baseball cap with my team logo on it….or just being obnoxious….like most American tourists are overseas…….which I won’t be. What is the giveaway to you otherwise? Height? Teeth? Type of cigarettes being smoked (still love an occasional Marlboro when I camp and hike…..best cigarette in the world), general fashion? How we properly switch with a knife and fork?

    Very intrigued here. How is it that you can tell?

  172. Bee says:

    OT:

    Big donors to SW Baptist Seminary detail problems with the hasty firing of Paige Patterson. Promise to withhold future donations unless a new investigation takes place:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4568645-Southwestern-Letter.html

  173. Sharkly says:

    Oh, come on dudes!
    Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
    I know I seen y’all at the last Klan rally! Don’t lie to me.

    So, is this White History Month or something?
    I hear y’all, It’s hard pimpin’ for the Whiteman, in this nation of envious Untermensch.
    Got enough Poles in here, it’s time for some Pólack jokes. But then I’d be forced to explain them all, and that takes the fun out of it.
    FWIW, I’m part Pole, LOL, but I don’t want to start a dick measuring contest.
    Yeah, it is unfair that if I’m proud of what my white race brethren have done down through the ages, I’m a racist, but, every other color gets to sing the praises of their underperforming forerunners.
    China has a billion people and they’re stoked that they invented ink. For real? You stain some shit with wet lampblack, and call that an invention! can they not see, that is pathetic?
    They need to open their eyes, and see what Whites have done. LOL
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpQ5pznlWwYm8J5h5FOBHqi-3tBEyEZnssdmm439Rj8zgfA3xL
    I’m tired of the purported virtues of Globalism. I miss Archie Bunker. The women are right, I do want to take them back to the 1950’s, if not back further. Back to the future.

    Don’t try to make sense of the above comments, it is in jest.

  174. Frank K says:

    White feminists are going to give it up. And it’s going to happen far faster than you think.

    I agree. The takeover of the Democrat party by “POC” is going to be lightning fast, probably before the 2020 election. White liberals won’t know what hit them as they get tossed out the door, while being asked to keep writing checks and voting for the new and improved betters. It’s probably why Elizabeth Warren keeps insisting she’s an Amerindian, while refusing to take a DNA test.

  175. Frank K says:

    Correction: while being TOLD to keep writing checks and voting …

  176. Marquess of Zoombury says:

    Instead of trying to change White feminists, maybe we should replace them with minorities. White feminism is the problem… Weaponize the races against the White feminists of the Democrat Party and we’ll see change and quickly.

    Relax, homey. You don’t have to lift a finger; the rabid identitian politics will take care of itself.

    And I’m not talking about the rayciss, privileged ’08 Obama-voter-cum-Alt-Hitler whypipo.

    See the classic “Solidarity is for white women!” hashtag campaign for a preview (and a good laugh).

    Give White women no where else to go, they’ll come back home, so to speak.

    Welcome Refugees!

    The problem is structural and intrinsic to human nature. Allowing women to directly excercise political power, independent of men with actual skin the game, guarantees civilzational collapse.

    Feminism is a symptom, not the disease. (It is exacerbated, by interested parties, for political expediency and short-term profit. But the stonecutters and the tikkuning talmuds or whomever didn’t invent envy and hard-heartedness; they emerged in Eden, they are part of the design.) No one will countenance the obvious solution until political discontinuity occurs.

    Anyway, the only “white nationalist” I know, who isn’t an agent provocateur, or a lame-assed sophistical foil, is Sam Hyde. Real stand-up guy.

    Anti-white animus isn’t fake news, however.

    It doesn’t matter how you choose to identify yourself: others will give you your identity. It doesn’t matter whose company you enjoy, or the intersectional-equity of your egalitarian color-blind feminist multiculturalism: you white, wiggah!

    And how the heck are you supposed to get into college or avoid necklacing or win a federal contract if you’re white?

    That is why I require you bigots to acknowledge my transracialism.

    I’m also transspecies, transorganic, and transhomeostatic.

    I am an SR-71.

  177. Marquess of Zoombury says:

    That should have read “identarian politics.” (Identitian would be a good name for a Baroque painter. Oh, by the way, I’m also translinearconceptionofspacetime, sihtorlds.)

  178. Opus says:

    Well Jason, it is true that accent is a big give away, but I would say beyond that you always know when there are Americans around because they are over-loud over-weight and over-here. (Canadians are much quieter). Eighty years ago the accusation was over-sexed. The American view of the world is different which perhaps accounts for the view that Americans are poor at Geography. A country where eighty per cent of its inhabitants do not have a passport does not have to be good at Geography. Americans always want to help; they always have a solution to any problem – back in the nineteenth century Leo Tolstoy who had no reason to love the English or hate the Americans was describing how America always screws up overseas the British coming to the sensible pragmatic rescue. Little has changed. Americans all love Jesus – even the Jews – and all Americans are hyphenated. In addition Americans love both Guns and Free Speech and have a religious belief in something called the Constitution which they obviously do not understand because they insist that they are a democracy when in fact all they are is a republic. Public buildings and private alike fly the national flag as if not doing so might call national loyalty into question. Americans are obsessed by race (partly because they all once owned slaves or something).

    I am sure there are many other American characteristics (such as the fact that there are no buildings in America that have been standing for as much as one hundred years – in California, fifty) but the above will surely be enough this Sunday morning to offend all Americans reading here.

  179. Sharkly says:

    I don’t think my previous pictures appeared. I’ll try this one again.

  180. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: Public buildings and private alike fly the national flag as if not doing so might call national loyalty into question.

    I think that become popular during World War 2, continued during the Cold War, and thereafter became a lazy habit. That habit was reinvigorated after 9/11, and has since slackened off to pre-9/11 levels.

    Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms, and playing the national anthem at the start of baseball games, also began in World War 2.

    they insist that they are a democracy when in fact all they are is a republic.

    Actually, a favorite past time of many Americans is to remind fellow Americans that we’re a republic, not a democracy. I’ve been hearing that talking point on talk radio and cable news shows for decades.

    So really, that remark of yours is very American.

  181. seventiesjason says:

    Opus! Applause!

    Ovation. Seriously likes………I get what you mean, and what you are saying. Now, you know that is not all true…but with any stereotype, there is always a hint of truth in it!

    Well……where I grew up, we have still a few grand hotels from the early Victorian Era that are still standing. Fort Ticonderoga, and Fort William Henry (built during the 7 years war…or as we Yanks call it, “The French and Indian War” so there are a few buildings right there that are well over 100 years old 😉

    The TransAmerica Pyramid in San Francisco is on the cusp of turning fifty……..lol!

    Overweight. Agreed. 100%. I watch TV clips of American game shows, old reruns of Soul Train from the 1970’s. Not one overweight person. When I was in school. You had the one “fat kid” now you have “the one skinny guy”

    I don’t what it is about our flag…..I hang mine daily. I fold it proper at night. I was not taught American Civics in school (public or private). I was taught civics at home. Quite well I may add too, desapite my mother not even being raised here.

    You do know Opus, that you on this forum have met many a Yank who doesn’t fit all of what you stated……but I see what you are saying. I liked how you phrased it.

    Man, I was hoping you would give my knife and fork commet a props

    -Jason

  182. Boxer says:

    Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms, and playing the national anthem at the start of baseball games, also began in World War 2.

    The school flag ceremony (what the “pledge of allegiance” is properly called) is a 19th century tradition. It became popular after the American Civil War.

  183. seventiesjason says:

    Was just going to say that Boxer……I see countless pictures from the Victorian era, and ‘ol glory’ atop of every cornice, decorative rooftop of every hotel, public building, and on at attached pole off a front porch support…….mom or dad every morning put the flag up and out on our porch growing up. When my Welsh grandfather died in 2001, I was given his Union Jack that was used at his funeral (British Army Vet). I have it, and it would be “cool” to hand in my apartment, but this was given in military honors….and I won’t do a disservice by using it in that manner.

    I have a holder on my patio here, so I put out my flag every morning. Habit I guess, and I was a Scoutmaster as well. Tradition. Nothing wrong with it

  184. seventiesjason says:

    4th of July upon us…..and Opus…the below clip is what most men on this forum were fed from a very early age in the 1970’s. Come on boys…you remember “School House Rock” in between cartoons on Saturday mornings??????? Saturday mornings for kids today are grim. We GenXers never had it so good! No More Kings!!!!

    “No More Kings” orginally aired 1976, show for the rest of the decade through the early 1980’s

  185. Frank K says:

    A country where eighty per cent of its inhabitants do not have a passport does not have to be good at Geography

    Actually, that number is 64%.

    FWIW,during my many trips to Europe, on many an occasion I’ve had locals approach me and speak to me in the local language. Maybe because I don’t wear a Dallas Cowboys T-shirt? Also, my observation is that Americans who travel tend to be thinner and less obnoxious than the ones who do not travel. Also, the Euros are getting fatter too, this was especially noticeable in the UK and Germany.

  186. Frank K says:

    When I was in school. You had the one “fat kid” now you have “the one skinny guy”

    Your mileage may vary by geography. People in the South are the most obese, and when I visit the south it is very noticeable to me, even shocking. In the Rocky Mountain West people are thinner. Most of the students at my kids’s high school were thin, like 90%.

    There are other regional differences. In the South people tend to dress with more vivid colors, while in the Rocky Mountain West we wear colors that are “earthy”. There are other differences between regions: accents, how loud vs. quiet you are, ethnic composition (the southwest is very Mexican), etc.

  187. seventiesjason says:

    True Frank. My Scouts when I was leading a Troop tended to not be as heavy as their standard peers their age. In the Bay Area…….esp SF…..slender folks. The hills. It’s compact size….people walk, and when I lived there we joked “we’re paying sky high rent, cheaper to smoke cigarettes than eat”

    In Fresno. Obesity is a HUGE problem. Lots of really big folks. Could not believe the high school kids overall there. Went to pick up a few of my Scouts after school…..wow! Shocking!
    Opus is correct though, Americans are in general a “big people” today compared to a generation and a half ago. Disagree about more slender people traveling…..sure many are……..all the video vlogs I am watching about touring the UK (for my upcoming trip) the host(s) are larger than average Americans in sandals, shorts, and logo tee-shirts.

    The South? Noticed that the women wear more makeup………and their hair is bigger……”bigger the hair……the closer to heaven….” lol!

    California womenwho have the figure and body tend to go as skimpy as possible and then they get mad at you for noticing…….much of New England is still blue blooeded and preppy, esp on the college scene

    I notice every guy under the age of 35 in California has a beard……the older guys with one look like they are trying to be hip…….its like tattoos. Some guys look great and can rock it. Some beards look cool. Most don’t. Have not seen this many beards since 1976.

  188. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 3:00 am:
    “I am sure there are many other American characteristics (such as the fact that there are no buildings in America that have been standing for as much as one hundred years – in California, fifty)”

    Where did you get that silly idea? California’s Spanish Missions were built between 1769 and 1833 and are still in use. The Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Prison were 1933.

  189. feeriker says:

    The appeal of white nationalism is the fantasy that we whites can trust our elders to not betray us to the scum of the Earth for free.

    White Americans today have absolutely nothing in common with one another other other than skin color and the fact that most of them were born within the boundaries of the fifty states. Mass immigration from non-white/non-European/non-Christian countries, along with the wholesale abandonment of the Christian ideals on which the country was founded and that created a sense of greater unity, are gone, obliterated, erased from the collective consciousness.

  190. Anon says:

    Remember that White Trashionalists say that paternity fraud is acceptable as long as it produces a white baby :

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/08/fathers-are-jokes/#comment-275674

    They, as manginas first and foremost, believe fatherhood is of zero consequence, and everything is 100% nature and 0% upbringing.

  191. earl says:

    Giving allegiance to anybody based on what skin suit they wear…is by far up there on the stupid scale.

    Then again we used to say things to our children like ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’.

  192. Oscar says:

    I did most of my traveling when I was stationed in Germany with the 173rd Airborne. A “high and tight” stands out like a sore thumb in Europe.

  193. seventiesjason says:

    Osacr. A high and tight is the only real haircut!

  194. Frank K says:

    If I’m not mistaken, outside of North America “#” is called “hash” in English speaking countries.

  195. seventiesjason says:

    we call it a hashtag or hash out here in California….and for awhile before the metoo thing started

  196. bob k. mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) says:

    The Real Peterman says: June 26, 2018 at 12:18 pm
    What was going on in that ship? I can understand–though I disagree with–the “women and children first” policy, but refusing to let men onto a half-empty boat even after all the women on board have been evacuated strikes me as psychopathic spite.

    you misunderstand the purpose of the Birkenhead drill. or, rather, you mistook the overtly stated purpose for the actual purpose.

    1 – you have ships which were designed with far too few lifeboats to hold all of the passengers and crew
    2 – in order to manage the evacuation, you have to have a triage system by which you can quickly sort those who can be permitted to use the lifeboats from those who will not be permitted to use the lifeboats. obviously, it’s fairly simple to quickly make a visual identification whether someone is female or a child.
    3 – you HAVE to neutralize the violent physical threat, which if it manifests will completely fustercluck the evacuation. ie – the men

    given the lifeboat scarcity, how do you construct any system to satisfy these criteria WITHOUT telling the men they can’t get on the boats? what constrains the men from rioting is the knowledge that they’re ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. and that their wives and children will be spared ( if they have them ) of course.

    ALL the men were told that they couldn’t get on the lifeboats because to do otherwise will almost inevitably generate total chaos with various groups of men assaulting the crew and vice versa for a chance to get a spot on the boats. which will result in most of the boats not even getting launched and very few women and children making it onto the boats.

    read up on the stories of sinking ships. when in groups, it is common for one sailor to claw his shipmate to shreds trying to keep his own head above water.

  197. Opus says:

    £me too

  198. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A profile of all the LGBT characters in Jurassic World, Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter and the Marvel and DC universes: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44547100

    You’d think half the world was gay.

  199. Gunner Q says:

    bob k. mando @ 3:50 am:
    “you misunderstand the purpose of the Birkenhead drill. or, rather, you mistook the overtly stated purpose for the actual purpose.”

    The Birkenhead drill’s purpose on the Birkenhead was “get the civilians out of the way”. That was romanticized into “die for muh ladies & babies!” Triage would have prioritized the men over the women & children, men having the endurance for harsh conditions and the strength for rowing.

    Even in modern Cucked Era, FEMA triage guidelines put no emphasis of WACF. The only rational argument I’ve seen for WACF is “sperm is cheap”, or translated from evolution-speak, “a woman doesn’t need her husband to make another baby”. No man should willingly die for that.

    “you HAVE to neutralize the violent physical threat…how do you construct any system to satisfy [that] WITHOUT telling the men they can’t get on the boats?”

    Seriously? The way to calm men down in an emergency is to tell them you’ll make sure they die? The better system is “first come, first boarded” so you don’t need a team of football linebackers to drive the panicked men away from perceived safety.

  200. Oscar says:

    To take your chance in the thick of a rush, with firing all about,
    Is nothing so bad when you’ve cover to ‘and, an’ leave an’ likin’ to shout;
    But to stand an’ be still to the Birken’ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew,
    An’ they done it, the Jollies — ‘Er Majesty’s Jollies — soldier an’ sailor too!
    Their work was done when it ‘adn’t begun; they was younger nor me an’ you;
    Their choice it was plain between drownin’ in ‘eaps an’ bein’ mopped by the screw,
    So they stood an’ was still to the Birken’ead drill, soldier an’ sailor too
    ~ Rudyard Kipling

  201. Marquess of Zoombury says:

    (I would like to take a moment to note that the above post was strictly tongue-in-cheek and that I am not aware of the actual Sam Hyde’s politics. I assume they are well meant, whatever they are. And probably hilarious. I apologize for the confusion. The reference is to the memetic Hyde, who, if he existed, would be quite the phenomenon; a 21st century Kilroy.

    Regrettably, I am also not a Cold War-era supersonic spyplane. That would be dumb.

    I actually identify as an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. My preferred pronouns are a repetitive thwacking sound and holy sh… incoming!!! in the language of your choice. And by “preferred,” I mean “I’m calling human resources.” Thank you for your cooperation.)

  202. bob k. mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) says:

    Gunner Q says: July 2, 2018 at 11:14 am
    Seriously? The way to calm men down in an emergency is to tell them you’ll make sure they die?

    if they’re doing it because you tell them it’s the “honorable” action? AND YOU’RE GOING TO STAND THERE AND DIE WITH THEM? yes. remember, that’s the key point; that almost all of the officers and crew who are responsible for administering this rule ARE ALSO ABIDING BY IT.

    and that’s also what sets it apart from Sociopathy. Sociopaths / Narcissists are the preeminent hypocrites. as soon as it becomes obvious that the very same person who told you that YOU couldn’t get on the boat because he was saving the seat FOR HIMSELF, in front of a mob of other people to whom he has said the very same thing, you’re going to have a riot.

    most men ( and almost all women ) are followers. look how many just walked into the cattle cars and gas chambers. look how many Bolsheviks murdered Mensheviks … and then got purged themselves by Stalin in some later round of False Bourgeois Consciousness accusations. look at the charge of the Light Brigade. young Japanese men volunteered left and right to be Kamikaze. men put themselves in situations where they are ( almost ) certain to die ALL THE TIME. sometimes to protect others, but often because all the rest of the men around them are expressing that such is ‘proper’ behavior.

    and, once again, if you admit that SOME men are going to be permitted to board the lifeboats then you have to provide a justification to all the men who are being left to die.

    and you don’t have time to argue about it with every single neurodeviant ( Narcissist, Sociopath, Borderline, Hysteric, etc, there are many more ) on the ship. remember, The Titanic had well over 2,000 people on board. even with incident rates at 1% ( and many of the diagnosable neuroses are as common as 5% ) of population, you’ve probably got at least 20 Sociopaths on the ship who ARE NEVER GOING TO BE REASONED WITH AND WHO WILL NOT SHUT THE FVCK UP UNTIL YOU LET THEM JOIN A LIFEBOAT … if you allow them to argue with you.

    so, provide me with a rule. this rule has to meet the following criteria:
    1 – such an overwhelming majority of men will agree to it, that any outlier man who violates it will be violently attacked and restrained or put down, thereby spontaneously maintaining order
    2 – can be executed quickly and easily and is obviously not being manipulated for the benefit of the crewman making the decisions
    3 – will get cooperation of men to help MANUALLY ( no electric winches in the early 1900s ) lower boats that those men KNOW they will never be permitted to enter

    related question:
    Why does the Captain go down with his ship?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/The_captain_goes_down_with_the_ship

    Women and Children first is no longer required. why?
    because modern ships are legally required to have surplus Lifeboat space as a design feature.

    but most still consider it the responsibility of the Captain to insure that all of those under his watch and care be saved before he is permitted to save himself.

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.