How big was her dick?

The Chicago Tribune has an article about a woman who stabbed a man on a city bus and then followed him (with her knife) when he got off the bus.  It isn’t clear from the account if she was able to continue stabbing the man during her pursuit, or if she was only able to stab him while he was still on the bus.  However, it does say that her attack left him in critical condition.

After he got off the bus (followed by his attacker), the man managed to wrestle the knife away from his attacker and fatally stab her.  The headline reads:  2 stabbed, 1 fatally, after argument on CTA bus

A female was killed and a man critically injured after the two stabbed each other following an argument that began on a CTA bus on the South Side, Chicago police said.

A commenter at Second City Cop asked:

Who is the victim? 🤔🤔

This is an excellent question, because the Chicago Tribune has gone to torturous lengths to frame the attacker as a victim.  We don’t know if the man she stabbed was a current or former romantic partner, but if he was according to the Duluth model (the model we train our police in) the man who was attacked, fled, and then ultimately fought back would be the aggressor.

Feminist doublethink would have us accept that women have dicks and are so tough that a one armed woman can easily beat up a bar full of men.  It would simultaneously have us see a woman who stabs a man and then chases after him when he tries to get away as a victim and not an aggressor.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Doublethink, Duluth Model, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

229 Responses to How big was her dick?

  1. new anon says:

    FIRST

  2. Pingback: How big was her dick? | @the_arv

  3. 8 in the Gate says:

    The archetypical bad ass la femme
    Bests a roomful of men on a whim
    With her raging hormone-es, thinks she has big cojones
    If he raises a finger, she cries “victim”

  4. earl says:

    It would simultaniously have us see a woman who stabs a man and then chases after him when he tries to get away as a victim and not an aggressor.

    This sounds more like our justice system in general…the criminal is the victim and the one fighting the criminal is the aggressor.

  5. Gunner Q says:

    California has a similar situation developing–a lesbian couple went on a stabbing spree in South San Jose, apparently after drinks with male victims in a bar. No word yet on how the men forced the empowered women to gut them.

    http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/two-arrested-after-three-men-stabbed-in-downtown-morgan-hill/article_6000cf6a-83ca-11e8-b237-4f7c3d96a766.html

    That might be the worst tramp stamp I’ve ever seen.

  6. I’ll disagree with you on one thing Dalrock:

    You seem to think that the men who watched Luke Cage don’t buy that Misty and Colleen have dicks.

    I have literally never seen that criticism crop up anywhere but here.

    Don’t underestimate the feminization of modern men.

  7. feministhater says:

    Got what she deserved.

  8. feministhater says:

    Dead women can’t tell lies.

  9. feministhater says:

    I thought women were strong, empowered and invincible though? What happened?

  10. feeriker says:

    “How big is your dick?”

    That really is a question that men need to start regularly asking “tough, kick-ass” women, in a very public way. Then when the inevitable “bigger than yours” eructates from their mouths, make them prove it.

  11. okrahead says:

    Feminism… the entire world is “The Crying Game”.

  12. Anon says:

    Yet another ‘male feminist’ outed as a creepy predator.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/301608/

    The good news is that Instapundit has turned this into a running theme, and more people have caught on. The brand of ‘male feminists’ has been irrevocably damaged by the light of day.

  13. Nick Mgtow says:

    Dear Dalrock, would you put this in the endless courtship category?

    The more amazing you are, the harder it is for you to find love! Best regards

    https://www.bolde.com/amazing-harder-find-love/

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nemo me impune lacessit

  15. Pingback: How big was her dick? | Reaction Times

  16. earl says:

    The more prideful you are, the harder it is for you to find love!

    Fixed it for her.

    Now for the proper translation.

    You’re often seen as being out of someone’s league. You have a goddess complex
    You’re a lot to handle — in a good way. You are high maintence
    You don’t settle for mediocre. My hypergamy is on display
    Your confidence is intimidating. Your confidence is arrogant
    You’re not scared of being alone. And yet you are lamenting about how hard it is to find love.
    You know what you want. You’re stubborn
    You attract the wrong people. Birds of a feather….
    You have seemingly infinite patience. You’ve settled…in fact you tried to convince us you weren’t in the article
    You’re always busy. Career, travel, and nights out are more important than home marriage and family
    You expect as much as you give. Entitlement

  17. earl says:

    The goddess complex…just look around…it’s not just the church, it’s the society too.

  18. Swanny River says:

    This post seems to be petering out fast. There’s a real shrinkage of comments.

  19. RobJ says:

    Stealing a woman’s knife when she’s using it is a real dick move.

  20. Jack Russell says:

    Ariana Grande. She once said as she was leaving an autograph session and heading to the elevator said “I wish my fans would f*****g die.” She got her wish in Manchester. She is the Brittany Spears of today’s youth. She will be replaced by another bleach blonde bimbo with an auto tuned voice.

  21. earl says:

    “I wish my fans would f*****g die.”

    1) The actual spirit of the ‘goddess’…whether they be celebs or your typical feminist
    2) Pete Davidson better sleep with one eye open

    She will be replaced by another bleach blonde bimbo with an auto tuned voice.

    This will be after she either shaves her head and goes nuts, tries to get out of the industry, or ‘overdoses’ or ‘commits suicide’.

  22. “Yet another ‘male feminist’ outed as a creepy predator.”

    That’s not fair. Plenty of female feminists are creepy predators, too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/27/sff-community-marion-zimmer-bradley-daughter-accuses-abuse

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

    Etc.

  23. earl says:

    From the pervy wimminz own words…

    “Well, I’d like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests.”

    What kind of right is that?

    She was criticized for these comments with some writers labeling her a paedophile.

    Correct.

  24. Boxer says:

    The Real Peterman sez:

    That’s not fair. Plenty of female feminists are creepy predators, too.

    Germane Greer is a disgusting parasite. She’s also demonstrably mentally ill. Read her book The Female Eunuch to survey the intersecting delusions of persecution and grandeur. Parts of it are so disjointed that it becomes funny.

    Boxer

  25. earl says:

    How big was hers?

    ‘Kansas town’s councilwoman bites jailer’s thumb’

    https://www.ksn.com/news/kansas/kansas-town-s-councilwoman-bites-jailer-s-thumb

  26. Spike says:

    Was this incident all captured on CCTV? Presumably, the man won’t face charges, right?

  27. Cane Caldo says:

    What is outrageous to me is the underwhelming response by Christians or conservatives. I do not understand how I can be the only man in a four man conversation who ridicules the idea of kick-ass women.

    In this case, the woman was armed with a (probably illegal length*) knife, successfully attacked an unarmed man and STILL got it taken from her and killed with it.

    *As a Texan who used formerly and frequently stayed in Chicago, I always left my knife at home because the legal blade length is 2 inches or under. It is hard to manage a lethal stab with such a short weapon; unless they sliced each other along veined appendages.

  28. Pingback: Advice for guys too awesome to attract a girl! - Fabius Maximus website

  29. Nick Mgtow says:

    Earl, Earl Earl! You’re absolutely correct! I know those women who have delusions of grandeurs and because a high value guy looked in their direction once, or eventually penetrated them because they were the easy lay, they believe suddenly that they’re God’s gift to men. Them, and their magical triangle.

  30. Nick Mgtow,

    Thanks for pointing to that article at Bolde. It’s the best example I’ve seen of self-defeating egotism by modern American women — and how it is fed by feminists. We should pity these “awesome” future cat ladies.

    To make its insanity clearer, I reversed the genders: “Advice for guys too awesome to attract a girl!”

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/07/12/advice-for-guys-too-awesome-to-attract-a-girl/

  31. From Nick Mgtow’s article link:

    “Hi Evan, Love your blog. Here’s my situation. I’m 37, single, and had a really bad breakup 2 years ago. I’m cautious but also a hopeless romantic. I finally meet this guy at a house party who intrigues me and reminds me of an old college boyfriend: cute, sweet, very shy. The first few dates, I really like him. He does everything right. He’s intelligent, curious, shows up, cooks me dinner… But around the 5th date, I start feeling ambivalent about him.
    We’ve made out but no sex. (I want to be sure before I go there.) I start wondering if he’s too nice/boring/granola”

    She broke all sets of rules for the AFs, and now wants to start drafting rules for the only BBs she can find because….”This time….I want to be sure before I go there!!!!!”.

    Jesus Christ, it’s like a train wreck in slow motion.
    This poor bastard needs to run like hell. Why can’t he see that future sexless marriage chasing him down?

  32. feministhater says:

    We should pity these “awesome” future cat ladies.

    I used to. Then I used to try to, now I can’t help but feel absolutely nothing for them. They did it knowingly to themselves, they are not being deceived, they have all the counter evidence necessary to disprove their ridiculous entitlements and yet they continue down their paths, ambivalent of the good men around them until it is too late. They’re right though, good men cannot handle them, they would be cheating as soon as another bad boy took notice of them.

    These women are truly, truly out of men’s league.

  33. “They did it knowingly to themselves”

    Maybe. But there are also powerful forces telling people like her to screw up their lives. “Spend your 20s getting degrees, working on your career, and most of all have fun!!!” There aren’t a lot of people saying otherwise.

  34. “wimminz wimminz wimminz”

    When I was a child I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I understood as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

  35. Jeff Strand says:

    @Real Peterman: “Maybe. But there are also powerful forces telling people like her to screw up their lives. “Spend your 20s getting degrees, working on your career, and most of all have fun!!!” There aren’t a lot of people saying otherwise.”

    Very true. I regularly “say otherwise”, in the way of giving advice, to men with daughters. In response, I’m usually told “You’re an extremist”, or “The world doesn’t work that way anymore”, or “I don’t want my daughter to ever be dependent on a man.” And these are not far-Left or liberal men, by any means!

    One co-worker asked my advice about his daughter. At 22, she has a four year college degree and very little debt. Nice, right? Well, she doesn’t know what she wants to do, so (naturally) she’s thinking about grad school. This would require her to run up a massive amount of debt, while also wasting her most valuable years in the Marriage Market. But of course, he wasn’t gonna second guess his little princess! His question to me was: should he allow her to live at home rent-free while she attends grad school?

    My advice to him: Look, she already has a four year degree. Let her get a job in the field that she majored in. Encourage her to find a good man to wife her up, and then focus on being a wife and mother. Since she has very little debt (for now), she is in a great position to do this. And let her start making you some grand-kids.

    His response? To chuckle in a patronizing, knowing way, and say “Obviously you don’t have a daughter.” To which I replied, “You’re right – I have several.”

    He then responded, “22 is WAY too young to get married!”. I then pointed out that she’s 22, not 18. And since it doesn’t sound like she’s got a serious bf now, she still has to find the right guy. So figure a year of casually dating different dudes to find the right one. Then, a good year of serious, exclusive dating. Then, six months to a year of engagement. That’s 3 years right there! That puts her at 25 to 26 on her wedding day…and that’s if she starts RIGHT NOW, and if everything goes perfectly! And he considers this is “WAY too young”???

    At that point, he called me an “extremist”, and walked away. So I have no doubt he will enable Daddy’s Little Princess to build up a mountain of debt, while wasting her best marriageable years on her “education” and “career”. And 10 to 15 years from now, when she’s crying to him how she’s becoming a lonely cat lady, having to go on antidepressants, and breaks down into a quivering, sobbing mess whenever she sees a mother with a baby….he can commiserate with her about how there’s something wrong with the menz today. Why don’t they want to wife up such an “amazing”, “badass”, “fiercely independent” woman like his Little Princess? Why are there no good men anymore?

    Lol, you can predict the whole thing before it even happens. The BluePill is strong in some of these folks. (And again, he’s far from a Leftists or Liberal)

  36. Damn Crackers says:

    @Jeff Strand – One of the biggest sins in the OT was to prostitute one’s daughter. I think 99% of Western men are guilty of this sin.

  37. Heisenberg says:

    @Jeff Strand

    “His question to me was: should he allow her to live at home rent-free while she attends grad school?”

    No. Tell her she should NEVER be dependent upon a man, silly rabbit.

  38. Swanny River says:

    Good example Jeff of the typical churchian too, except before reaching the same conclusion, they’ll wring their hands a bit more.
    “Extremist” is a label thrown around by people who don’t want to think. Abusing the mind God has given is pretty extreme too.
    Dalrock’s post points out people who hate the principle of mutual exclusivity- more hatred of using our minds rightly.

  39. earl says:

    At that point, he called me an “extremist”, and walked away.

    Funny how things that were normal 30-50 years ago are now extremist views. I wonder what changed.

  40. Opus says:

    I have a soft spot for Germaine Greer. Too clever for her own good. Her little book on Shakespeare is excellent, scathing on her own sex as to why there are no decent female poets, and has now endured the wrath of the media for pointing out that putting on a frock does not make one a woman.

    Fifty or so years ago she was pretty hot but these days despite the fact that she looks like a bag-lady she seems to enjoy sending herself up – on Big Brother and Little Britain. Childless of course and most strangely seems to have been the victim of a home invasion. She is Australian but I don’t think she lives in Australia. Her husband was I seem to recall reading, a Playgirl centre-fold.

    She and other writers at Oz attended the first festival of Porn in the Netherlands. Had I been the Dutch Prime Minister I would have banned it – on the grounds of boredom.

  41. ray says:

    Been down the OP’s road many times. Lost count and don’t like thinking about it much anymore.

    In the United Sisterhood, I’m not allowed to defend myself from physical attacks, especially attacks by females, including total strangers. If I fight back, I’m the criminal. If I even SPEAK back, I’m the criminal (‘verbal harassment’ and yes, the gynarchy will jail you for it — somebody has to fund the new courthouses and mancages).

    I’m told the police are my legal avenue of defense, but the police are never around when the shit goes down, so they are useless. But if a Princess dials 9-1-1, because I declined to follow her orders or please her sufficiently, the whole sheriff’s department will screech up in front of my house, demanding answers to accusations I just heard that moment. After they investigate, and find no evidence of criminality, Little Miss Snowflake receives no consequences whatsoever, just stands there smirking in victory. It’s win-win for the grrlls and their enforcers; everybody comes out ahead except for, you guessed it.

    Note how Medea (in the OP’s case, the Chicago Tribune) runs interference for this ongoing tyranny by twisting every fact and motive around until the Korrect Solution is arrived at: the male is Bad and the female is Good. It really is no more complicated than that; their endless serpentine arguments and explanations are merely covers for arriving at pre-determined conclusions. The government (and schools, and churches) also run interference for females, not only because of their feminist-conditioning over the past century, but because the cops and courts and endless related bureaucracies directly benefit from the crushing of the nation’s sons. Some OTHER sucker’s sons, to be sure! It’s predatory.

    I could not remain in a nation in which it is Open Season on me, as it’s just be a matter of time until the next accusation/beatdown. It is an evil land, profoundly anti-masculine and anti-Christian.

  42. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “Funny how things that were normal 30-50 years ago are now extremist views. I wonder what changed.”

    (((Feminism))) happened.

  43. ray says:

    Jeff Strand —

    Nice summation.

    I interact with these ‘conservative’ men frequently online. That describes the daughter-daddies to a T. I ask them, HOW will you MAGA without the mass contributions of the creative and productive elements of your nation, i.e., it’s boys and men?

    They do not care. They assume the American Empire, built by strong men (unlike themselves) will magically and endlessly create wealth for themselves and their hard-charging careerist daughters. Pleasing princess is priority #1, far ahead of relationship with God, or even fidelity to their country. Their Christianity and their patriotism are as shallow and self-serving as their female spawn.

  44. ray says:

    Jeff Strand —

    What does ((())) mean?

  45. Swanny River says:

    Ray,
    The biggest difference between me and the Repubs in my church and work friends too, is that their staunchest belief is that everything is generally okay, and will be eventually in areas that diagree with.
    I see a dead nation and irreconcilable differences, they see tv, sports, and a chuckle.

  46. Swanny River says:

    They have good jobs, wife at home and well educated kids who go to Christian colleges, so they are internally pacified about the destruction of the family via the attack on headship. It’s one of the reasons I think they have such an outrageous reaction to Trump. From their comfortable perches, his style is really disruptive and distasteful to them.

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus, you might like this.

    At one point, Greer calls transgender promotion “misogyny,” because it’s an attempt to say that men are better at being a woman than are women.

    Ironic, because feminism is the opposite. That women are better at being a man (more kick-ass) than are men.

  48. Jeff Strand says:

    @Swanny River: “They have good jobs, wife at home and well educated kids who go to Christian colleges, so they are internally pacified about the destruction of the family via the attack on headship.”

    Yep. They are set, but they do all they can to ruin it for the next generation.

    Some outfit did a survey awhile back. They asked men what qualities they most value and look for in a wife, and what qualities they want their adult daughters to have. Number one in both cases was intelligence. Which doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, no one wants to be married to a dummy. But the NUMBER ONE quality? Really? Do these men plan to sit around discussing Kant, Pascal, and Sartre with their wives every evening?

    But it gets worse. Looking at qualities further down the list, there was a glaring discrepancy between the two surveys. For a wife, after intelligence the men valued things like: she’s supportive, she’s sweet, she’s loving and caring, she’s feminine, she’s pretty and attractive, she’s soft spoken, she’s domestic, etc. But the qualities the men said they desired to see in their adult daughters were almost the exact opposite – following intelligence, the desired qualities were things like independence, aggressiveness, ambition, strength, outspokenness, etc. In other words, typically masculine qualities.

    The author remarked, in typical PC style, that it was quite admirable how today’s modern men are looking to so masculinize their daughters. But she wondered how the men expected to raise these strong, feminist women-of-tomorrow, when they were apparently still looking to “marry Betty Crocker”. With such a mother as a role model, how would these daughters grow into the men they’re supposed to be?

    I took something else from the article. My question of these men is this: why the hell would they want to raise their daughters to grow up to embody all the qualities and traits that these same men do not find attractive in a prospective spouse? To be more blunt, why would they want their own daughters to grow up to be the kind of women that they themselves would never marry?

    No one thought to ask that question. There’s some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. Because the effective result is that these men are sabotaging their own daughters.

  49. OKRickety says:

    At the bottom of the AMAZING article, author Averi Clements is described (by herself?) as “a word nerd and Brazilian jiu jitsu blue belt. She’s currently hanging out in Costa Rica with her cat and a lot of really big bugs.”

    That’s not my idea of what an amazing woman would do.

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I was a young man, and still had hopes of marrying, the NUMBER ONE quality I sought in a prospective wife was LOYALTY.

    I wanted to be certain that, whatever else, she would never cheat on me, divorce me, betray or lie to me, or belittle me in public. I placed that all under the quality of loyalty.

    I could live with a woman who was argumentative, opinionated, and willful in private (i.e., just the two of us), so long as she aggressively defended me whenever anyone else was present — parents, girlfriends, whoever.

    I’d hate to be married to these modern women who are always mocking and belittling their husbands to everyone. No loyalty.

  51. Swanny River says:

    “Why would they want their daughters to grow up to be the kind of women they themselves wouldn’t marry?”
    Incentives bolstered by their own belief that everything will always be good and negative consequences can’t happen to friendly people with good intentions, like themselves. One incentive posted here is the shame we get for not being man enough to like a strong woman. You don’t want to be the man who raised daughters with the sin of servility do you? Or being laughed at for muffin-top girls, or whatever the phrase was?

  52. Swanny River says:

    Who wants to be an abusive man, and upset a wife or daughter? It seems harsh to gentle church men raised to believe that politeness and a chuckle are the greatest goods. We have been trained that there is always a solution to making happiness, so problems are seen as technical, therefore, they don’t see problems with raising she-men.

  53. Paul says:

    @RPL: “I’d hate to be married to these modern women who are always mocking and belittling their husbands to everyone. No loyalty.”

    Eph 5:
    22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
    24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
    33b .. and the wife must respect her husband.

  54. YoreyC says:

    Red Pill Latecomer,

    you’ve got it backwards.

    >I could live with a woman who was argumentative, opinionated, and willful in private (i.e., just the two of us), so long as she aggressively defended me whenever anyone else was present

    You woman needs will to be loyal to you when you’re not present. When you are, you’re the only will she needs.

  55. earl says:

    @RPL

    ‘A lesson about men for marriage-minded women from the movie “High Noon”

    https://winteryknight.com/2018/07/11/a-lesson-about-men-for-marriage-minded-women-from-the-movie-high-noon-3/#comment-171582

    ‘Ask yourself: Who are you, as a man? And does your woman accept that you have obligations to stand up to evil and do good ? Will she support you in your battle against evil, or will the marriage just be about her feelings and desires? I would especially beware of women who think that God is speaking to them through their feelings and desires. Look at her friends: are they practical and successful? Or are they irresponsible, unaccountable and reckless? Look at her father: does he have a plan for her, and does he lead her to be practical, frugal and hard-working? If you are not going to get an ally and a supporter in a wife, then you will not be able to serve God well, as a married man. Think about it.’

  56. Nick Mgtow says:

    I liked your article, Larry Kummer. I’ll read it more often. Best regards.

  57. feeriker says:

    No one thought to ask that question.

    I’m sure somebody thought to ask. It’s just that nobody’ dared to upset the narrative.

  58. ray says:

    Swanny River — “I see a dead nation and irreconcilable differences, they see tv, sports, and a chuckle.”

    Yeah. #MeToo.

    Interacting the past few years with ‘conservatives’ at Breitbart, American Thinker, TakiMag etc. was disheartening. Where I am, and where they are . . . the gap is huge, and unfillable. They want to hunker down and pretend It’ll All Work Out, and cannot face the reality that their wives and daughters rule over most of them, not to mention the nation.

    Heck, one buddy and I essentially closed TakiMag, with the mere truth. Can you guess why? :O)

    ‘Irreconcilable differences’, exactly. My divorce came through four or five years ago, and I don’t mean from any female.

    As others mentioned, they see me, and some of you, as extremists. Our position (the plain and obvious truth) is too disruptive to their lifestyles and psychologies. King Jeshua talked about this stuff over and over, that most folks — including His supposed followers — will toss you, me, and Him under the bus in exchange for worldly things. He ended up with seventy souls, after all those miracles, all those blessings. I sure don’t expect to do better.

    You got to be on one side or the other. Ain’t no middle. You are one of the King’s friends, or, you ARE HIS ENEMY. Can’t handle the truth? Well He is the truth, so you just chose.

  59. Gary Eden says:

    How do you filter women for loyalty? It’s like proving a negative.

  60. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand sez:

    (((Feminism))) happened.

    (((Rabbi Saul of Tarsus))) and (((Simon Peter))) and (((Jesus))) are not as Aryan as Jeff, but they wrote/did way cooler stuff than he, and that’s what matters on the internet.

    Boxer

  61. gdgm+ says:

    Sorry to have to point out a slight spelling error at the end of the OP. “It would simultaniously have us see…” should be “It would simultaneously have us see…”

    [D: Thank you. Much appreciated.]

  62. pariah says:

    Here’s my observation regarding this passage:

    Ephesians 5:22-24
    “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

    The reason why most so-called Christians do not believe and enforce this command for wives to submit unto their husbands is because they themselves are not submitted unto Christ. When Christians refuse to submit themselves to Christ, why should wives submit themselves to their husbands? They’re all living in rebellion.

    This makes me wonder about the state of evangelicalism, with its “easy-believism.” So many so-called Christians believe that all you have to do to be saved is say a short prayer to ask Jesus into your heart, then you’re all good! You can sin as much as you want! It doesn’t matter! Once saved, always saved, right?! Holiness is just an optional extra for those who want a bigger mansion when they get to heaven!

    On the contrary, if you read 1 John, you’ll see how far into apostasy modern evangelicalism has fallen. Here is just a snippet:

    1 John 3:7-8a
    “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he [Jesus Christ] is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil […].”

    The feminist infiltration of modern Christianity is only one piece of the overall picture of widespread apostasy. True Christians are those who submit themselves unto Christ.

  63. Jack Russell says:

    Jeff Strand says:
    July 12, 2018 at 12:21 pm
    @earl: “Funny how things that were normal 30-50 years ago are now extremist views. I wonder what changed.”

    (((Feminism))) happened.

    Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say there will be a time when telling the truth will be considered a subversive act?

  64. Jeff Strand says:

    Jack, I think you’re thinking of George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

  65. feeriker says:

    The reason why most so-called Christians do not believe and enforce this command for wives to submit unto their husbands is because they themselves are not submitted unto Christ. When Christians refuse to submit themselves to Christ, why should wives submit themselves to their husbands? They’re all living in rebellion.

    BINGO. I’m very tempted to quote this post word for word (except to substitute second person plural for third person plural) next time this issue arises in a church setting.

  66. Jeff,

    That is a great quote! But its not by Orwell. It might be derived from something similar said by a 19th C German geologist.

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/24/truth-revolutionary/

  67. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A celebration of misandry — A Mad Woman on Fire: On Sylvia Plath and Female Rage: https://themillions.com/2018/07/a-mad-woman-on-fire-on-sylvia-plath-and-female-rage.html

    Plath is celebrated for her female “rage.” Many of her poems are misandrist. And yet, this is celebrated as art. Imagine if a man had written so hatefully about women.

    “You do not do, you do not do / Any more, black shoe…” The poet’s voice is strong, piercing. Her tone arch, sly. A few lines later, as she proclaims, “Daddy, I have had to kill you,” she sounds like she’s about to burble into a mean, delicious laugh.

    The poem is Sylvia Plath’s patricidal “Daddy” and the voice her own, recorded for the BBC in October 1962, less than five months before her death at age 30. That day, she read aloud more than a dozen of the poems that would help make up Ariel, the posthumous collection that would make her name, as she herself foretold. …

    I still remember my surprise at hearing these recordings on my tinny cassette recorder in my freshman dorm room more than 25 years ago. I suppose I expected something more ethereal, a doomy Ophelia floating down the river. There was, instead, something ferocious about them. First, it unsettled me; then it excited me.

    Like many women, I saw myself in Plath: a diligent, high-achieving young woman, a striver privately bristling against social conventions and punishing gender roles. (“A living doll, everywhere you look,” she writes in “The Applicant.” “It can sew, it can cook…will you marry it, marry it, marry it?”) But Plath more than bristled; she burned. In so many of her poems and in her mordant, acid-tongued novel The Bell Jar, you can feel the rage rippling off the pages.

  68. Opus says:

    I imagine that it might be different in the United States but over here it is Plath’s English husband Ted Hughes who is by far the more famous poet. Maybe her literary inferiority in comparison to her husband is what drove her to do it though personally I have always found Hughes’ poems like Hawk in the Rain not exactly to my taste.

    What is it with females like Plath and more recently dramatist Sarah Kane who feel and for no obvious reason the desire to kill themselves.

  69. poetentiate says:

    “…two stabbed each other…” so it sounds like he had a knife too

  70. Paul says:

    @pariah

    “So many so-called Christians believe that all you have to do to be saved is say a short prayer to ask Jesus into your heart, then you’re all good! You can sin as much as you want! It doesn’t matter! Once saved, always saved, right?! Holiness is just an optional extra for those who want a bigger mansion when they get to heaven!”

    This touches the core of the issue. Protestantism in its various forms always has stressed that salvation is by grace only NOT by works, to the point that ANY activity related to holy living is highly suspicious, bordering on the heretical.

    This constant stress on “saved by grace only”, coupled to making holy living suspicious “because of works”, has put a stress towards believers to only focus on something that happened in the past (“reborn” / “salvation” etc.), and not put any focus on the present and future.

    This in turn has led some/many into the situation you describe: “once saved, always saved”, “optional holiness”, “sin as you want” etc.

    Well, salvation is by grace, as also the RCC and Lutherans agreed upon in 1999, but sanctification/holy living/”works” still play an important role.

    As an example, everybody remembers the parable of the man who builds his house on the rock, and the man who builds his house on the sand. What few people remember is what the parable is actually about:

    Mt 7:24 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
    26 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

    “hears my words” and “does/does not put them into practice”

    Be wise, put the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in practice.

  71. Swanny River says:

    RPL,
    Plath is a great example of the miserliness of feminists that has been well-described by Dalrock and commenters.
    So much rage at the things that bring joy and comfort to others just because she wanted recognition and glory. May all of her fans follow her like a herd of possessed pigs running into a lake.

  72. Hose_B says:

    OT

    https://foreverymom.com/marriage/lysa-terkeurst-art-terkeurst/

    After very publicly announcing her divorce, Lysa Terkeurst very quietly announcing that they are back together………. not on her blog, mind you. In one single Father’s Day Facebook post.

  73. Dalrock says:

    @poetentiate

    “…two stabbed each other…” so it sounds like he had a knife too

    Exactly. The opening of the story is phrased to give this impression. Further down in the article it says:

    The man then got off the bus, and the female followed, police said.

    They struggled, and the man took the knife and stabbed the woman.

  74. feeriker says:

    in her mordant, acid-tongued novel The Bell Jar, you can feel the rage rippling off the pages.

    Anyone, male or female, whose written work reveals that kind of psychopathy cannot help by reveal it in every other aspect of their life. Why would Ted Hughes have married a BSC woman like Plath? “Birds of a feather,” perhaps?

    Opus asks:

    What is it with females like Plath and more recently dramatist Sarah Kane who feel and for no obvious reason the desire to kill themselves.

    We can only surmise. However, one theory might be that, in certain women where the natural tendencies toward narcissism and solipsism are out of control, the eventual realization that they are not only not the critical core of the universe, but not even a functioning part of it is something that is just too unbearable to live with.

  75. PokeSalad says:

    in certain women where the natural tendencies toward narcissism and solipsism are out of control,

    In a world in which they try but cannot control, they realize that the only thing they truly control is their continued existence.

  76. OKRickety says:

    Paul,

    “This touches the core of the issue. Protestantism in its various forms always has stressed that salvation is by grace only NOT by works, to the point that ANY activity related to holy living is highly suspicious, bordering on the heretical.”

    In contrast, many Protestants perceive many Roman Catholics to live an unholy life, apparently believing that continuing to sin is acceptable, forgiven as long as one confesses and performs the assigned penance. In other words, they have a way to cover their backside, so ‘sanctification/holy living/”works”’ do not play an “important role” in their lives.

    The fact that both sides see weakness and failure in the other’s beliefs and behavior is likely due to both ignorance (of the other side’s true beliefs) and misbehavior (failure by the other side to follow their true beliefs).

  77. feeriker says:

    OT, courtesy of Captain Capitaism:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/182685/australian-government-launches-code-word-program-to-protect-fragile-women-from-bad-dates?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter%20dlvrit%20rss

    Can one of our brothers here from Down Under confirm whether or not this is really a thing (I don’t doubt for a millisecond that it is) and not a misplaced article from The Onion?

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    If the Aussie code-word program is a real thing, then Encyclopedia Dramatica is gonna have to update its “Almost Raped” entry…

  79. ray says:

    Frank K —
    “What does ((())) mean?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

    Thank you. I already knew what it meant, of course. I wanted an explanation by Jeff Strand as to why it is meritorious and Christian to place the name of Jews in triple-parentheses.

    Seeing that I’m a Jew, I take that as a personal threat. And I treat such threats of targeting, harm or extermination with my full attention and heart.

    “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:28-29)

    Meaning, for spiritual and eternal purposes, there is no difference between ‘Jews’ and ‘Christians’. Only difference is the historical/cultural paths various groups and tribes took to arrive together at the Truth.

    Clearly the West is now teeming with false ‘Jews’, who use genealogies and pseudo-religious twaddle to pretend they are part of Jeshua’s holy people. Heck half the ‘Jews’ in America don’t even BELIEVE in God. ANY God, much less Jehovah of Scripture. These individuals and their groups have been on the front lines of modern FeMarxism and Totalitarian Progressivism for many, many decades now. That does NOT give ANYBODY the right to target ‘The Jews’ using parentheses or any other demagogic technique of mass hatred.

    The King makes it clear when speaking to the Church of Philadelphia and its angel that, thousands of years prior, He already was aware of treachery and falseness within the profane umbrella of ‘Jewry’. Indeed, He assures that at the proper time, these false and treacherous ‘Jews’ will be forced to kneel to the very persons they are now persecuting — Christ’s People. Jeshua has it well in-hand, and doesn’t need ‘help’.

    The use of the triple parentheses is a chief tool of certain elements of the alt.right, and its employment has been led by Teddie Beale, who styles himself The Supreme Dark Lord, the better to wow and ensnare the Lost Boys of the West that he targets. How’s old man LePen these days, Ted? :O)

    Thus, my question was directed at Jeff Strand, as clearly he finds use of this technique to be correct and profitable for supposed Christians. But then, even Teddie calls himself a ‘Christian’ these days!

    How can a Christian single-out and persecute fellow-Christians (Romans 2:28-29)? They cannot.

    Those who employ the ((())) technique thus — like satan — are divided against themselves. Likewise, I note that Teddie’s Arab pal, Daryush, utilizes his site ‘Return of Kings’ as a platform for very open hatred of ‘The Jews’. How do Christians here integrate that cognitively? It’s OK because, uh, Teddie and Daryush are ‘on the team’? They are ‘fighting the good fight against feminism’? So teaching the world that it is good to hate Jews will please Father and Jeshua?

    You are known not only by your works, but by the company you keep, and you certainly will be judged accordingly. People want to be part of the group, to fit in, particularly in this hour, when family and other relationships are fractured. Don’t let that desire lead you into condemnation along with The Liar’s agents.

    I LOVE Jews and I LOVE the name of Israel, and nobody is going to make me ashamed of either.

    False Jews, like false Christians, will be dealt with at the appropriate time, by the appropriate authorities, which damn sure ain’t Jeff Strand, Ted Beale, or Roosh the Doosh. Anybody that puts the name of Jews in triple parentheses, you see me coming down the street, you better run.

    My apologies to the host for veering off-topic.

  80. feministhater says:

    Seeing that I’m a Jew, I take that as a personal threat. And I treat such threats of targeting, harm or extermination with my full attention and heart.

    You take it as a personal threat because someone put triple parenthesis around a word? Lol!

  81. feministhater says:

    Anybody that puts the name of Jews in triple parentheses, you see me coming down the street, you better run.

    That’s kind of a threat… you know that, right?

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Joss Whedon continues to build his reputation as a male feminist with his new sci-fi TV show: https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/hbo-joss-whedon-the-nevers-1202872854/

    HBO has given a series order to “The Nevers,” a science-fiction drama from Joss Whedon. The series is described as a sci-fi epic about a gang of Victorian women who find themselves with unusual abilities, relentless enemies, and a mission that might change the world.

  83. AnonS says:

    HBO has given a series order to “The Nevers,” a science-fiction drama from Joss Whedon. The series is described as a sci-fi epic about a gang of Victorian women who find themselves with unusual abilities, relentless enemies, and a mission that might change the world.

    So we know half the cast will be gay, but how many trans characters?

  84. feministhater says:

    Yay! Another series I won’t be watching. At this point I couldn’t really care. I have better things to spend my time on.

  85. BillyS says:

    Anybody that puts the name of Jews in triple parentheses, you see me coming down the street, you better run.

    Why would I want to run? You want to reap what you sow?

    Calling out fake people is completely acceptable. The Apostle Paul did it when wishing that the Judiazers would castrate themselves, for example. Jesus also had a lot of really nasty words for the unrepentant.

    Vox may have his flaws (and I have disagreed with him at times myself), but so do most Christians since they remain humans.

    I am not sure if you wrote the above Ray, but you are not above quite a bit of idiocy yourself.

    And what have you been doing to fight the culture wars beyond a few posts to reply to blogs? Vox is at least doing something, which most more than most of us. Lets here of all the things you are doing to oppose the general slide to unrighteousness rather than your self-posturing. Or should I call you (((ray)))?

  86. BillyS says:

    FH,

    I would have loved to have some solid superhero and SciFi movies when I was growing up, at least more than were out there, yet I have given up on most of them now. They are definitely not worth the time.

    Too bad, since media can be very good when not used for a godless message.

  87. BillyS says:

    That should be “hear” not “here” above.

  88. rocko says:

    Ariana Grande.

    Give it time. She’ll out Dan Schneider from Nickelodeon as a rapist. Now that does give out and extra strong pedo vibe, but I imagine girls like Ariana Grande are willing to put out. And as commenter Jack Russell stated, Grande will be replaced by another blonde bimbo who’s going to suck off another pedo producer.

  89. earl says:

    Joss Whedon continues to build his reputation as a male feminist

    Yup…they are the biggest cads, weirdos, and sexual harrassers.

    https://www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-feminist-hypocrite-infidelity-affairs-ex-wife-kai-cole-says/

  90. earl says:

    Any of those Disney-Nickeolodian kids were basically groomed to be sex kittens.

    I mean one child star going off the rails might be an oddity, two is a coincidence, when it’s all of them…you know what you got going on there.

    And there’s no doubt in my mind those producers of those kids shows are at the very least sick in the head if not preteenophiles themselves.

  91. Opus says:

    I would just like to express my pleasure that today the 45th President of the U.S.A. and his wife were welcomed to Windsor Castle by Her Majesty QE2 and consort The Duke of Edinburgh. Daily Mail readers, I see, concur.

  92. feeriker says:

    I would just like to express my pleasure that today the 45th President of the U.S.A. and his wife were welcomed to Windsor Castle by Her Majesty QE2 and consort The Duke of Edinburgh. Daily Mail readers, I see, concur.

    Can anyone else envision The Donald reverting to his old CEO mode and breaking protocol/causing a scandal by gently putting his arm around Her Majesty’s shoulders and saying “Look, Lizzie, can I give you some practical advice on how to clean up this mess you have on your hands here? This is one Yank who wants to see Britain Great again too.”

  93. feeriker says:

    Any of those Disney-Nickeolodian kids were basically groomed to be sex kittens.

    This has been so obvious for so long that I’m amazed no one has gone after Disney/Nickolodean long before now.

  94. Gunner Q says:

    “The use of the triple parentheses is a chief tool of certain elements of the alt.right, and its employment has been led by Teddie Beale”

    His claims and evidence of Jewish conspiracy in American leadership are convincing; in fact, it’s the Jews who gave him the idea that ‘demographics are destiny’ in the first place. You should be as proud of your Jewish heritage as I am of the Baby Boomers.

  95. BillyS says:

    The Jews that cause the problems are in the same mode as the ones that led to the downfall of ancient Israel and Judah. They went after their own ways rather than those of the God they claim to have as their heritage.

    I would be much more sympathetic to those who are rightly being attacked if they at least held true to their religion, but that is out the window as well for them. I may have serious issues with the Rabbi’s in Israel now who persecute Christians, but at least they are attempting to be true to a twisted form of Judaism. (It changed when the Temple fell because sacrifices were no longer possible. Few today even have an eye toward that. I have heard a group in Russia in the Tsar’s time escaped persecution that was on other Jews because they really were faithful to the core beliefs of Judaism, unlike others who go with a weak substitute.)

  96. BillyS says:

    OT for this thread, but worth posting here: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/301980/

  97. vfm7916 says:

    Quite a bit can also be derived from those who use the term “Teddie Beale” in reference to the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil.

    SJW, Cuckservative, Gamma, etc.

  98. Boxer says:

    vfm7916 sez:

    Quite a bit can also be derived from those who use the term “Teddie Beale” in reference to the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil.

    SJW, Cuckservative, Gamma, etc.

    The self-described satanist and failed ebook merchant also has a “hate speech” lawsuit against people who made fun of him on the internet.

    https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/that-vox-v-gab-think-explained-as-best-i-can/

    That’s the most SJW thing I’ve ever seen. It far outdoes anything that that the feminists usually do.

    Your pathetic guru or “dark lord,” Vox Day, is the biggest joke on the internet.

    Regards,

    Boxer (Secret King of All Gamma Males)

  99. vfm7916 says:

    Yay for you, Boxer! Still poasting on Gab?

    Quite a revealing day all around.

  100. BillyS says:

    Failed ebooks Boxer? I seriously doubt that.

    Who put sand in your panties?

  101. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    Who put sand in your panties?

    Weird homosexual allusions don’t reflect on anyone but you. It is typical of a Vox Day cultist to do that, though. I look forward to a SirHamster/Cane Caldo level eruption of goony degeneracy.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  102. Swanny River says:

    Boxer, and Sharkly,
    Speaking of biggest jokes around, can one of you word-guys come up with a punchline to finish the title of the OP?
    Friday night funnies- “It was so big that…..”

  103. BillyS says:

    VFW, Vox certainly earns a good deal of the ire he receives, but he has far more merit than the detractors here see. Being childish and using “Teddy” does show immaturity though, especially since few here use their real names either.

    Would they be calling Mark Twain “Sammy Clement” if he were alive now? Do they do so anyway? Makes me think more of a teen girl slap fight.

  104. BillyS says:

    homosexual allusions

    ??

    I was just kind of using a well known phrase. Perhaps not the ideal phrase, but whatever.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    I was just kind of using a well known phrase. Perhaps not the ideal phrase, but whatever.

    No, you were using the tactic that Vox Day / Ted Beale suggests using, against anyone who dares disagree with you on the internet.

    When Cane Caldo and Sir Hamster “came out” with the imaginative lie that I was a homosexual pedophile, right here on Dalrock, it was not some sort of original thought that either of those two idiots had. They got it from their “dark lord.” Right after they did it to me, they did it to someone else.

    During that same period, someone came over to my blog, and outed one of the two of those morons. I know his name, his wife’s name, and his home address. With this I could pull his place of employment in about half an hour, and I could file some frivolous lawsuits. If I were as petty as you’re painting me, that’s what I’d have done. Unlike Vox Day, and apparently you, I have a life, and far better things to do. This is the difference between men like me, and men like you.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  106. vfm7916 says:

    Billy,

    If I had to guess I’d say he was a Vox commenter that got himself banned and spammed for Gamma’ing. I’d also say he is still a Gab user and AA follower. The pattern if very familiar, and only those who have been on those platforms would use those specifics, I think.

  107. Jeff Strand says:

    Ray,

    Relax, buddy. No one is going to burn a cross on your lawn, regardless of your paranoid fantasies. I wasn’t attacking you or “all Jews” by putting the triple parenthesis around “feminist” – just indicating facts. And it’s merely a historical fact that the modern feminist movement – like the Bolshevik movement – was nearly entirely Jewish. Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, the Frankfurt School, etc were all Jews. Make of that what you will, but it remains fact.

    And while you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. If people on here were attacking you because you’re a Jew (something you’ll note I have not done), you’d have every right to complain. And I’d agree with you! But you have no moral right to complain merely because someone referenced the bare FACT that modern American feminism was started and promoted by Jews. You have no right to demand that we take that fact and “flush it down the memory hole”, simply because you find that fact uncomfortable.

    And complaining about such a reference to that fact on the basis that you “feel threatened” only makes you look ridiculous, amd destroys your credibility.

    Peace.

  108. ys says:

    VFM-
    One thing I’ve noticed, not that you’ll likely agree, is that Vox Day would as likely eviscerate you on his own blog, as he would acknowledge you standing up for him here.
    Also, Boxer the self-described heathen has some very insightful spiritual notions.

  109. earl says:

    They got it from their “dark lord.”

    Baseless accusations…that does sound like something the father of lies would come up with.

  110. earl says:

    Also if you ever look up Vox’s definition of gamma male and apply it to a lot of his actions…well it does make me wonder how he discovered that term.

  111. Jeff Strand says:

    @Paul: “This touches the core of the issue. Protestantism in its various forms always has stressed that salvation is by grace only NOT by works, to the point that ANY activity related to holy living is highly suspicious, bordering on the heretical.”

    Just need to correct you here, because it changes the meaning quite a bit.

    If Protestants truly taught that we are saved by grace only, there would be no conflict with Catholic teaching. Because the RCC has always taught (and re-affirmed at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s) that by grace alone are we saved, through both faith and good works.

    Where Protestants veered away from Catholic teaching is when they (beginning with Luther himself) began to teach that we are saved by FAITH ALONE. In fact, in his German translation of the Bible, Luther added the word “alone” to one of St Paul’s Epistles, so that the phrase “for by faith are we saved” became “for by faith alone are we saved”. There’s just no question that “alone” was never there in the original Greek words that St. Paul wrote, as Luther himself admitted. When people demanded of Luther by what authority he put words into the mouth of St. Paul, Luther answered that it was sufficient that “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors of Pope-dom. And further, papists and asses are one and the same thing.”

    This is just one reason among many why a lot of people (myself included) have concluded that Luther was quite seriously mentally ill (his denial of free will was another, as was his insistence that Christ had fornicated with at least 3 different women – Mary of Magdala, the woman by the well, and the woman taken in adultery “whom He dismissed so lightly”)

    So anyway, just wanted to clear that up. Where certain Protestant sects get into the weeds on this issue is when they teach that we are saved by FAITH ALONE. Not when they teach GRACE ALONE, which is actually the ancient doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. (And of course, the assertion that we are saved by faith alone is explicitly denied by St. James in his epistle. Which explains why Luther wanted to remove it from the canon of the NT, but his associates talked him out of it – they weren’t sure the peasantry would stand for ripping whole books out of the NT)

  112. SirHamster says:

    Boxer is still spending this much effort to lie about me?

    Quit acting like a woman, Boxer. Act like a man.

    Failed ebooks Boxer? I seriously doubt that.

    Repeated #1 bestsellers in different categories on Amazon is FAILURE. A few more failures like that, and Vox will lose all his authors and go bankrupt!

    Disconnecting from reality is low energy. Sad!

  113. SirHamster says:

    One thing I’ve noticed, not that you’ll likely agree, is that Vox Day would as likely eviscerate you on his own blog, as he would acknowledge you standing up for him here.

    You assume evisceration is a bad thing. Sharp and truthful criticism is a rare good, and the SDL provides much for free.

    You also misunderstand the relation Vox has with his VFM. The VFM are loyal not because they seek his affection, but because he inspires it with his work and leadership. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can’t criticize what you don’t understand.

  114. Boxer says:

    SirHamster kookfarts:

    Boxer is still spending this much effort to lie about me?

    For the new folks, who don’t know the so-called “dark lord” and his worshippers, this should get you started…

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    Hilarious to see you reappear immediately, when I tell the truth about you, by the way.

    Keep spinning,

    Boxer

  115. Boxer says:

    You also misunderstand the relation Vox has with his VFM. The VFM are loyal not because they seek his affection, but because he inspires it with his work and leadership. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can’t criticize what you don’t understand.

    SLUURRRRRRRRPPPP!

  116. vfm7916 says:

    I delight that I have to provide no more proof of the Supreme Dark Lord’s definition of Gamma that what Boxer has so eloquently provided, but I would be remiss if I did not offer a prediction:

    Boxer will have to have the last reply poast, even if he has to wait months to do so.

  117. earl says:

    I don’t know if it ever did…however the music industry is really not hiding it anymore.

  118. Sharkly says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5952605/Man-21-accused-killing-bride-bes-baby-boy.html
    Apparently it is in female nature to let the new man kill off her baby from the last guy, and to even defend him and marry him while he is up on murder charges. Not exactly what they teach us in skool.

  119. earl says:

    Apparently it is in female nature to let the new man kill off her baby from the last guy, and to even defend him and marry him while he is up on murder charges. Not exactly what they teach us in skool.

    I’m convinced some females are just so steeped in evil they’ll stand by her man’s demon seed.

    Call this reason #5423234324 why a sane rational man should never get involved with a single mother.

  120. Boxer says:

    Apparently it is in female nature to let the new man kill off her baby from the last guy, and to even defend him and marry him while he is up on murder charges. Not exactly what they teach us in skool.

    Most of the hatred of fathers and husbands, by feminists, is based on slanted data provided by white trash exactly like this. Some wimminz studies grad student is right now citing this idiot in her dissertation, to support her theory that fathers can not be trusted.

    In reality, that baby’s father was the only man on earth who would have properly looked after the child. The feminists are the reason that he wasn’t around to do the natural fatherly thing. Don’t you boys ever forget this, either.

    Boxer

  121. Sharkly says:

    Swanny River says: Boxer, and Sharkly,
    Speaking of biggest jokes around, can one of you word-guys come up with a punchline to finish the title of the OP?

    Ephesians 5:3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

    Apparently my account has been hacked numerous times in the past by somebody posting sarcasm, coarse jesting, and Alpha Badboy type comments under my name. No doubt it has some of you confused to think I am not grave and that I in fact find humor in the inappropriate.

    LOL, actually I have lost access to my sons for over 6 months, due to a sarcastic joke that the courts fail to see the humor in. So I, of all folks, should probably have a few (chicks with dicks) jokes up my sleeve. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is preventing them from springing to memory at this moment.

    On a side note, If Dalrock could leave the phallic references out of the title of his posts, then they would not appear so conspicuously on my browser tabs at work. I’m surprised I’m even able to view the site. Many other sites have been blocked for not being work related, or some other PC BS.

  122. PokeSalad says:

    My decision to read Dalrock’s initial posts, and ignore the commentary, is again amply validated.

  123. ys says:

    Not a big deal, Sir Hamster, but let’s have some fun:
    I remember one of your rebukes specifically. You said that Stickwick was a female scientist, and VD said, paraphrased, that you “shouldn’t bother, her husband is one of those big scary guys.”
    So you say, “Sharp and truthful criticism is a rare good, and the SDL provides much for free.” Ok…were you hitting on Stickwick? Of course you weren’t. I know you weren’t. I know you were not white-knighting either, and here I am, a mere midwit, not a +3SD UHIQ. So, no doubt VD knew it too. Then what was the point? Smacking you down, b/c it felt good, you would take it like a good little boy, and then say, “thank you sir, may I have another.”
    In that context, you should have nutted up and said, “I wasn’t hitting on her, you know it, don’t be stupid.”

  124. ingracious says:

    Re: Code word program/#AskForAngela here in Australia and whether it’s real or not

    Yes, it’s real and is starting over here in Sydney (likely spreading to all the other big cities soon enough), although I remembered seeing that campaign quite some time ago and it turns out I was right: It started in 2016 in the UK.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37855009
    (dated 2 November 2016)

    “A simple code-word campaign for people feeling unsafe on a date has got global attention since a picture of this poster dotted around bars in Lincolnshire, England emerged on Twitter.”

    “It is the work of Lincolnshire County Council and has even caught the attention of Hollywood.”

    “Hayley Child, who came up with the campaign, was amazed when the poster got Ashton Kutcher’s approval.”

    “Hayley, who works as the sexual violence and abuse strategy co-ordinator for Lincolnshire, said: “Angela was a play on the word (guardian) Angel. The posters are up in male and female toilets, and provide reassurance there is support available if needed.”

    Mention of the fact that “Ask for Angela” started in the UK is also found in this article:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-10/ask-for-angela-safety-campaign-launched-in-sydney/9971984

    “The NSW (/New South Wales/) Government today launched the internationally recognised ‘Ask for Angela’ safety campaign to prevent violence and anti-social behaviour in Sydney’s CBD (/Central Business District – Sydney’s downtown area where all the bars and clubs are/).”

    “Originally created two years ago in Lincolnshire, England, Minister for Police Troy Grant said the program has been successful and supports the introduction in Sydney.”

    “Assistant Commissioner Walton added police will monitor how effective the program is before considering a broader use.”

    This is all to say that while Australia is indeed implementing this program now, Australia is not responsible for inventing it. It’s not among the litany of uniquely Australian crazy social/political programs we’ve created.

    That post on RoK is largely just old news.

    —–

    Re: The talk about ((()))

    I don’t really want to address all the talk about whether such a thing is offensive to Jews (or to “good Jews” or whatever), but rather about its usefulness:

    @Jeff Strand wants to talk about how it’s an absolute fact that “modern American feminism was started … by Jews”. That seems like an inherently simplified, constrained view of history and something that realistically couldn’t be called a fact at all, but let’s just grant that it is a fact:

    Let’s even say that Jews were actually 100% responsible for creating feminism and spreading it across America. It was all Jews, at all levels, all the time.

    Well, so what?

    Is there something uniquely Jewish about feminism itself? Did feminism’s existence actually require that Jews create and spread it, or was it just the case that – in the course of history – the individuals who created and spread it happened to be Jews? Could feminism not have still arisen even if no Jews, not a single one, were to have been involved with it at all?

    Would feminism have just been a still-born non-idea that never came about in modern societies if the Jews didn’t get their mitts on it? Is that the implicit contention here?

    Of what actual relevence is it that the people who came up with an idea 100+ years ago happened to be Jewish, or Sikh, or the followers of any given religion or ideology if the actual teachings of their religion/ideology are not a part of the idea they created?

    If feminism isn’t uniquely Jewish (i.e. Judaism’s teachings are not feminism’s teachings; one doesn’t need to be a Jew in order to be a feminist), and feminism could have been created and spread by individuals who weren’t Jewish (i.e. Feminism didn’t need Jews in order to exist as an ideology), then what’s the actual point of bringing up that feminism was created by Jews when it could just as well have been created by anyone else?

    That’s what I don’t get. The whole “((()))” marker was created to bring attention to the Jewish status of a given person or an organisation/movement – it’s meant to be used to “spread awareness”. Well, spread awareness of what? That someone happened to be a Jew? Or a Jew happened to make something? How is that actually helpful to know? How does it help anyone to actually solve any of the societal problems we have today?

    How does (((this))) achieve anything?

    When it comes down to it, someone’s historical Jewish status when creating feminism is only relevant if you also believe that there’s an anti-civilisational Jewish conspiracy amongst groups of Jews which has been in play, in the shadows, for centuries now.

    And that The Jews have this huge, long-term, super-effective, influential, undefeatable conspiracy going for themselves but are still so slack as to still use their Jewish identities wherever they go instead of just… not doing so. It’s not like they don’t run the world’s governments and couldn’t just get some fake passports and some rhinoplasty or something – Jewish doctors and lawyers, y’know.

    Really, if there was a Jewish conspiracy, then “((()))” wouldn’t even exist: You wouldn’t be able to know that the Jews were behind anything at all, because they wouldn’t leave behind such obvious evidence and they’d have you killed if you genuinely did find anything (e.g. Mossad and its infamous international assassinations).

    I mean, why would such a powerful conspiracy tolerate someone like the creators of “((()))” or this Vox Day guy ‘blowing the whistle’ on their big plans? All this Jewish stuff makes very little sense to me.

  125. Cane Caldo says:

    Boxer wrote:

    When Cane Caldo and Sir Hamster “came out” with the imaginative lie that I was a homosexual pedophile, right here on Dalrock, it was not some sort of original thought that either of those two idiots had. They got it from their “dark lord.” Right after they did it to me, they did it to someone else.

    During that same period, someone came over to my blog, and outed one of the two of those morons. I know his name, his wife’s name, and his home address. With this I could pull his place of employment in about half an hour, and I could file some frivolous lawsuits. If I were as petty as you’re painting me, that’s what I’d have done. Unlike Vox Day, and apparently you, I have a life, and far better things to do. This is the difference between men like me, and men like you.

    Everything not bolded is also probably a lie, and I’m willing to bet it is. If it’s me you have info on: Fire away, Boxer. Dox me. Sue me. Do your worst.

    Everything in bold is definitely a lie. People can look back at the links. In one place, Boxer put forward the ideas of the homosexual Jack Donovan. Sir Hamster rightly pointed out that Donovan’s judgment can’t be trusted because the judgment of homosexuals by definition is perverse. Boxer then tried to twist it that Sir Hamster wrote of him, Boxer. I chimed in that it was perfectly legible Sir Hamster had called Donovan a homosexual, not Boxer, and that Boxer is a liar and a troll. He still is.

    Another sample of his lies can be found at this link
    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/04/10/an-open-letter-to-lyn87/
    where he attributes to me the words of commenter safespaceplaypen. He has a screen shot of something I wrote. After that Boxer wrote “More of the same nonsense…”; below which he posted a screen shot of safespaceplaypen’s comment as if it were mine.

    For the moment Boxer has links on his pages to the posts of Dalrock that he pretends to reference honestly. It is perfectly fine with me if anyone does. Boxer’s comments are those of a twerp; someone whose absence here would cause no loss, and certainly a bit of gain.

  126. ray says:

    Billy S — “Being childish and using “Teddy” does show immaturity though, especially since few here use their real names either.”

    Ray is my real name. Unless birth cert isn’t sufficient to your sharp analysis?

    Do continue with your false accusations, made in spiteful haste, young ‘Christian’. Your works reveal you, as with your guru Teddie.

  127. Jeff Strand says:

    Ingracious:

    RE the triple parentheses. Get the book “The High Priests of War”, by Michael Collins Piper and read it. You can purchase it here:

    https://www.amazon.com/High-Priests-Michael-Collins-Piper/dp/0974548413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531547193&sr=8-1&keywords=The+high+priests+of+war

    Then realize, if we had had social media and used the triple parentheses in 2002-03 there’s a good chance we could have prevented the catastrophe of the Iraq War. And saved roughly one million lives.

    That’s just one example.

  128. ray says:

    Jeff Strand — I am not your buddy. You’ve got a big mouth.

  129. SirHamster says:

    Not a big deal, Sir Hamster, but let’s have some fun:
    I remember one of your rebukes specifically. You said that Stickwick was a female scientist, and VD said, paraphrased, that you “shouldn’t bother, her husband is one of those big scary guys.”

    That’s not even a rebuke. There was also a neologism involved: “Scientits”.

    It was a funny thread.

    In that context, you should have nutted up and said, “I wasn’t hitting on her, you know it, don’t be stupid.”

    You are taking a throwaway exchange far too seriously. You saw a rebuke. I saw a helpful warning about not crossing a line.

    It didn’t need a response, and I definitely didn’t need to call anyone stupid over it. That you think so is only making me question your judgement.

  130. ingracious says:

    @Jeff Strand

    Care to elaborate on the logical connection between propagating anti-Jewish sentiment through social media and potentially stopping the Iraq War?

    If the “‘Neo-Conservative’ Trotskyites” gained control of the United States government with dreams of empire-building which lead them to “orchestrate” the Iraq War, then what would the existence of shitposters on the internet have actually done to stop them?

    Did that book have much impact on stopping the Iraq War after it started?

    If you wanted me to read such a book (nevermind pay good money for it), you’d have to make it seem like there’s something of actual substance written in it.

  131. Opus says:

    @Feeriker

    I think I see what you did there: QE2’s #metoo moment.

    Most of the English think that Britain is situate about fifty miles off Nantucket Sound rather than twenty-two miles from Calais and if the Mail is anything to go by – as it is – would far rather that Mr Trump were in charge than Mrs May. There is of course historical precedent for a united Britain and America (which y’all wrecked). No matter how strange I find Americans they are at least understandable in a way that is not true of those on the European continent.

    Her Majesty served Mr and Mrs Trump (so we are told – it must have then been about 4pm), tea – was this a subtle dig about unpaid taxes??? Her Majesty will have observed to her guest that both their Mothers were Scots (but perhaps not that the male side of their respective families were German).

  132. Opus says:

    I think I can best sum-up the difference between Americans and British this way: Americans all have a hot-line to Jesus (call-free) and even American Jews love Jesus (((call-free))); The British however regard God (the Father) as an Englishman – who does not, having delegated authority to the aforementioned QE2, micro-manage, and is thus not to be either for himself or his (((family))), disturbed (we hate making a fuss and see complaining as both embarrassing and bad-manners but worst of all a sign of lack-of-breeding). I am not sure how this block to our eventual and desirable reunification can be resolved.

  133. pariah says:

    Jeff Strand said: Martin Luther insisted “that Christ had fornicated with at least 3 different women…”

    Where on earth did you get this claim? And with what proof?

  134. pariah says:

    Luther insisted no such thing; it’s a second hand account taken out of context: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html

  135. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,
    Welcome back. I was worried that we had chased you off. What with all the name calling and finger pointing and bashing and rancor. “This town needs an enema!”

    To All:
    I really do think that these(ultimately petty) internet battles(ultimately all of them are over disrespect) with unseen enemies provide some folks with a bit of purpose, who should already be occupied with greater purposes. While I understand the desire to maintain a person’s reputation, we get way to concerned about it. Ideas, doctrines and beliefs can all be argued free from emotion and free from insults. When people get angry and insult each other, they are no longer proving their point or presenting evidence, just returning evil, or worse starting it. Plus, around here I don’t think I should have to mention that it isn’t very Alpha to get your panties all bunched up over somebody trolling you. I’ll throw out the relevant quote again.
    Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances. ~Thomas Jefferson

    I am reminded of a time in my youth. I almost got into a fight at Jr. High School. My father, a Mennonite, was strongly against fighting. To try to partially excuse myself in his eyes, I explained that the other boy had called me a “son of a bitch”, and that I felt like he was insulting my parents, and that I was really sticking up for them. I said, “I was sticking up for your reputation dad!” My Father chuckled and said “Nice try! My reputation, as a man, is not the least bit at stake, no matter what any kid at your school might say. That is no excuse to be fighting.”

    In the same way, I believe if you are Alpha, like my father, and confident in your manhood, or personage, or identity, or whatever, you should not act as though your reputation is somehow at stake every time some stranger from the internet, who knows next to nothing of you, publishes a barb, or an insult, or flat out trolls you. Just laugh it off. Amused mastery! If you act too upset it almost makes it appear like the remark landed too close to home, and bore some truth. Consider that a “game” lesson. Don’t get down on the ground fighting with the ankle biters. Does some petulant stranger on the internet really hold the key to your reputation? God forbid it should ever be that flimsy, even in your esteem-deprived mind. Point #1 You are a man. Created in the very image of God Himself. If you follow Jesus Christ, you will bear that image for all eternity in a glorified and perfected body. Nobody or nothing here on this earth can ever take that away from you. You were created with an immortal soul, and can in fact become an eternal child of God, and heir of the all-glorious kingdom of heaven. If you grab hold of that thought alone, you’d realize that no internet troll can steal your innate dignity. I won’t even go onto point #2. You’re a man! In Gods very image, and bearing His glory!(1 Corinthians 11:7)

    @Ingracious, again:
    Would feminism have just been a still-born non-idea that never came about in modern societies if the Jews didn’t get their mitts on it?
    That does seem to be their thought, that somehow Jew power has made Feminism magically extra evil and virulent, and especially needs to be watched out for. Otherwise, you’re right, that the Jewish origin is moot.

    Here is a thought. The Jews are in fact a chosen people. Chosen by God. Chosen to illustrate that God can chose to act through any He choses to. They were not chosen based on merit or superior genetics, but more to prove God could work through any people. Because they are God’s chosen people, it almost seems that Satan delights in using and abusing them. Apostate Jews seem to be used for a great deal of evil.(see Hollywood, Etc.) And Jews are probably blamed for even more evil, than they are even used for, which is evil against Jews, and God, but likely part of Satan’s purpose.

    To All:
    Ray points out that we are all now capable of being God’s chosen people, but by the immortal Spirit, not all according to the flesh and the preexisting covenants thereof. So I am a chosen one, predestined by God to be his child, but hopefully without the stiff necked character that the Bible describes many Jews(by the flesh) as having. My fleshly circumcision does not make me even a bit Jewish, but it is my circumcision of the heart(Acts 7:51) that shows me to be a chosen child of God’s. However, correct me if I’m wrong, that will never make me a physical Jew, and as a non-Jew, I’ll spare you all the SJW adopted outrage against Jeff’s Triple Parenthesis. I think it is racist, and to be racist in today’s society for no good reason, is to be confrontational, and to be confrontational for no good reason is foolish. However if Jeff wants to badger God’s chosen people, regardless of their present evil and apostasy, he does so of his own foolishness and brings whatever the judgement may be on his own head.
    Genesis 27:29 May peoples serve you,
    And nations bow down to you;
    Be master of your brothers,
    And may your mother’s sons bow down to you.
    Cursed be those who curse you,
    And blessed be those who bless you.”

    Now Ray, you made a good point, but then you went too far.
    Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
    Even if Jeff did mean to curse you with each parenthesis(Because you identify as a Jew now) you are called to bless him with something, like perhaps some Bible wisdom, but the threat, was certainly not a blessing, and I know you know better.

    I’ll say it again here:
    Society will never show men respect again, until we as men can show each other respect and model the behavior for the rest of society. Seriously! Can we expect them to respect us if we refuse to respect “us”?

    Men! Stop fighting, be dignified, and show the others the level of respect you’d like to receive.

  136. Sharkly says:

    Opus says: Most of the English think … if the Mail is anything to go by – as it is – would far rather that Mr Trump were in charge than Mrs May. … Her Majesty served Mr and Mrs Trump … tea – was this a subtle dig about unpaid taxes??? … I am not sure how this block to our eventual and desirable reunification can be resolved.

    I’m working on it! How about…

  137. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane Caldo:

    Everything not bolded is also probably a lie, and I’m willing to bet it is. If it’s me you have info on: Fire away, Boxer. Dox me. Sue me. Do your worst.

    Again, I’m not like you, SirHamster, or your “dark lord” (fuck’n lol). The difference between my type and yours is an object lesson that I hope to impress upon young brothers. Thank you for playing your part as a warning to others.

    Another sample of his lies can be found at this link
    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/04/10/an-open-letter-to-lyn87/
    where he attributes to me the words of commenter safespaceplaypen. He has a screen shot of something I wrote. After that Boxer wrote “More of the same nonsense…”; below which he posted a screen shot of safespaceplaypen’s comment as if it were mine.

    Thanks for posting that link. I found it very interesting that you and your sockpuppets told precisely similar lies about that guy, only a few weeks after my run through. I was schooled on where you learned it shortly afterward.

    For the moment Boxer has links on his pages to the posts of Dalrock that he pretends to reference honestly.

    Now you’re “doubling down,” exactly as your “dark lord” instructs. I’m sure I fabricated the screenshots, too. You guys are really low-effort whiners.

    It is perfectly fine with me if anyone does. Boxer’s comments are those of a twerp; someone whose absence here would cause no loss, and certainly a bit of gain.

    Sorry, liar. You’re not the author of this blog. Get Dalrock to ask me to leave and I’ll do it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  138. Boxer says:

    SirHamster sez:

    It didn’t need a response, and I definitely didn’t need to call anyone stupid over it. That you think so is only making me question your judgement.

    Somebody’s judgment ought to be investigated, to be sure. Here’s your “dark lord” at his best.

    https://archive.org/details/youtube-cFyshlUgqjg

    He couldn’t even win an argument with a goony neo-nazi. How do you explain this?

    Boxer

  139. mgtowhorseman says:

    Dalrock.

    Way off topic but you might want to post about it.

    Ok interesting one.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-grey-area-the-fragile-frontier-of-dementia-intimacy-and-sexual/

    Two alzheimers patients in a ltc can’t remember their non live in spouses. They form a relationship with daily contact. Moral and consent issues?
    Going to happen as boomers age.

    Vice versa stories every week of long term married couples seperated to different homes because there is no requirement to prioritize keeping couples together.

  140. earl says:

    Just 28 per cent of Canadians fully understand what consent entails, according to research conducted earlier this year by The Canadian Women’s Foundation.

    Gee, I wonder why that is?

    “Consent is so challenging,” said Mary Schulz, director of education at the Alzheimer Society of Canada. “It’s a moving target. Our instruments for assessing that are quite blunt.”

    The starting point is Canada’s sexual-consent law, which is no different for people living with dementia than it is for anybody else. The Criminal Code is clear: Consent can be spoken or unspoken, but it needs to be affirmative and happen in the moment; passivity cannot be construed as a “yes,” and nobody can consent (or dissent) on anyone else’s behalf, not even with power of attorney.

    Bingo. They don’t even mention how the woman can take back consent after the fact if she doesn’t have the right feels about it.

  141. ys says:

    Boxer-
    Listened to highlights. That link was….something.

    Sir Hamster-
    I know I am not going to win this argument. Just start thinking, and break the chains as it were. You were made to look pathetic and you took it. If you listen to the link Boxer provided, VD admits that rules that are okay for him (calling others pedos) is not okay for them to do to him (being called one). Looked at the recent theology debate on his blog. Do what you like, but: You will never earn his respect, you shouldn’t care anyway, and you will receive more verbal thrashings on that site in the future I am sure. And when you do, you will say you deserved it. If I read it, I will lol.

  142. Jeff Strand says:

    @Ingracious: “If the “‘Neo-Conservative’ Trotskyites” gained control of the United States government with dreams of empire-building which lead them to “orchestrate” the Iraq War, then what would the existence of shitposters on the internet have actually done to stop them?”

    Same way Obama was stopped from launching a war against Syria in September of 2013. The people rose as one, called their congressmen (I recall doing this), and said absolutely no war against Syria. Obama had to back down, as he suddenly realized he had no support. So the same thing could have happened in 2002-03 if people had had access to the truth.

    Get that book and read it. You’ll see that it’s a real eye-opener.

  143. Jeff Strand says:

    @pariah: “Jeff Strand said: Martin Luther insisted “that Christ had fornicated with at least 3 different women…”

    Where on earth did you get this claim? And with what proof?”

    It is from the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works in German (WA). Here it is:

    Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 – May 1, 1532, p. 33)

  144. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand quotes Martin Luther as saying:

    Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 – May 1, 1532, p. 33)

    There is some debate as to context. Protestants argue that he was making a joke (in very poor taste) when he made such statements.

    https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery-three-times

    I don’t know that much about the venue, but I find it unlikely that Luther could have believed this. It just doesn’t square with the rest of his work.

    Boxer

  145. earl says:

    I see the Jon Stewart excuse was occurring long before Jon Stewart.

    Martin Luther, who was the leader of a new religion, wasn’t uttering blasphemy…he was just being a regular comedian.

  146. Jeff Strand says:

    Pariah:

    If you read Luther’s actual writings, and see what this man actually believed, I think it’s inevitable you will conclude (as I have) that he was seriously mentally ill. And not just because he claimed that Satan regularly appeared to him in physical form (On one occasion, Luther famously claimed to have chased away the Prince of Darkness by throwing his ink bottle at him)

    Take Luther’s book, “On the Bondage of the Will”, which he himself claimed to be his most important book. Here, Luther defied 1500 years of universal Christian teaching (both Roman Catholic as well as Eastern Orthodox) and all the Church Fathes by claiming that man has no free will. Here are a few of his quotes from the book (which is in the public domain, so you can download and read it yourself for free):

    Luther teaches: “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”

    “…we do everything of necessity and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil…”

    “Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”

    “His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.”

  147. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    I see the Jon Stewart excuse was occurring long before Jon Stewart… Martin Luther, who was the leader of a new religion, wasn’t uttering blasphemy…he was just being a regular comedian.

    Martin Luther wasn’t Jesus. He was a Catholic priest. He was also a human being. Most of us, mere mortals, say dumb things that we later regret. Even Catholic priests say dumb things, sometimes.

  148. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    I have specific responsibilities and duties, and if I fail in those expectations, I must answer for them. Part of my duties concerns the looking-after of ‘Israel’ and also of the sons of my birth-nation. You are not aware of my responsibilities, and thus it is unwise for you to comment upon my deportment, much less demand alterations to it.

    I don’t care if all seven billion of you don’t like it, or me. If you, or anyone else, has an objection to it, then take it up with the King, because it was His idea, and His travel-ticket.

    By this I mean no offense. I mean I won’t apologize for doing what I’m supposed to be doing.

  149. earl says:

    Most of us, mere mortals, say dumb things that we later regret.

    Yeah but others trying to dismiss it as a joke is the Jon Stewart excuse.

    I wish I knew the actual context Luther spoke. Was it a joke, another manifestation of mental illness, was he dead serious?

  150. Jeff Strand says:

    Luther also promised his followers a one-way ticket straight to Heaven if they would believe his new theology, REGARDLESS of what sins they should commit. This is something no Catholic pope or saint (or Eastern Orthodox Patriarch) would ever do, as they would call it blasphemy. After all, in the Gospel you will see that Our Blessed Lord Himself said (emphasis added): “Not all those who say to me ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter into My Kingdom, but ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER in Heaven.”

    Here are Luther’s own words on the matter:

    “It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.”

    “If we allow them – the Ten Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies”

    “Reason is directly opposed to faith, and one ought to let it be; in believers it should be killed and buried.”

    “A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone.”

    “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

    “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”

    “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”

    “Good works are bad and are sin like the rest.”

    “There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation.”

    “ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”

    “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”

    “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.”

    “Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business. The body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God, but only against one’s neighbour.”

    “As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.”

    “In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.” (You read that right. According to Luther, every time a Christian engages in the marital act with his wife, he is sinning. Astounding.)

    “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”

    “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (and with this quote, keep in mind that Luther’s “wife” was a vowed religious, i.e. a nun, who broke her sacred vows and “married” Luther)

    “It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters” (this quote would seem to undercut that Luther was “just joking” when he said Our Lord committed adultery with multiple women. For, what would be the point of this quote, if one held (as the RCC does) that Christ lived His earthly life without ever committing sin? The quote seems to imply that there was bad behavior on Christ’s part, but that we can safely ignore it and focus only on His teachings)

  151. Boxer says:

    Yeah but others trying to dismiss it as a joke is the Jon Stewart excuse… I wish I knew the actual context Luther spoke. Was it a joke, another manifestation of mental illness, was he dead serious?

    His devotees followed him around, as though he were Aristotle, writing down everything he said in passing. Some of this stuff is interesting, much of it is boring, and some of it is looney nonsense that sounds like a dope-addict’s ravings. When I read it, it reminds me of the Talmud, which also features a mix of stuff, from insightful to utterly stupid.

    On a historical note, I find only a little difference between Martin Luther and Ignatius Loyola. Had Luther been able to temper his hubris, and had the church been a little less unforgiving, he probably would have founded a new order (like Loyola did, with the S.J.) and stayed in the good graces of the pope. That aside, Luther did lots of cool stuff, both before and after he nailed up his theses, and I respect the man, despite his penchant for occasionally going off the rails.

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

    Boxer

  152. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    The problem with that is that Luther made the denial of man possessing free will the cornerstone of his new theology. Recall that the book where he laid out this teaching, “On the Bondage of the Will”, was his most important work, according to his own words.

    This is heresy pure and simple (it’s also just utter nonsense). Of course, it means that those who live a life at war with God and are subsequently damned, were damned through no fault of their own. To his credit, Luther does not shrink from this jarring yet inescapable conclusion, but embraces it. As you can see in one of his quotes I posted above: “God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”

    Is that the God you worship? Or do you worship the Catholic God, who has endowed men with free will, and will reward or punish each according to their own choices on the last day?

    P.S. When Luther said that men are not responsible for their own sinful behavior, because they are like a dumb beast of burden and an angel or a demon holds the reins and controls them, I wonder if that would fly with you if you walked in on your wife committing adultery. “But honey, don’t blame me! The little angel threw down the controlling reins of my will, and the little demon took them up and made me do this. I had to go along with it, like a robot!” I mean c’mon, really. So at a certain level, we all KNOW Luther’s novel theology was deranged.

    The ancient churches (Catholic and Orthodox) will always defend the doctrine of man’s free will. And therefore, will always condemn Luther as an arch-heretic. There’s nothing else for it.

  153. earl says:

    When Luther said that men are not responsible for their own sinful behavior, because they are like a dumb beast of burden and an angel or a demon holds the reins and controls them, I wonder if that would fly with you if you walked in on your wife committing adultery. “But honey, don’t blame me! The little angel threw down the controlling reins of my will, and the little demon took them up and made me do this. I had to go along with it, like a robot!”

    That actually does sound a lot more like the theology of wimminz today. Only instead of blaming the serpent like Eve did…they blame the Patriarchy.

    And if one more man tries to claim that women have no moral agency…I’m going to take the reins from the angel and whip him with it.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dear Jeff Strand:

    Acknowledged that Father Martin wrote nonsense. I don’t think we’re really arguing here. At the same time, he made the New Testament accessible to everyman, and he democratized the church, by allowing individuals to sing and pray out loud during the service.

    I note that the Catholics ended up agreeing with him on all these positive changes, but he was still the guy who initiated them. We can (and ought to) criticize him for his shortcomings, but we also have a duty to give him the credit he earned.

    Is that the God you worship? Or do you worship the Catholic God, who has endowed men with free will, and will reward or punish each according to their own choices on the last day?

    Technically, I’m a subject of the Mormon God. I do go to mass on the semi-regular, where I pray to Mary and Jesus, so Elohim is supposedly going to send me to outer darkness for my polytheistic tendencies. I’m at peace with this possibility, but I suspect that he’s not as uptight as my apostles and prophets make him out to be.

    Best,

    Boxer

  155. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Britain takes another progressive step toward ending sexual harassment and bullying among musicians: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2018/code-harassment-bullying-musicians/

    A code aimed at stamping out bullying and harassment among musicians – including those who work in West End pits – has been drafted.

    The code, a joint initiative between the Musicians’ Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians, aims to address “deeply concerning” reports that have been received by the organisations, ranging from sexism to sexual assault.

    Both organisations are calling on the sector to adopt the principles outlined in the code, which will help employers meet their legal requirements and encourage “a positive working culture”.

    By signing up, participating organisations vow to “encourage appropriate behaviour” and oppose “bullying, harassment and discrimination”.

    I hadn’t realized that bullying was rampant among classical musicians. How does that work? Give me your lunch money or I’ll break your violin?

    You’ve heard of “toxic masculinity.” In a related story, there is ‘Toxic culture’ of harassment uncovered among professional musicians: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2018/toxic-culture-of-harassment-uncovered-among-professional-musicians/

  156. pariah says:

    So it seems Luther’s position on free will is virtually the same as Calvin’s. Much of what Luther is quoted as saying does sound both insane and anti-biblical. For your information, I’m neither a Calvinist nor a Lutheran, but a non-denominational Christian.

  157. Sharkly says:

    Ray Says: I have specific responsibilities and duties, and if I fail in those expectations, I must answer for them. Part of my duties concerns the looking-after of ‘Israel’ and also of the sons of my birth-nation. You are not aware of my responsibilities, and thus it is unwise for you to comment upon my deportment, much less demand alterations to it.

    You’re right that I have no idea what special mission God has given you. However, unwise as it may be, I still find it highly unlikely that God wants you threatening folks over the internet. That is only my opinion, but I think I’m often not too far off. You can justify a lot of things to yourself, when you’re “on a mission from God”.
    1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
    22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
    23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

    If Jesus Christ the son of God did not even threaten, or revile, but instead suffered unjustly, I doubt your mission is to do those things. But, I might be wrong, so I’ll keep an open mind.

    However, as a general rule, we men need to show each other greater respect.

    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
    9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

    We should not be so easily denigrating other men who are created in the image of our God. you can confront and correct a person without resorting to insults and threats. And it is because of my respect for you, Ray, that I believe you are usually far better than that, and that I know you can condemn somebody’s action without seeming ill-tempered yourself.

  158. dvdivx says:

    Its not who’s dick is bigger. Its the south side of Chicago and no race was mentioned in most news outlets, therefore two blacks fought with a knife. Not a rare thing in that neighborhood. CBS to its credit had the video of the woman and sure enough shes black. As are the machete gangs in Chicago as are the other knife attacks on buses in the past, etc. Its like a pattern is forming and its not about dicks. Its like school shooters and single moms, ignoring patterns doesn’t make them go away.

  159. SirHamster says:

    I know I am not going to win this argument. Just start thinking, and break the chains as it were. You were made to look pathetic and you took it. If you listen to the link Boxer provided, VD admits that rules that are okay for him (calling others pedos) is not okay for them to do to him (being called one). Looked at the recent theology debate on his blog. Do what you like, but: You will never earn his respect, you shouldn’t care anyway, and you will receive more verbal thrashings on that site in the future I am sure. And when you do, you will say you deserved it. If I read it, I will lol.

    You shouldn’t project your insecurities onto me.

    1.) “win this argument” – lighten up, scientits
    2.) “start thinking” – insulting your way to respect, scientits?
    3.) “break chains” – lighten up, scientits
    4.) “made to look pathetic” – lighten up, scientits
    5.) “never earn his respect” – you’re projecting, scientits
    6.) “receive more verbal thrashings” – you’re not very bright, scientits
    7.) “you will say you deserved it” – what thrashing, scientits?
    8.) “I will lol” – do you have balls, scientits?

  160. RichardP says:

    @ Jeff, earl, Boxer, and others interested in the issue of free will and salvation. I am not arguing for any particular side or point here, other than please include all of the evidence when discussing the free will and salvation issue. And note that I’m not presenting this as an argument for Calvinism. I’m presenting it because it is in the Bible, and therefore must be considered. The following is presented for folks to think about, not argue over. If you are in a hurry, just read the last paragraph. But the body of the post presented builds up to and supports that last paragraph.

    1. What role does free-will play in our salvation?

    There are verses other than these that address this point. But these are sufficient to make the point:

    The natural mind is hostile to the things of God. Paraphrase of Romans 8:7.

    When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. (Colossians 2:13; NIV) And you [hath he brought to life], who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1; KJV) Note that in neither instance did the spiritually-dead person bring himself to spiritual life. Lazarus can’t call himself out of the grave.

    On the subject of free will, assume it exists. What will the man choose, of his free will, whose mind is hostile to the things of God? The question is not, does he have free will? The question is, what will the one whose mind is hostile to the things of God, who is dead in trespasses and sins, choose? Why do we assume he would even think to choose God? If God’s grace is the only means of rescue, how does such a man get himself out of his condition when he – of his own free will – will not, can not, choose God? The answer, obviously, is that God must reach down and grab the man. That is exactly what these verses display: when you had no interest in God, God acted on you. God is the actor here in these verses, not the man. Which makes the next set of verses at Point 2 below so important.

    2. No man cometh unto the Father but by me (Jesus speaking. John 14:6; KJV) [but] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: (John 6:44; KJV) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37; KJV) Note that this last part DOES NOT SAY all who choose of their own free will to come to me. It DOES SAY all that the Father gives me …

    Note that God is the actor in this transaction also. Not man. Not even Jesus. I think that nowhere in the scripture does Jesus call people to God. To say that he does would contradict the scriptures just listed above. Jesus is the way to God. But you can’t come to God through Jesus unless God draws you. God draws you, not Jesus. God draws you to himself, by way of Jesus. According to the scriptures quoted at this Point 2, Jesus does not call you to God. All Jesus can say is you have to get to God through me; but you can’t/won’t come to me unless God draws you. But if God gives you to me, I will not cast you away.

    Note also that these verses leave out the role of the Holy Spirit in drawing people to God that is described elsewhere in the New Testament. For example: … no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3; KJV) Most christian sects believe that the Holy Spirit is the agent of both God and Jesus. In legal terms, an agent has the capacity to act as though they are the person who made them their agent. So the Holy Spirit would be acting on God’s behalf, acting as God himself, in drawing people to Jesus/God. (I’m not redefining the Trinity here; I’m phrasing things this way just to make my point more obvious.) Note, again, that it is not the man that is the agent in drawing himself to Jesus/God. It is not the man, under his own sovereign power, under his own free willl, who is proclaiming that Jesus is Lord. Only the man under the influence of the Holy Spirit can proclaim that Jesus is Lord.

    What, then, of the man who is not under the influence of the Holy Spirit? Of what use to him is his free will, in terms of salvation – if he cannot use it to proclaim that Jesus is Lord in the absence of the Holy Spirit?

  161. ingracious says:

    @Sharkly

    “Welcome back. I was worried that we had chased you off. What with all the name calling and finger pointing and bashing and rancor. “This town needs an enema!””

    As we say: Nah, mate.

    I wouldn’t be chased off by anything like that. I just had a busy while where I couldn’t spare any time to read or make posts, and by the time I came back to that other thread it just seemed like I would’ve been “necroing” things.

    Plus, I wasn’t really that keen on continuing the protracted argument over socialism: There’s plenty I could say on that topic, but it’s just not why I’m here; I have my own blog for economic stuff (although I will make mention of economics here if I feel it’s relevant).

    @Jeff Strand

    “Same way Obama was stopped from launching a war against Syria in September of 2013. The people rose as one, called their congressmen (I recall doing this), and said absolutely no war against Syria.”

    Sure, but it could surely be asserted that such a swell of calls to congressmen in the case of Syria was primarily motivated by simple war weariness: Americans had already had a decade-plus of continuous US interventionism in the Middle East, the hugely unpopular Iraq War being the chief example, and therefore they just didn’t want any more wars.

    They didn’t call up their congressmen because of “The Jews”, or because they felt that “The Trotskyists” were pulling Obama’s strings – that wasn’t the average American’s motivation for being opposed to military action in Syria. Or would you suggest otherwise?

    If Americans could actually live through the Iraq War – a “Jew-orchestrated war” – and yet still not be clued into the fact that “The Jews” were the root problem behind it when they later went on to oppose a war in Syria, then what hope would there have been in convincing them to oppose the Iraq War before it had actually happened? Before you had this ready example of “Jewish orchestration of war” to point to for them?

    Today, the Iraq War has already happened: Is (((this))) a mainstream idea today? One that – on its own – is uniquely capable of influencing large numbers of Americans to call up congress and vote for certain politicians over others? If it isn’t, then how would it have been possible for it to become even more mainstream prior to the Iraq War to such an extent that it could’ve stopped that war from even happening?

    It just seems like – even in this case – the better and more effective idea would be to not even mention Jews, and instead just remind Americans that “War is bad for a nation; don’t seek out unnecessary wars” and “Americans shouldn’t blindly trust their government”.

    Feminism is bad (no need for Jews to be behind it for it to be so)

    War is bad (no need for Jews to be behind it for it to be so)

    “Get that book and read it. You’ll see that it’s a real eye-opener.”

    No, I won’t be getting that book, thanks. My estimation of it – as well as of all these sorts of Jewish conspiracies – is that they are in fact eye-closers:

    Something that takes a complex world full of disparate guilty parties and immoral actors (which includes Jews) and paints over it all with a wishfully simple “It’s always just The Jews” worldview – a worldview that it would seem is characterised by wishful thinking, in fact.

  162. Opus says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    Only this morning I received an E-mail from a musician friend of mine apologising for his absence yesterday and explaining that he had been caught up in a three-hour meeting – yeah right. Lately he has been going very Blue Pill over a stick-waving former pupil of his who has bad-news written all over her and so as everyone knows professional musicians are misogynistic pussy-grabbing abusers of women which is of course why the men – often of the homosexual persuasion – became musicians in the first place.

    This is nothing new and clearly it is about time that it was dealt with: In 1890 and then again in 1893 Composer (of five Symphonies!) and Professor of Violin at London’s Royal College of Music, Henry Holmes was involved in Scandals which forced him out of his sinecure – also forcing the resignation of the College’s principal George Grove (of Dictionary of Music fame), Holmes having been found to have and on divers occasions demanded sexual favours from his students. History has failed to record whether the students were of the female sex or otherwise and whether the said pupils caved in to the Professors persistent sexual demands. Holmes fled to San Francisco where he died in 1905 – many of his scores being either destroyed or damaged in the 1906 earthquake – the Lord truly works in mysterious ways.

    May I add that since its foundation nearly two centuries ago in 1826 London’s Royal Academy of Music* has accepted both male and female students – film of the 1926 centenary appears to show a preponderance of females – and now one can only conclude that allowing females into the said conservatoire was surely for nefarious purposes. Little did women realise that as soon as they broke through that glass ceiling (two centuries early in 1826) they were going from the frying pan (literally) into the fire.

    * The RAM as it is known being a rival of the RCM (Royal College of Music). The RAM despite two centuries of female students has yet despite copious prizes awarded to its female students – one now suspects in the hope of sexual favours – yet to produce even one moderately great or even successful female composer – but they persist.

  163. ys says:

    Like I said Sir Hamster, I wasn’t expecting much, so no biggie. You have accused me of projecting, why don’t you next say, “Physician, heal thyself.”
    I haven’t insulted you. Oh well.

  164. earl says:

    ‘What, then, of the man who is not under the influence of the Holy Spirit? Of what use to him is his free will, in terms of salvation – if he cannot use it to proclaim that Jesus is Lord in the absence of the Holy Spirit?’

    He has the free will choice to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit.

  165. Sharkly says:

    With regard to free will:
    Sharkly’s Personal Paraphrase Version:
    Lamentations 3:33-39 (The entirety of chapter 3 is great stuff)
    God doesn’t enjoy tormenting people. He doesn’t grind His earthly captives under his heel like a cigarette butt. God does not approve the violation of any person’s rights. Nor does any person ever defrauded another of justice eternally, because our God is absolutely just and omnipotent. How much less would God ever stoop to commit an injustice Himself? Nobody in the universe commands anything to happen, and it happens, without God first commanding that it be so. Consequently All things good or bad happen by the sovereign command of God. So nobody should complain if they suffer while alive, seeing we all deserve far worse suffering due to our sins. You won’t be over punished. Because, God is both fair and merciful.

  166. freebird says:

    Chicks with dicks.
    Since they are not capable of actual physical aggression the female has only passive aggression and a wicked bitch-mouth.
    Her only weapon is to call a man with a gun.
    A badge-fag who long ago replaced his life-giving manhood with an instrument of death-force.

    Chicks with dicks. Exactly why we have school shootings and social anarchy.

    The very worst part is the men have taken to emulating this non-(lethally) contestable power moves and now act with passive aggression.
    That is to say,the men are acting like cunts because it’s the only thing short of shooting that works anymore.

    So shut your bitch-mouth or go get your gun.

  167. Jeff Strand says:

    @ingracious: “No, I won’t be getting that book, thanks.”

    Very well. You make a deliberate decision to remain ignorant.

    Your choice, of course. But in that case, I will not waste my time arguing issues with you. Our discussion is at an end. Enjoy your blue pill.

  168. earl says:

    I wonder why some women have a negative view of men and go all stabby.

  169. Boxer says:

    SirHamster / Cane Caldo:

    do you have balls, scientits?

    Your preoccupation with genitalia, pedophilia, transvestism, etc. is, near as I can tell, your only consistent position, in all the years I’ve read your babbling.

    https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/files/Three_Contributions.pdf

    This book explains the motivations behind your disorder. Read it carefully, and apply its truths to your lives.

    Best of luck in your recovery,

    Boxer

  170. Boxer says:

    After Jeff Strand recommends a conspiracy book about da j00z, Ingracious sez:

    @ingracious: “No, I won’t be getting that book, thanks.”

    Then Jeff Strand sez:

    Very well. You make a deliberate decision to remain ignorant. Your choice, of course. But in that case, I will not waste my time arguing issues with you. Our discussion is at an end. Enjoy your blue pill.

    I’ve seen this sort of stuff crop up on Dalrock for years. I usually just ignore it, because it’s usually dummoxes who promote these ideas. You’re a lot smarter than those guys, though; so I’m interested in your answer to a question. I’ll also read the book if you’d like. My question though:

    If Jewish men are controlling the world, why do Jewish men get screwed over in the divorce courts, like the rest of us?

    Antisemitism seems to operate like a conspiracy, by feminist wimminz, to get men fighting among themselves over religious stuff, while they clean up and rip us all off. What do you think?

    Best,

    Boxer

  171. earl says:

    Even St. Paul (or is it (((St. Paul))) correctly pointed out why this bickering over which ethnic group is solely responsible for all societal ills is stupid.

    ‘Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.’ Eph 10-12

    Here’s not a conspiracy theory…the enemy of the human race has always been Satan and his minions of demons. And I’d say with all the division, pointless arguments, rebellion, and dissent…Satan & the minions have been duping most of us lately into not being aware of their evil tactics.

  172. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    I can get a lot more ill-tempered, real fast, for anybody that puts the names of my own in parentheses, to target them. Or that intends to hurt them in any way. That will never change and you should thank God for it, rather than seek to rein-in something you don’t understand, in the name of Christian love and tolerance.

    Are you sure you are fully aware of my relationship with Christian love in this world? I know you are not. You know only what you’ve read here, and that is little basis for forming your judgments.

    Over the past decade I’ve watched Team Teddy infiltrate numerous Christian and conservative sites with their little ((())) Jew-hate game. Daryush, hartiste, and the rest of them. Are you aware of how many people already have been led to destruction by these servants of Belial? I don’t think you are, no more than how many more will be led.

    What I wrote stands. Anybody coming after what is mine, you see me coming, you were warned. If you decide to start up with the ((())) stuff, then that includes you too. No apologies.

    Attempting further defense of my words is useless here, and an unnecessary distraction from important works. I will leave the balance of my defense to Jeshua and his judgment, else I’d do little else in this . . . world. You’ll just have to exercise some patience until then. Not my strong suit either.

  173. feministhater says:

    What I wrote stands. Anybody coming after what is mine, you see me coming, you were warned. If you decide to start up with the ((())) stuff, then that includes you too. No apologies.

    No one is coming to attack you. You’re suffering from a delusion of grandeur. Get that checked out.

  174. Gunner Q says:

    earl @ 10:57 am:
    “Even St. Paul (or is it (((St. Paul)))”

    This is why I don’t do the triple-quote thing. Not all Jews are (((Jews))). Criminal association is only for gangs, governments and Hollywood. But I repeat myself.

  175. SirHamster says:

    I haven’t insulted you. Oh well.

    “Start thinking”, liar.

  176. feeriker says:

    I wonder why some women have a negative view of men and go all stabby.

    Most of us here know better than to pay any attention to anything Jessica Valenti spits out, but two obvious questions still remain:

    1. Why would any “man hater” want to date men?

    2. What man worthy of the label would not immediately recognize a man hater for what she is and avoid her like the plague?

  177. earl says:

    Most of us here know better than to pay any attention to anything Jessica Valenti spits out

    I’m aware…but when they put it out in plain sight it must be shown to the audience.

    If it saves a simp from trying to worship a feminist to get with her…it’s worth it. She’s going to hate you no matter how Chad or White Knight you are.

  178. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    This is not the appropriate forum to go deep into the issue of Jewish power and influence. And I’m almost positive Dalrock wants to keep it that way. There are plenty of other forums out there to discuss that.

    Honestly, I didn’t expect that putting he word “feminism” in triple parentheses would raise any eyebrows, or I wouldn’t have done it. It doesn’t seem like anything controversial, as it’s just a simple statement of fact that everybody knows. Like saying the Communist/Bolshevik movement in the first half of the 20th century was almost entirely Jewish – that’s not being anti-Semitic or insulting all Jews, it’s merely the historical truth. Surely we are not going to embrace George Orwell’s prophecy of categorizing certain truths as “hate facts” that must be “flushed down the memory hole”?

    So let’s not pretend that the founders of the modern feminist movement in America – Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shulamith Firestone, et al. – were gentiles. Because obviously that’s not the case. (Same could be said of the rise and legalization of the abortion industry). The conclusions to be drawn from that can vary. But not the fact itself that the feminist movement was almost completely kosher. It’s just a statement of truth.

    So I’ll just leave it there. But if you’re interested in the topic of Jewish power and influence, and its effect on our culture, I’d recommend you start with this book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531694822&sr=8-1&keywords=jewish+supremacism+david+duke

    It’s only available on Amazon in physical form (not Kindle), and even then, only from third party sellers. Because Jeff Bezos has decided that these are ideas you are not allowed to investigate or be exposed to. “For your own good”, you see. After all, we can’t have you forming the “wrong” opinions. That would not do at all.

    Of course, when I see that, I immediate conclude that I MUST read it, lol.

    P.S. I know there was a PDF format e-book of Dr. Duke’s book floating around the Net, if you hunt for it maybe you’ll find it. Also, as a bonus, here’s one Jeff Bezos hasn’t banned yet – “The Myth of German Villainy” by Benton L. Bradberry. It’s available on Amazon to download in Kindle format for like two and a half bucks It’s a great read, and written in a popular style so it’s not too academic. Very easy to read and keeps your interest. Give it a try. What you got to lose – less than three bucks?

  179. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    If Jewish men are controlling the world, why do Jewish men get screwed over in the divorce courts, like the rest of us?

    Yes. In addition, the White Trashionalist claim that Jews are able to control Christian Whites despite the latter outnumbering the former about 80:1 worldwide, is preposterous. In fact, it is just about the most insulting thing one could say to white people – that a group so small in number could dominate you.

    @Jeff Strand wants to talk about how it’s an absolute fact that “modern American feminism was started … by Jews”.

    To believe this is to be stunningly ignorant of biology, and the hardwiring it placed in the human mind.

    Are Jews the reason that almost all US Civil War casualties were male?

    Are Jews the reason that it is only men who die in the 1001 Arabian Nights? Or in Ancient Chinese Mythology? Or from the Mahabharata (900 BC)?

  180. earl says:

    To believe this is to be stunningly ignorant of biology, and the hardwiring it placed in the human mind.

    A more apt question to ask is if Eve blamed the Jews for tricking her into eating the forbidden fruit.

    Heck Jeff from what I remember is a trad Catholic. Surely he knows about Satan.

  181. Sharkly says:

    @Ray,
    I get why Jeff upsets you. I don’t agree with half of what he writes, And I have mentioned some of it and declared it foolish. However, I can still respect his right to his opinion, and his right to express it, even if I think he may be calling a divine curse upon himself. I just don’t think “getting trolled” and reacting angrily, with threats is going to produce the best results. If I am able to maintain my composure and show Jeff the sort of respect you’d like to see him show the Jews, he is more apt to listen, than if I become reactive, hostile, and start making threats. And regardless of Jeff, other folks reading the exchange are more likely to side with me if I remain calm and just respectfully disagree. In a general sense, making threats is usually foolish, and I try to avoid it at all cost. Plus it borders on breaking Dalrock’s rule “2. Don’t advocate violence.
    Although I believe you’re serious. Unfortunately, watching your interaction with Jeff reminds me of a slapstick comedy scene from “The Jerk” where Steve Martin’s character surprisingly identifies as a N*gger and proceeds to fight with some real estate developers intent on keeping the N*ggers out of their housing developments. IIRC.

    Let me paraphrase:
    Jeff: Hey guys, lets use parentheses to keep the (((Jooz))) down. Ha ha ha. They’re the source of all evil, don’t cha know.
    Ray: But, I’m a JOOOOO! If I ever meet you, I’ll open up a can of crazy on yo azz.
    Sharkly: Jeff, don’t be silly. Ray, the lid is already slipping off your can of crazy, please put it back on.

    I myself am a deplorable redneck, surrounded by deplorable rednecks, in the land of the redneck. So I can’t be going off every time I encounter some simplistic thinking, and I have plenty of it myself. I understand both of your points of contention, but I think that fighting, name calling, threats, and Etc. will hardly ever win over a convert to your way of thinking. Furthermore You are breaking Sharkly’s first generality.
    1. Men will never be respected by society while they refuse to respect each other.

    I believe Mennonite women tend to respect Mennonite men more than the rest of American society respects men, because Mennonite men usually show each other a higher level of respect than is typical in American society. And often the wife is witnesses to other Mennonite men respecting her husband, and no doubt that helps her to stay more contented with her choice. Although, sadly, I believe all of that is slowly eroding as the Godless Feminist culture infiltrates.

  182. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Please see below…

    Jeff Strand:

    Thanks for the book suggestion. I got an .epub of David Duke’s Magnum Opus over on the Internet Archive, for free. I’m on page 31 of the ebook. Already I have mixed feelings about Duke’s scholarship. He’s made several serious errors.

    This is not the appropriate forum to go deep into the issue of Jewish power and influence. And I’m almost positive Dalrock wants to keep it that way. There are plenty of other forums out there to discuss that.

    I’m sorta sad you didn’t comment on my own kooky conspiracy theory (i.e. antisemitism as a feminist plot, to keep men fighting among each other). That said, if you’d feel more comfortable commenting on my blog, you are welcome there.

    Anon:

    Whether his arguments are sound, Jeff Strand gets points from me for at least presenting them dispassionately. It’s far more than many others have been able to manage.

    Yes. In addition, the White Trashionalist claim that Jews are able to control Christian Whites despite the latter outnumbering the former about 80:1 worldwide, is preposterous. In fact, it is just about the most insulting thing one could say to white people – that a group so small in number could dominate you.

    The feminists who are described as Jews are almost always irreligious crazies. Many of them are on record as being hostile to Judaism and hating Jews. Feminists have done a really marvelous job at destroying Jewish communities, ruining Jewish ceremonies (female rabbis who marry dykes to each other, etc.) ghettoifying Jewish neighborhoods, and making a whole generation of Jewish kids divorce bastards. If anything, one could easily make the case that feminism is a specifically anti-Jewish movement.

    And then there’s Israel, where feminist wimminz are free to beat and harass men, and where husbands routinely lose their passports when their wives divorce them…

    A quick survey of Jews will make most antifeminists feel sympathy for them. They’re even worse off than we are.

    <<>> – A member of that other self-appointed “Chosen” tribe. Chosen to do what? Other than live in the desert, I dunno.

  183. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    What’s your blog?

  184. Boxer says:

    Boxer, What’s your blog?

    The best place to troll the Jews is https://v5k2c2.com – David Duke loves it!

  185. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer Feminists have done a really marvelous job at destroying Jewish communities,

    Feminism didn’t destroy Judaism. Rejection of Jesus destroyed Judaism.

    I don’t understand the admiration some Christians have for Talmudic Jews. They see men dressed in medieval clothing, praying with tassels in the streets, and think they’re pious. When actually, they’re a pretty corrupt group, even without the feminism.

    Christians and Jews all sin. But Christianity leads toward the light. Talmudic Judaism leads away. And even atheist Jews are influenced by Jewish culture, rooted in the Talmud.

    The traditionalist Catholic author, E. Michael Jones, observed that Buddhism is closer to Christianity than is Talmudic Judaism. This is because Buddhism has no position on Jesus. Whereas Talmudic Judaism requires rejection of Jesus.

    Rejection of Jesus is a core value in Jewish identity. A Jewish atheist or Jewish Buddhist is still considered a Jew. A Jew who converts to Christianity is not. I’ve heard the ultra-Orthodox even say Shiva for any Jew who converts to Christianity, because that person is now dead to their community.

  186. Sharkly says:

    @Ray,
    Part of my duties concerns the looking-after of ‘Israel’ and also of the sons of my birth-nation. You are not aware of my responsibilities,

    Again, I surely was not told of your mission. I Am however aware that Michael the Archangel is the prince and protector of the Jewish people, and he has, no doubt, ranks of the heavenly host under his subcommand. Furthermore God himself claims the Jews as His chosen people, and nothing on this earth, good or bad, happens without God’s approval.
    Feministhater, thinks you’ve got delusions of grandeur. I, however, believe you, that God has a purpose and a mission for you, and I believe that it may be exactly what you said it is. I just don’t believe that God intends you to be the “muscle” in His plan, to wrestle with flesh and blood.(Ephesians 6:12)

    If in fact you were to meet Jeff, claiming to be an agent of Jewish protection, and then felt the Jews needed you to put a beat-down on Jeff. And if in fact things went your way, and you left Jeff beaten, for his voicing Jewish conspiracy theories, would that not only make things worse? Imagine if somebody filmed you claiming to be a Jewish protector, beating up an outspoken Jewish conspiracy theorist, and posted that video for the whole world to see. Even though I think the evil is Satanic in origin, and not Jewish, I’d be hard pressed to deny that video proof. Jeff could show his Jew inflicted scars to anybody who doubted his story! I think your physical fighting with Jeff would only backfire.

  187. Jeff Strand says:

    @RPL: “The traditionalist Catholic author, E. Michael Jones, observed that Buddhism is closer to Christianity than is Talmudic Judaism. This is because Buddhism has no position on Jesus. Whereas Talmudic Judaism requires rejection of Jesus.”

    Very true. That’s why it has been said that while there are many, many NON-Christian religions in the world, there are only two that are specifically ANTI-Christian: Satanism and Judaism.

  188. Sharkly says:

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/716215/sex-robot-dolls-addiction-clinics-humans-hooked-treatment

    Apparently, folks are worried that men could become addicted to the next-gen sex dolls. LOL
    Women didn’t want to be sex objects LOL
    Women thought pleasing their husbands was “demeaning”. LOL
    So the next-gen sex dolls will have a bit of Artificial Intelligence. They will be able to “learn” what their man likes, and then respond by behaving correspondingly. Obviously light-years ahead of a real woman with that genius bit of (unattainable by women) programed in wisdom. Who knew?
    Do what he likes, and he could become addicted to you.
    Churchian wimmmennzz and hirelings claim they still can’t figure out how to keep marriages together.
    I call bullshit! They love their sin, and want to keep wallowing in it!

  189. MKT says:

    “When Cane Caldo and Sir Hamster “came out” with the imaginative lie that I was a homosexual pedophile, right here on Dalrock”

    I never read that, but anyone with a half a brain can pick up on Boxer’s homo vibes.

  190. Sharkly says:

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hulk-hogan-wwe-hall-of-fame-reinstated/2018/07/15/id/871807/
    Hulk Hogan Reinstated Into WWE Hall of Fame
    I bet, not including the most famous person in the “sport”, cost them a lot of money.
    Should we stay politically correct, or stay in business? OK Hulkster, you’re forgiven!

  191. Boxer says:

    MKT kookfarts:

    <blockquote“When Cane Caldo and Sir Hamster “came out” with the imaginative lie that I was a homosexual pedophile, right here on Dalrock”

    I never read that,

    Thank you for another opportunity to link to the screenshots…

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    Hilarious to see you join your fellow degenerates, pretending to be Christians, by the way.

    I never read that, but anyone with a half a brain can pick up on Boxer’s homo vibes.

    Here’s MKT’s “dark lord,” demonstrating the superior manliness he is famous for…

    Regards,

    Boxer

  192. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Feminism didn’t destroy Judaism. Rejection of Jesus destroyed Judaism.

    Jews have been around for thousands of years, and they did just fine without Jesus, until the 1970s. Feminism did it.

    Very true. That’s why it has been said that while there are many, many NON-Christian religions in the world, there are only two that are specifically ANTI-Christian: Satanism and Judaism.

    That’s silly. No Jews (none that aren’t in the insane asylum, anyway) sit around all day hating on Christians. They have their own thing, like you have your own thing.

    Boxer

  193. Sharkly says:

    https://russian-faith.com/saints/remarkable-russian-saint-warns-fear-evil-fire-n1196

    I found that at a link that Scott had linked to on another thread.
    What do you men think of that? I’m curious to hear other folks take on that article.

  194. tkatchev says:

    No Jews (none that aren’t in the insane asylum, anyway) sit around all day hating on Christians.

    You must not know any IRL Jews. (Or simply lying.)

    Speak to a serious Jew for 15 minutes, and you’ll see that that’s exactly what they do.

  195. ingracious says:

    @Jeff Strand

    “Very well. You make a deliberate decision to remain ignorant. … Enjoy your blue pill.”

    As far as I’m concerned, Jeff, the only thing I’m choosing to remain ignorant of is ignorance. I am refusing to join you in yours, because you have not responded to my questions/arguments in a way that would convince me that what you believe is anything other than ignorance.

    If I’m bluepill just because I don’t blindly accept “The Jews”, then perhaps I’m also bluepill because I don’t accept “The Reptilians”. Perhaps you have a book on their role in the Iraq War you could recommend as well?

    @Jeff Strand, again

    “Honestly, I didn’t expect that putting he word “feminism” in triple parentheses would raise any eyebrows, or I wouldn’t have done it. It doesn’t seem like anything controversial, as it’s just a simple statement of fact that everybody knows.”

    Come on, Jeff, everyone here knows that putting something in triple parentheses is not merely how someone makes “a simple statement of fact”.

    (((This))) is not a marker for ‘random, interesting historical factoids about the wonderful Jewish peoples! #TheMoreYouKnow’

    You weren’t benignly making the point that “Oh, some people who happened to be Jews happened to be involved in feminism back in the day! What a happening!”, you were (((implying))) that feminism itself arose through active Jewish conspiracy – that The Jews were “behind feminism”, and perhaps are still “behind feminism” today. That has only become more clear the more you have written in this thread.

    I’m not trying to “get you”, nor do I want to censor history or your views like it’s 1984 –
    I have not dismissed anything you’ve said nor sought to silence you, and I have in fact only sought to honestly engage with what you’ve written.
    Therefore, please knock it off with the persecution complex, and stop trying to save face by pretending you weren’t doing what you were obviously doing.

    You are welcome to your views, so have them.

    @All

    This whole triple parentheses thing is indeed starting to stray afield and neither myself or Jeff now want to continue it, so this will be my last post on the matter.

    To be clear, I did not – and still do not – want to be presented with a corkboard with all the yarn strings and black-and-white photos on it of Jew leaders and Jew-affiliates all of whom have little devil horns drawn on them with red sharpie.

    I wasn’t posting to stir up an argument about the deeper conspiracy and what it entails, but rather only to discuss the surface-level usage of (((this))) and its utility/implications. It seems relevant to do so, seeing as it gets used unironically in the comments here on a semi-regular basis.

  196. Sharkly says:

    @Ingracious,
    I have my own blog for economic stuff.

    Can you post a link? I’d love to check it out. I don’t enjoy arguing economics, but I’d love to read your thoughts on it.
    The last book I read on economics was my father’s copy of Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Free to chose”, over 25 years ago.
    Oh, and somebody please warn me if that dude was a Jew, OK? /S
    Unless you count the economic anecdotes in William Bradford’s book about Plymouth.
    Anyhow, I’d love to see your work.

  197. Jeff Strand says:

    @Ingracious: “you were (((implying))) that feminism itself arose through active Jewish conspiracy – that The Jews were “behind feminism”, and perhaps are still “behind feminism” today.”

    You have said it.

    BTW, you’re the one who keeps stoking this topic, and refusing to let it die. I find that very interesting.

  198. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “Apparently, folks are worried that men could become addicted to the next-gen sex dolls. LOL”

    I also saw where over in the (fully cucked) UK, they are arresting people for importing or possessing sex dolls that “appear underage”.

    Yep,, you read that right. A bunch of latex and plastic is now to be considered to have the rights of a (human) minor. And if you have sex with such a doll, you are guilty of pedophilia. One wonders what if you were to rip the head off your doll? Are you then guilty of murder?

    This kind of “magical thinking” (really, enforcing a form of thought control) is very concerning. But the sheeple don’t seem to get it, as they appear to have no concerns with this.

  199. Boxer says:

    First I wrote:

    No Jews (none that aren’t in the insane asylum, anyway) sit around all day hating on Christians.

    Then tkatchev wrote:

    You must not know any IRL Jews. (Or simply lying.) Speak to a serious Jew for 15 minutes, and you’ll see that that’s exactly what they do.

    I’ve known Jews of the neurotic type before. None of them sat around cursing St. Paul. They tend to be into kooky nonsense like numerology.

    School me on what these IRL Jews (that I’ve never met) are into. What do their anti-christian rituals consist of? I won’t make fun of you. I’m honestly curious.

    Boxer

  200. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    No Jews (none that aren’t in the insane asylum, anyway) sit around all day hating on Christians.

    Having lived among Jews my whole live, in Jewish heavy cities (NYC and L.A.) and professions (media, entertainment), I did see much anti-Christian hate among Jews. It does come out after you know them for a while. It helped that Jews often mistook me for being Jewish, because of my looks and background and accent. And because in my youth I was an atheist, and said so. One Jewish woman, an educated professional, actually replied, “But you’re still of the Jewish race.” [sic]

    But I did wonder just how many Jews hate Christianity. Then The Passion of the Christ came out, with all that controversy over the film’s (and the New Testament’s) “anti-Semitic” content. Throughout 2004, everyone was taking polls, seemingly every week, over the issues it raised.

    One poll asked American Jews if they thought the New Testament was anti-Semitic. 71% said Yes. 29% said No.

    Based on that, I figured about 71% of American Jews hate Christianity. How could they not, if they think the Gospels are anti-Semitic hate speech?

    That made sense to me. It was a figure that roughly matched my own interpersonal experiences. Many Jews I met did not hate Christianity. But a sizable majority did.

    Do Jews “actively” hate Christianity? Films and TV shows depict evil, greedy, sexually degenerate, hypocritical Christians and Christian clergy. Academics “deconstruct” and attack Christian culture on campus and in schools. You have the war on Christmas. Media, law, politics, academia … so much effort to destroy Christianity. Much of this attack disproportionately originates from Jews. So yeah, it’s an “active” hate.

  201. earl says:

    I don’t understand the admiration some Christians have for Talmudic Jews.

    Do these Christians even know about the Talmud? Before the days of widespread internet usage I never even heard of this book. Now if the claims about Christ said in there are true or if that particular book somehow is considered a higher book of authority than the Laws of Moses…it’s certainly a book that would keep many from salvation.

  202. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    They had to change because the Temple was long gone and Christianity was using “their Scriptures” (The Septuagint) to go forth.

    Then you get the Kaballah (sp?) and its idiocy that Boxer notes. Most today who are called Jews have strayed far from their base.

    Ezekiel does note that the Valley of Dry Bones comes together before life is given to it, so this rejection is not surprising. The book of Romans talks about an upcoming restoration for them, but the path their will be rough, as it has always been.

    I personally thinking arbitrarily hating Jews is idiotic, but ignoring the fact that many with that label have sought to destroy Western Civilization and the Christianity that underlies it will bring a lot of judgment on them and those who associate with them in name at least. You do ultimately reap what you sow. They can’t avoid this either, even though they might seem to be getting away with it right now.

  203. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    No, you were using the tactic that Vox Day / Ted Beale suggests using, against anyone who dares disagree with you on the internet.

    You learned how to read my mind now? I definitely don’t follow his tactics as closely as you assume. I think I was mixing “sand in your skivvies” and “panties in a bunch”, both of which are phrases I have heard used long before I knew about Vox and likely before he was born.

    I normally like your comments, even if I disagree with them, but you clearly have something in your craw here beyond just disagreeing with him on a few points. It comes across as very irrational, but go for it if that makes you feel better.

  204. BillyS says:

    One thing I’ve noticed, not that you’ll likely agree, is that Vox Day would as likely eviscerate you on his own blog, as he would acknowledge you standing up for him here.

    I would definitely agree with that. It is a waste to curry favor with Vox. You either get it or you don’t. He is an idiot in some areas, and can’t see his own flaws. And I am supposed to be a fan boy for him….

    He also has many insightful posts and has done more to change society for the better than I have seen from any of his critics. He is bad, but so are most people who are willing to actually do something.

  205. Dota says:

    that The Jews were “behind feminism”, and perhaps are still “behind feminism” today.

    Feminism isn’t like gravity where had Newton not discovered it, somebody else would have. Forces like gravity and electromagnetism exist independently of our awareness. Ideologies aren’t like that. They are molded, constructed and then deployed. Thus to say that if Betty Friedan and her friends in the CPUSA hadn’t started feminism somebody else would have is retarded. Would you also say that if Muhammad didn’t exist Islam would have been brought into existence by somebody else? With the exact set of rituals and elaborate legalism?

    Feminism is basically Marxism adjusted for sex, and Marxism itself rests on some assumptions that are fundamentally Jewish. Marx’s view that history is solely moved by materialism ignores the impact of race, religion, and nation. This makes sense because as racial outsiders, Jews could never relate to the nationalism of their hosts.

    Does this mean that every Jew is behind feminism? Of course not. Does this mean that feminism doesn’t adversely effect Jews? Of course not, plenty of Jewish men suffer it’s ills like the rest of us. None of this changes the fact that feminism, like Marxism, is still a distinctly Jewish ideology that is rooted in Jewish thinking. If any of you still doubt this, ask yourselves this – why didn’t the suffragettes ask for dismantling the patriarchy? Why did they simply disappear without demanding for no fault divorce, child support, Duluth etc? Because the ideology of feminism (men = oppressor class women = victim class) didn’t exist at the time. Who invented this ideology? Start reading from the top again.

  206. BillyS says:

    PokeSalad,

    My decision to read Dalrock’s initial posts, and ignore the commentary, is again amply validated.

    Posting that well into the discussion kind of questions your credibility in this area. At least it is good for a laugh, even if not true.

  207. BillyS says:

    Ray,

    I didn’t say “no one” just “few”. Though you didn’t use your last name either. Not bad in today’s environment, but still a truth. Few use his first name alone. It is a poor argument, but I guess you need that if it is all you have.

    My guru? Yeah, right.

    (Skipping the rest of the thread until now.)

  208. earl says:

    I personally thinking arbitrarily hating Jews is idiotic, but ignoring the fact that many with that label have sought to destroy Western Civilization and the Christianity that underlies it will bring a lot of judgment on them and those who associate with them in name at least.

    Especially since Christians are supposed to pray for our enemies and those who persecute us. There’s large segments of the world who will just flat out hate Christianity…Christ even said so.

  209. Dave says:

    Do these Christians even know about the Talmud?

    I have a copy of the book Jesus in the Talmud by one Peter Schafer.
    The author showed quite conclusively, that the Talmud is probably the most blasphemous book in existence, as it relates to the Lord Jesus Christ.
    In the Talmud, Jesus was depicted as a bastard son; his mother Mary, as a wh*re. As a bastard, Jesus could not enter into the temple or have a congregation, talk less of having followers (i.e. Christians).
    The Talmud said Jesus was executed because he practiced sorcery. He was such a bad person that no one came to his defense. Also, according to the Talmud, Jesus is currently in hell, being punished in a pool of boiling feces, because of his many sins.
    Now, only someone as pathologically deluded as Peter Strozk was for his hate for Trump, would not see the Jewish hate, not only for Christ, but for Christians as a whole.
    On a personal note, I have always believed that the Jews are generally the most racist people in existence. Yet, they always claim to be victims. They would drop a bomb on kids in Palestine for instance, while they rush to the TV screens to lament how their lives have been made terrible by these same people.
    Now I am pretty sure that there are fair-minded and even very generous individual Jews out there, just as there are good folks among all people. I was only referring to a generality of the Jews, not to every individual.

  210. Dave says:

    Another one (that is even more direct than Schafer’s book) is Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded by Michael Hoffman. There, the author tried to show that Judaism has gone completely away from the OT.

  211. Boxer says:

    Especially since Christians are supposed to pray for our enemies and those who persecute us. There’s large segments of the world who will just flat out hate Christianity…Christ even said so.

    When I was a little kid, in the middle of the Alberta nowhere, I was taught (both in Sunday School, and informally) that the Catholic Church was founded when a pope made a pact with the devil, and that individual Catholics liked to rape and murder Mormon kids, as sacrifices to their saints.

    Then I grew up and met a bunch of priests and garden variety worshippers. I realized, to my shock, that none of them really gave a shit about Mormons. Most were too busy raising their kids, going to work, and cooking spaghetti.

    I know it injures y’all’s egos to grok this, but “The Jews” don’t really care about you Christians. You’re simply not that important, and they have more important things to do.

    Boxer

  212. earl says:

    When I was a little kid, in the middle of the Alberta nowhere, I was taught (both in Sunday School, and informally) that the Catholic Church was founded when a pope made a pact with the devil, and that individual Catholics liked to rape and murder Mormon kids, as sacrifices to their saints.

    No wonder the Mormon missionaries bolted when I told them I am a Catholic. And here I thought it was because I told them our church had the actual testimonies of Peter, James and John…it wasn’t in a dream.

  213. BillyS says:

    The Talmud said Jesus was executed because he practiced sorcery.

    Kind of ironic that the Kabala does exactly that and was the follow-on to Talmudic Judaism in many ways.

  214. earl says:

    There, the author tried to show that Judaism has gone completely away from the OT.

    That makes more sense…because other than perhaps the strictest of Orthodox ones…I don’t know how many Jews follow the laws of Moses.

  215. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sharkly I Am however aware that Michael the Archangel is the prince and protector of the Jewish people, and he has, no doubt, ranks of the heavenly host under his subcommand. Furthermore God himself claims the Jews as His chosen people, and nothing on this earth, good or bad, happens without God’s approval.

    But who are the “Jewish people”? Who are the descendants of Abraham? Those by blood, or those by the spirit (having accepted Christ)? If the latter, then the Church (made up of Jews and gentiles) are the true Jews, protected by Michael.

    Modern Jews (i.e., Talmudic Jews) believe their blood makes them special. It’s what got them into trouble in the first place. John the Baptist warned them about their pride in blood (Matthew 3:9) as did Jesus (John 8:39-47).

    A man is not condemned by his blood, Jew or gentile. But neither does his blood grant him special protection or favor. God shows no partiality. (Acts 10:34-3).

    Yet many Jews, and Christian Dispensationalists, and various “Israel Identity” groups (Christian Identity, British Israelism, Black Hebrew Israelites, etc.) all mistakenly believe that Jewish blood has theological significance. It doesn’t. If you believe in, and follow, Christ, you’re saved. If you reject Christ, your blood or race or DNA won’t save you.

    Contrary to what many Jews and Dispensationalists believe, the modern state of Israel is just another country. It has no theological significance or connection to Biblical Israel. It’s also not a very moral country. Better than many Third World hellholes, but worse than most Western nations.

  216. Jeff Strand says:

    @Dave: “On a personal note, I have always believed that the Jews are the most racist people in existence. Yet, they always claim to be victims.”

    This brings to mind two quotes from President Harry S. Truman:

    “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power – physical, financial,or political – neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog”

    I think the Palestinians would certainly agree with Pres. Truman on that point.

    His second quote:

    “Jesus Christ Himself could not please them (the Jews) when He was on the Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?”

    Lastly, Dave’s quote above brings to mind an old Polish proverb:

    “Always the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

  217. Jeff Strand says:

    @RPL: “It doesn’t. If you believe in, and follow, Christ, you’re saved. If you reject Christ, your blood or race or DNA won’t save you.”

    This was precisely the teaching of the pre-Vatican II RCC, for nearly two millennia. But the apostate Vatican II Sect, led by “Pope” Francis, now teaches the exact opposite. In fact, Francis has made it very clear (including in official papal documents, such as his “Apostolic Exhortation”, Evangelli Gaudium) that today’s Jews are saved and achieve salvation AS JEWS. That is, while still formally denying Christ and His Holy Church. Francis says that modern Jews still have a valid covenant with God, and are not called to accept the Gospel. And this is so because the Old Covenant, contrary to the explicit teaching of St Paul in his epistles, is still fully in force.

    In saying this, Francis is very much onboard with Vatican II thinking. But of course, it is the exact opposite of all previous Catholic dogma…to the point of being certainly heretical and blasphemous.

    There is no way around it (Earl, I’m looking at you here). The traditional, historical, pre-1958 RCC is a DIFFERENT RELIGION from the Vatican II Sect that is led by the Argentinian Apostate (who recently both explicitly denied the existence of Hell, and told a little boy that his atheist father went straight to Heaven when he died).

  218. Damn Crackers says:

    I’m the last one to get involved with Catholics vs. Lutherans or Anti- and Philo-Semites on this board. There is, however, a good blog that readers here should check out by an Alt-Right Jewish thinker (I know, seems self-contradictory).

    Check out the https://therebbeblog.wordpress.com/ and notice that the problem with discussing Jews is that they aren’t a monolithic group, like Christians. He also has an interesting take on several heretical Jewish groups that were responsible for many ideas in modern Western Civ, such as Marxism and Freudian psych.

    Remember, US male Jews were 50/50 on the election of Pres. Trump. The women, however, were over 90% for Hillary.

  219. earl says:

    There is no way around it (Earl, I’m looking at you here).

    I’m still waiting for you to tell me where the real pope is hiding.

  220. ys says:

    BillyS-
    We agree for the most part on those particulars.
    I hope your life is going well recently.

  221. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Francis says that modern Jews still have a valid covenant with God, and are not called to accept the Gospel. And this is so because the Old Covenant, contrary to the explicit teaching of St Paul in his epistles, is still fully in force.

    I think Christian teaching has always been that the Old Covenant remains in effect, but that no Jew has ever, or can ever, live up to it. No Jew, no human, can follow the Law to perfection, which is what is required to be saved under the Law. For instance, if you, even once, lust in your heart, you have failed in following the Law.

    Therefore it’s dishonest of Christians to say that the Law is in effect. Such Christians are technically truthful so far as it goes, but actually lying, because they leave out the second part — that no one is pure enough to be saved under the Law.

    These Christians are preaching half truths, because they want to please Jewish listeners. They fear offending Jews.

  222. Dave says:

    …all mistakenly believe that Jewish blood has theological significance. It doesn’t. If you believe in, and follow, Christ, you’re saved. If you reject Christ, your blood or race or DNA won’t save you.

    That is right on point. But it can even be proved that there is no such a thing as Jewish blood. We all have Jewish ancestors somewhere in our lineage. That is why DNA is not prove of being Jewish, because everyone alive today has a Jew in their blood line.
    Pastor Anderson demonstrated the argument quite well.

  223. earl says:

    In fact, Francis has made it very clear (including in official papal documents, such as his “Apostolic Exhortation”, Evangelli Gaudium) that today’s Jews are saved and achieve salvation AS JEWS.

    Very clear?

    Well I searched the document and I can’t find anything that makes that claim very clearly…(as in Jews achieve salvation as Jews or the Jews who reject Christ are still saved). Perhaps you know where it’s at in the encyclical (I assume you’ve read it) or was this something you heard second hand from a sede preacher?

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html

  224. earl says:

    And tell me where the Pope saying…’God decides who goes to heaven’ is the wrong answer to a kid asking if his atheist father is in heaven. Pope Francis or Jeff Strand aren’t the one who judges who enters into heaven and who doesn’t. He’s giving the best answer he can on earth especially since he didn’t know much about the guy other than he had his children baptized. The kid will know the whole story once he dies.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2018/is-my-dad-in-heaven-little-boy-asks-pope.cfm

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

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