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.

422 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. Big Nate says:

    And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” – Matthew 9:11 (NKJV)

    Judging people by the company they keep?

    Rabbinic Judaism grew out of Pharisaic Judaism.

    ray, is Jesus Christ your Lord and savior?

  123. PokeSalad says:

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

  124. 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.”

  125. 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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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.

  128. 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.

  129. ray says:

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

  130. 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.

  131. 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.

  132. 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).

  133. 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.

  134. 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?

  135. 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

  136. 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.

  137. 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…

  138. (((GiantTree))) says:

    Jeff Strand, I get it, I really do, its a comfort to Goyim to blame Communism on the Jews, that way its not the fault of your people. But the facts just dont back you up. At the time of the Russian Revolution 1.6% of the Bolshevik party was Jewish. The number of Jews in leadership positions was higher with 6% of People’s Commissars being Jews, but that’s it. Jewish Bolshevism

    Furthermore when the Czar’s government openly sponsored the Black Hundreds and enforced anti-Jewish laws it shouldn’t be shocking when some Jews were friendly to people who promised to end all that.

  139. 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

  140. 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

  141. 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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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.

  144. 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.

  145. 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)

  146. 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

  147. 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.

  148. 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.”

  149. 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.

  150. 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.

  151. 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?

  152. 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)

  153. 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

  154. 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.

  155. 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.

  156. 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

  157. 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/

  158. 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.

  159. 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.

  160. 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.

  161. 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?

  162. 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?

  163. 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.

  164. 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.

  165. 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.

  166. 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.

  167. 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.

  168. 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.

  169. 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.

  170. earl says:

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

  171. 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

  172. 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

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  175. 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.

  176. 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.

  177. SirHamster says:

    I haven’t insulted you. Oh well.

    “Start thinking”, liar.

  178. 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?

  179. 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.

  180. 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?

  181. 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)?

  182. 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.

  183. 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.

  184. 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.

  185. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    What’s your blog?

  186. Boxer says:

    Boxer, What’s your blog?

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

  187. 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.

  188. 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.

  189. 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.

  190. 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!

  191. 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.

  192. 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!

  193. 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

  194. 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

  195. 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.

  196. 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.

  197. 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.

  198. 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.

  199. 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.

  200. 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.

  201. 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

  202. 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.

  203. 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.

  204. 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.

  205. 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.

  206. 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.

  207. 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.

  208. 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.

  209. 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.)

  210. 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.

  211. 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.

  212. 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.

  213. 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

  214. 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.

  215. 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.

  216. 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.

  217. 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.

  218. 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.”

  219. 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).

  220. 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.

  221. 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.

  222. ys says:

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

  223. 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.

  224. 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.

  225. 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

  226. 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

  227. ray says:

    RPL — “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).”

    Satan was cunning in setting up this double-bind, over millennia, such that these hordes of false ‘Jews’ would take prominence in the corruption of the nations, under general cover of ‘Jewry’, whilst remaining wholly secular entities. This, then, gives LePen, Teddy, Daryush, and their fellow-travelers the convenient excuse requisite to then target and punish ‘The Jews’ due to their treacherous activities. All very tidy! If you’re from hell.

    Of course, it won’t be ‘Talmudic Jews’ who end up being persecuted. It’ll be the real ones. That means actual (((Christians))) that Jeshua loves. And other ‘Christians’ will persecute them. Yeah nice going. Geniuses.

    Folks here still think that Supreme Dark Lord Ted is Christ’s friend? Do any of you even know what ‘Beale’ means?

    The Talmud is little men (fake rabbis), trying to silence the words and works of big men (the prophets and apostles), by producing their OWN ‘holy book’. So little wonder the world, including these blood-Jew wannabees, embrace it as their own.

    I’ve posted Romans 2:28-29 on this site many times, specifically to settle this issue of supposed Jewry. The final word on this issue was given long ago, by Paul, and he’d never have presumed such a declaration if King Jeshua hadn’t pre-instructed him in it.

    The instructions of Paul, under influence of the Spirit at that time, carry the weight of the Law due to the direct authority vested in him by Christ. Those instructions will be enforced, no exceptions.

  228. BillyS says:

    Romans 9 clearly indicates that the literal physical Jewish people will still have a role in the future. They still have to believe in and accept their Messiah to go to Heaven, but the blindness on most of them is only for a period.

    ys,

    Things plug away. Realizing I am likely to never have anyone who really wants to know me (in marriage or in a church) kind of sucks, but you have to ultimately go with the hand you are given. I made Jesus my Lord over 40 years ago and He has the right to use me as He sees fit.

  229. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    You,don’t even know the teaching of the religion you claim to belong to. Atheists go to hell. Heck, even heretical or schismatic Christians go to hell…EVEN IF they are martyred for the name of Christ (say, by Muslims, for example).

    You don’t have to agree with it yourself. But as a faithful son of Holy Mother Church, you must accept it. And it was infallibly taught at the Council of Florence. To whit: (feel free to Google it yourself)

    “It (Holy Mother Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

    So Earl, THIS is the authentic Catholic Faith. Does Bergoglio believe this? Of course he doesn’t. Because he is not a Catholic, and he is certainly not a member of the RCC. He is a member (and the putative head) of the heretical religion known as the Vatican II Sect.

  230. earl says:

    ‘unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock’

    By life is he talking about the end of the earthly life…or final judgement before God where the the second death occurs?

    Yes an atheist would go to hell if after finally realizing the fullness of God exists after the earthly death still rejects Him.

    Answer me Jeff, who is the real pope? So that I may pit his statements against church teaching and confirm his realness.

  231. Jeff Strand says:

    He is talking about the end of your earthly life.

    As far as who is the pope, I don’t know if there is indeed a hidden pope or not. Doesn’t change the fact that Bergoglio and his Vatican II Sect are in heresy.

    I answered your question, now answer mine. In his famous “Syallabus of Errors”, Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned as an error the proposition that “We can at least have good hope that Protestants will go to Heaven.” The only logical conclusion thus being, that virtually all Protestants will be damned. So this is part of the official magisterial teaching of the Church, and is fully in accord with all previous Catholic teaching on heretics and schismatics…such as the authoritative pronouncement from the Council of Florience that I quoted in my previous post.

    My question to you Earl is, do you believe this? And do you think Bergoglio does?

  232. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    If you didn’t find Bergoglio’s heresy in Evangelii Gaudium, you didn’t look very hard. It was this blatant heresy that pushed Fr. Paul Kramer into publicly stating that Bergoglio CANNOT be the pope. Here’s his statement on the matter:

    “Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”.

    I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void.

    The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

    — Fr. Paul Kramer

  233. Strand says:

    “It (Holy Mother Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41]

    My Bible, the KJV that I keep on my desk says:

    “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matthew 25:41]

    Christ makes no mention of the “Holy Mother Church” nor of the “Catholic Church” nor anyone who is not a part of this church. Nor is Christ implying that anyone who does not belong to the Holy Catholic Church will be sent to the place prepared for the devil and his angels

    There is no book in my KJV Bible called “Infallibly Taught at the Council of Florence” nor is there anything that references this at that time Matthew was put to Word.

    In fact, Christ never said the word “Catholic” and his references to Rome and Caesar were casual indifference.

    Had to comment. I don’t like Scripture being made out context, and quoted not properly from His Word. I would expect any of you to do the same to me, or any other Protestant

  234. Boxer says:

    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.

    That surprises me, only because missionaries are strategically paired up by their leaders (called a mission president). Typically, in any duo, one of the missionaries will be from Deseret, and the other will be from the wider world. The kooky fanaticism is thus tempered, but at the same time, there’s a sort of political officer, who can be counted on to rat out the companion from San Diego, if he decides to start drinking and banging local girls.

  235. Jeff Strand says:

    Seventies Jason,

    My last few posts were meant for Earl. Of course you will disagree with me; you are a Protestant. I think that’s just obvious.

    But Earl is the one in an untenable position. He claims the pre-1958 RCC and the subsequent Vatican II are one and the same religion. Yet, the Vatican II Sect (and Bergoglio personally) affirms what the historical RCC has always denied, and denies what the historical RCC has always affirmed. I posted a few quotes that prove this, and I could produce many more such examples.

    So it’s not even a matter of faith, it’s a matter of just logic. Both the traditional, pre-1958 RCC and the Vatican II Sect cannot be the same religion, as they teach opposing doctrines. Therefore, both cannot be right. Of course, both can be wrong (as I assume you would claim, being a Protestant). Or one can be right and one is wrong (as I claim). But Earl is in the untenable position of trying to square the circle and hold that they are both right, even though they directly contradict each other! What madness!

    It’s an exercise in schizophrenia.

  236. @Boxer and Earl: I expected better from you.

  237. Still do, for that matter.

  238. earl says:

    “Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

    Yeah it’s a covenant with God…isn’t he just merely pointing out something we know?

    Where in that statement says ‘very clearly’ (your words) that Jews are saved because they are Jews?

    that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”.

    It didn’t say covenant…it said ceremonies of the Mosaic Law.

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM

  239. Your statement came from “infallibly taught at the Council of Florence” and a quote from Christ from the Book of Matthew. Chapter 25, In Matthew speaks about the ‘Judgment of Nations’ from verse 31 onward. It speaks eloquently and passionately about a Christian walk with Him…..those that gave food when hungry, a drink when they thirsted, clothing, and took care of them when sick.

    This would apply to all who Believe and those that not just “professed” but walked the Belief. It says nothing about belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It says nothing about being a Protestant. It says nothing about Jews. It says nothing about Vatican II. It says nothing about various councils that are (cough) “infallible” nor does it say anything about a specific group or “nation”

  240. earl says:

    In fact the word covenant never even appears in there.

  241. earl says:

    In his famous “Syallabus of Errors”, Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned as an error the proposition that “We can at least have good hope that Protestants will go to Heaven.”

    Fair enough I did find what you are alluding to there…
    17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm

    Did you also know this was in Quanto Conficiamur? It blows up the sede arguement.

    ‘Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”

    #8.
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm

  242. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    I would submit to the pope if we had a valid pope – I do not subscribe to “recognize and resist”. If this man is the authentic successor to St. Peter, one must submit to him in all matters of faith and morals, if one is to be considered a Catholic. So you see, I agree with you completely on that point.

    But that’s not the question, the question is: Can a manifest, pertinacious heretic like Bergoglio be the valid pope? Following the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, I say no. Because a manifest, public heretic is (by Canon Law) no longer a member of the Church. And clearly one cannot be the head without being a member.

    And just a reminder, St. Robert Bellarmine is not only a canonized saint, but also a Doctor of the Church. Yet by his own logic and teaching, he would clearly refuse obedience and recognition to Bergoglio, as I do. Are you gonna therefore tell me St. Bellarmine is not a Catholic, lol?

  243. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    Here is the teaching of “Pope” Francis and his Vatican II Sect on the question of salvation for the Jews:

    “There is a phrase from the Second Vatican Council that is essential: it says that God showed Himself to all men and rescues, first of all, the Chosen People. Since God is faithful to His promises, He did not reject them. The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: “You lost the game, now it is our turn.” It is a recognition of the People of Israel. That, I think, is the most courageous thing from Vatican II on the subject.”

    (Jorge M. Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, On Heaven and Earth [New York: Image, 2013], p. 188)

    “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked. As Christians we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion, nor do we include Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the True God.”

    Evangelii Gaudium, no. 247

  244. Jeff Strand says:

    And here’s the authentic teaching of the ACTUAL RCC on this question of the salvation of the Jews. Part 1.

    [This council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

    (Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino; Denz. 712; underlining added.)

  245. earl says:

    Can a manifest, pertinacious heretic like Bergoglio be the valid pope?

    Well that’s to be determined if he is judged to be a manifest, pertinacious heretic. He is the valid pope until proven otherwise…and Jeff Strand isn’t the person who proves otherwise.

    We’re just going in circles….Pope Francis isn’t the type of pope I’d choose, but I don’t make the decisions in determining the pope.

  246. Jeff Strand says:

    And finally.

    They (the Jews) despised the oracles of Heaven, and rejected the Messiah who had been especially promised to their fore-fathers; they were unwilling he should reign over them, and blindly preferred the tyrannical dominion of Herod to the sweet yoke of his Gospel. It is no wonder, then, that they ceased to be the chosen people of God; no wonder that, after thus frustrating the designs of his mercy, they felt the severe effects of his justice, and in their turn were rejected and cast off like abortives, in punishment of their obstinacy and perverseness, and on account of their infidelity in not corresponding with the graces which were offered to them.

    (Gahan, Sermons and Moral Discourses: for all the Sundays and Principal Festivals of the Year, Vol. 2, 3rd ed. [Dublin: Richard Coyne, 1846], p. 55; underlining added.)

  247. Jeff Strand says:

    “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [see Mt 15:24] — the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”

    Pope Pius XII, Encyclcial Mystici Corporis

  248. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “Well that’s to be determined if he is judged to be a manifest, pertinacious heretic.”

    I posted “Pope” Francis’ doctrine on the salvation of the Jews. Then I posted, by way of comparison, the actual teaching of the RCC on this topic (that was consistent for millennia, until Vatican II)

    As you can clearly see, THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER. They are not merely “not the same”; they are the exact opposite of each other! So let’s cut the crap of “Who are we to say that Bergoglio is teaching heresy?”

    Let’s grow up, shall we? Either Bergoglio (along with the whole Vatican II Sect) is teaching heresy on this matter, or, if Bergoglio & Co. are indeed correct, then the entire RCC was in error and heresy on this issue for all the centuries from the time of the Apostles until the time of Vatican II (post 1960). Both cannot be right. Both can be wrong, but both cannot be right. This is just a matter of logic, not even a matter of faith. 2+2 cannot equal 5.

    When it comes to the actual, historical RCC vs, the Vatican II Sect, AT LEAST one must be wrong. And therefore cannot be the True Church and the True Religion. Now I ask you, which do you think is which?

  249. pariah says:

    Hasn’t Pope Francis made Martin Luther a saint?

  250. Jeff Strand says:

    Pariah,

    Not as of yet. But don’t count him out, the “God of surprises” may strike again!

    In all seriousness, Francis did say regarding Luther, that “when it comes to justification, he (Martin Luther) did not err. He did not err!”

    But cue Earl to come in and say that we can’t really know if that’s a heretical statement (from the Catholic point of view). Lol, it’s just asinine what lengths people will go to, in order to deny the obvious fact in front of their face – that Bergoglio is a public heretic.

  251. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Comic Con meets #MeToo: https://apnews.com/8706407408c647c5b905b31ff5908765/1st-Comic-Con-of-the-MeToo-era-grapples-with-harassment

    Comic-Con, the annual gathering of over 130,000 fans, artists, collectors and geek culture savants, has already been changed by the #MeToo and Time’s Up era, with at least one notable figure stepping aside due to sexual misconduct allegations. But questions remain about its atmosphere and whether convention organizers will take any extra steps to address longstanding allegations of harassment issues during the event which kicks off Wednesday night in San Diego.

    The convention has always been a home for comic book and genre enthusiasts, and a refuge for like-minded fans to mingle, but it’s also been a place rife with harassment of women and others, whether it’s cosplayers (people who dress up in costumes), general attendees or even those hawking merchandise (sometimes called “booth babes”).

    “I don’t think any convention has historically been a safe or inviting space for women,” says Cher Martinetti, the managing editor of SYFY Wire’s Fangrrls site.

    Sexual harassment at fan conventions is a subject that is often raised, but the scrutiny will be even more intense this year with the heightened awareness about misconduct.

    I’ve long been a horror/sci-fi fan, and have attended many conventions over the decades. They always seemed very women and gay friendly. I was so blinded by my white patriarchal privilege, I didn’t realize that all along, genre conventions were a hotbed of sexual harassment.

  252. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    More nuggets from that Comic Con article:

    she has seen some positive changes over the past few years, “not just in the makeup of the panels and the topics that were discussed but also in the verbiage that’s used toward cosplayers and being more accommodating toward not just women but anyone who isn’t a straight, white, able-bodied cisgender male.”

    There are several female-centric panels this year, including Entertainment Weekly’s annual Women Who Kick Ass panel, ones on body positivity, women in publishing, women of color in comics, the women of Star Wars and the “fake geek girl fallacy.”

    The convention is also hosting panels on intersectional Afrofuturism, queer comics for queer kids (and another about being queer and black) and general diversity in comics. …

    Fandango correspondent and TCM host Alicia Malone is returning this year to host a panel called “The Future of Film is Female” with participants like directors Jennifer Yuh Nelson and Susanna Fogel.

  253. Sharkly says:

    @Hmm,

    Apparently the Vatican says the “Brides of Christ” (whatever they are) don’t need to be giving Christ their virginal “first-fruits” anymore. Earl’s favorite pope says Christ is now OK getting “sloppy seconds”. I know for a fact that the protestant churchians have cucked Christ, and it seems like this newfangled pontiff has just joined in too.
    Where’s the real pope?
    1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Wherever he is, if He isn’t Jesus, and he is trying to insert himself somewhere between God and myself, he can butt back out.

  254. Sharkly says:

    earl says: No wonder the Mormon missionaries bolted when I told them I am a Catholic.

    I got that beat! I’ve had a Mormon missionary in a suit and on a bicycle flip me the middle finger.
    Apparently when it is over 100F and they are pedaling in the sun in dark suits, they don’t like it if as you blow past them in your air-conditioned car you roll down your window and yell “Get a Job!”

    That was 32 years ago. Yeah Baby! I was trolling even before Al Gore invented the internet!

    I also had some come to the house once, when I was even younger, they broke out a picture book. They claimed, “we’re Christians too. See, here’s a picture of Jesus!” When they got to the picture of Jesus and Joseph Smith and God the Father sitting at a table up in heaven, and began telling me that Joe died for my sins, I corrected them and said “No, he died because of his own sin, he was rightly lynched for horse thieving!” and suddenly they were leaving. The younger one looked like he wanted to punch me, and the older one was sort of dragging him off. LOL

    But, that still ain’t as bad as the time I met the Jehovah’s Witness ladies out in my yard in nothing but a towel and my shotgun. They had some kind of ceremony where they wiped their feet in the corner of my lawn. An ex-JW explained that means they put me on a list to not return to again. I bet you didn’t know there was a “do not call list” for the JWs. And I got on it, my first time! Woo hoo!

  255. seventiesjason says:

    I was at a funeral for a resident in the building I worked and lived in when I was in Fresno. It was a Salvation Army facility………she was a Catholic. I went to her funeral in full dress Sally Army duds. After the service, Father Garcia and I were chatting outside…..he said “You were more Catholic in here than many Catholics at this funeral / last rites were.”

    I smiled, “I was raised preppy Catholic……COE………so I know many of the ritual and traditions of this beautiful faith tradition.”

    He also admired that when Holy Communion was offered, I came up out of respect, gently crossed my arms, knealt at the altar and was giving a blessing (I am not Catholic, so I could not partake……and many Catholics who were parking had no business partaking but that’s on them.)

    Again, when we have talked at the local Catholic Charities we both do agree that in the times we are in, the ones who have not only heard, but live the call be it Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox should know who is living a set apart life. We can leave the discussion, debates, and disagreements for after Glory.

    I personally think we’ll all be surprised.

    In the end times, your Holiness tradition won’t matter. If you profess Christ, and live it…..you will be hauled before the masses and made an example of…….and if you won’t recant……..well, the ones persecuting won’t care if you are Catholic or Protestant

  256. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    I think you mean well, but stop trying to micro-manage my life. If King Jeshua manages to resist doing it, do you think it’s advisable for you to step in and set me straight? When He wants something changed, He lets me know in an v direct way. Once in sixty plus years. So far.

    You can’t possibly imagine I will stand on the sidewalks and wait for Yon Doofus to wander by, pepper spray in hand? Pls concentrate less on correcting my works and style, and more on obedience. The world already has plenty of opinions, and my mom died 25 yrs ago.

    Astonishingly, I look almost EXACTLY like the figure you pictured there! Except my hair is even fluffier, and far rakishly longer and just, oh I don’t know, somehow WILDER. And yes, it does have streaks of actual gold in it. Gold of Ophir actually. Not that I brag about it but thanks. Let me know if you need more pics. I will forward the portfolio.

    You know, my friend in Christ, the big blue bus is pulling out soon, and folks who think another is coming along — a much better and more polite one — will pass through the fire before they go anywhere. Cheers.

  257. American says:

    The current mantra in leftist ideology is simply that “all men are evil oppressors” and “all women are innocent victims.” Their policy reflects their ideology.

    Which, of course, is why their entire ideological worldview needs to be rejected completely and any policy resulting from it reformed to NOT reflect their fallacious ideology.

  258. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    All my encounters with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have been positive. They were always friendly and polite, and said they respected my Catholicism. Of course, they also tried to teach me about a “fuller truth,” but they were polite whenever I declined.

  259. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Irish theater is having a “gender equality revolution”: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/yes-we-did-irish-theatre-s-gender-equality-revolution-1.3563784

    Some top players in Irish theatre are chatting in the Lir Academy of Dramatic Art in Dublin. Anne Clarke says “there’s a certain element of: just do it. Gender equality is not a hard thing to do, if you want to. This change came about because of a decision, to reverse inequality and give more opportunities to women.”

  260. Sharkly says:

    Ray,
    Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I do mean well, and I want to be a positive influence on you and others. I certainly realize that I often need guidance myself, and sometimes I regret things I’ve posted, but, I think that “iron sharpening iron” is one of the features here, not a “bug”.

    Like I might mention,(in regard to my stories above about Mormon and JW missionaries) that while I enjoyed pissing off cultists previously, I’d probably be kinder if I met those same folks today.
    If you are even slightly less likely to make threats against folks on here, and instead are more likely to try other argument tactics, like citing God’s word, or you just chose “don’t feed the trolls”, then I have had my desired effect.
    A lot of stuff you have posted in the past has helped me. And some stuff, has made me think, even if I’m still unsure about it. The picture I posted was of a statue of Michael the Archangel, protector of the Jews, in Kiev, he is their patron Saint or something like it. I’m not familiar enough with Catholicism to know if Angels can be considered saints. I didn’t know you two looked alike, perhaps there is some relation?

    So, for instance, I wonder what you’d think of the article at the following link. I’m pondering it. It seems to be good, I’m not sure that I agree with all of it, but would appreciate your, and other people’s thoughts on it.
    https://russian-faith.com/saints/remarkable-russian-saint-warns-fear-evil-fire-n1196

  261. info says:

    @Sharkly
    Behold the actual description of the angelic host:
    ”Then Elisha prayed, “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.”

    And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw that the hills were full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. ”

    2 Kings 6:17

    ”Suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.”
    Matthew 28:3

    Angels look like fearsome men who clearly present as male and as fiery beings who terrify men in their appearance.

    Nothing like the women or androgynous portrayed as angels in western art.

  262. Opus says:

    @RPL

    I see that at Takimag, Theodore Dalrymple has in his felicitous way been mocking the hell out of the Irish Thespians: why he asks is there not stage equality for fat people or for that matter those with IQs of say 80; these too need representation. To pose such First-World problems is to reveal what this is really about. I only ever saw one female-penned play; The Knack by Ann Jellicoe: that was enjoyable but I suppose much dated now.

    I have noticed in the last few years programmes of classical music being infiltrated by long forgotten music by females, but the curious thing is that the only such music comes from women whose surnames are only too familiar (Mozart, Schumann, Mendelssohn and Mahler – sister, wife, sister and wife, in fact). How often in politics when there is a female President does one find that the woman is the daughter of a previous male President. Not that such Banana-republic stuff would ever happen in the U.S.A (foot in mouth smiley).

    I see poor Scarlett Johannson has been forced out of what would have been an interesting role where she was to play an M to F tranny. Art does not in my observation gain by veracity but requires representation, that is to say Star Trek would not be better were it acted by real astronauts indeed when that sort of thing is done as for example as I have seen it done when T.S.Eliot’s Murder in a Cathedral is performed in a mediaeval century Cathedral one is underwhelmed as we are asked to take reality for theatrical truth. I have seen Koanga (set in Florida) done with an authentically all black cast – it just does not convince I suspect because theatre is a European phenomenon which does not travel well. No one expects Macbeth to be a Scot, Hamlet a Dane or for that matter Othello to be a Moor or Shylock a Jew; actors utilize costume and make-up and assume a part. Art and life are entirely separate and should be kept so.

    Forty-five years ago there was a British movie which is really rather nice entitled I Want What I Want about an M to F tranny. The opening scenes show us a young man who is reasonably convincing as such but by the end the actress playing the character has blossomed, Eliza Doolittle style into a beautiful woman. The actress who had some theatrical chops had been a previous winner of the Miss Great Britain Contest. I suppose all copies now will have to be consigned to the flames.

  263. ray says:

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

    LOL! I mean, really? This reminds me of Return of Kings cartoons with the Greedy Hook-nosed Jew, bent over his pot of gold, greedily rubbing his hands together . . . muu-ahhh-haaa-haaa!

    You are as psychotic and malevolent as RooshDoosh or your beloved Supreme Dark Lord Ted.

    You’re not a commenter in good faith. You’re just another satanic weakling. And that’s why I opened up this avenue of discussion about the infiltration of ((())) as an accepted part of online discourse — the assumption that ‘everyone knows that The Jews are evil’. That supposed CHRISTIANS would assent to this silently over the past few years — despite what the Bible says about Jews past, and about the status of Jews during Christ’s immanent Kingdom of the Father — told me that they are too frightened, or duped, to call punks like you out. Even people on this page remained silent.

    I’m not scared or confused. And I sure ain’t looking to please your Supreme Dark Lord.

  264. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    Right then, all good.

    Look I was just having some fun with the angel picture. Folks sure get up to some silly ideas when it comes to spiritual things! Be assured that I resemble that icon in about . . . zero ways. :O)

    So much for me trying to be funny. I should just stick to something I know, like being stoopid.

    I was not, however, kidding about the Jew stuff. Not even a little.

    Yeah I’ll check out your link later.

  265. earl says:

    they don’t like it if as you blow past them in your air-conditioned car you roll down your window and yell “Get a Job!”

    I figure that would be a common reaction to that scenerio.

    “No, he died because of his own sin, he was rightly lynched for horse thieving!” and suddenly they were leaving. The younger one looked like he wanted to punch me, and the older one was sort of dragging him off.

    Funny how quick they leave when the meet a person who knows their cult better than they know their cult.

  266. ingracious says:

    @Sharkly (July 16, 2018 at 3:52 am)

    Sure, you’re more than welcome to check out my blog here: https://ingracious.wordpress.com/

    I haven’t written in a while, but I should be coming back to it with a few new ideas for posts soon; I see it as just an outlet for my thoughts, so I don’t aim to post regularly.

    I started my blog primarily to make posts about small, single aspects of the minimum wage and other similar policies (e.g. ‘penalty rates’) we also have here in Australia, so the minimum wage is the focus of most of the few blog posts I’ve made so far.

    It’s a personal issue for me, because I can perceive how my own life and the lives of many of my friends have been made much more difficult and worse-off thanks to things like the minimum wage – however, saying that I oppose it or similar policies leads people to call me a mere ingrate (which is why I chose my username) who doesn’t appreciate all of these “hard-fought victories for workers’ rights”.

    (Like I elaborated on in my previous post here about Spain’s 50% youth unemployment, such innumerable “victories” over there are why no one can find a job in Spain anymore: “Where have all the good jobs gone?” = “Where have all the good men gone?”)

    I haven’t read Milton Friedman’s book, but the lectures of his up on youtube are terrific. The ones on workers and unions were particularly influential on me (8:25-10:05): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4

    Friedman is of the “Chicago school of economics”, whereas my understanding is that my views would line up more with the “Austrian school”.

    But anyway, feel free to send me any feedback you have on my posts through the contact tab (I think that thing works, I haven’t really looked at it). I’d really appreciate it.

    I don’t know how well what I wrote holds up, seeing as I’ve made refinements to my posting style since then, but one poster from here has already begun following my blog so I guess it’s not completely terrible.

    @Jeff Strand (July 16, 2018 at 6:29 am)

    “You have said it.”

    I’ve said what you were pretending (in multiple posts) that you weren’t, you mean. Okay, Jeff.

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

    I engaged back and forth with you in the interest of discussion, and now that the discussion between us has concluded and I’ve said what I wanted to say I’m happy to let it die. So, let it die.

    Your conspiratorialism over (((my interest))) in this topic makes you sound like a real kook.

    @Dota (July 16, 2018 at 8:33 am)

    “Feminism isn’t like gravity where had Newton not discovered it, somebody else would have. … Ideologies aren’t like that. … 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?”

    Comparing feminism to Islam is apples and oranges.

    Islam’s prophet and its teachings are a complete coincidence of history, yes, and the result is an ideology with so many unique distinguishing characteristics that the likelihood of anyone else creating something exactly akin to it is almost zero. It has too much complexity, and specifically it has too many traits that could only come about in the specific time in history in which it was created.

    Feminism, however, has nothing complex or time-specific about it: If women decide they want to do something, they should just be allowed to do it.

    If they want to vote, that’s first-wave feminism.

    If they want to be sluts, that’s second-wave feminism.

    If they want to be on the front lines, that’s third-wave feminism.

    That’s pretty much all there is to it.

    If women want it, they should be given it. All the boilerplate rhetoric about oppressive men and downtrodden women is simply the self-righteous justification for why they should always get what they want and why you’re a prick if you don’t give it to them.

    Feminism could indeed organically arise anywhere without the involvement of Jews, so long as there are women and those women want things.
    It’s not quite on the level of gravity, but it’s a bit like how all human societies will eventually come to invent door handles because we all have hands; it’s an initial basic fact that leads to a logically inevitable end-product.

    The limiting factor, and what allowed (and allows) feminism to arise in the first place, is prosperity:

    Women naturally want things. They want to have things handed to them. They want to not be held responsible for their poor life choices. They want to slut it up and be reckless and destructive no matter the cost, and so on.

    When life is tough, men cannot afford to indulge these wants.

    As life gets easier, men can afford to indulge some of these wants, but not all of them.

    As life get even easier, men can afford to indulge most of these wants, with more being added to the list every day as technology advances and government expands.

    However, ALL of feminism’s gains – every single one – is given by men to women. If modern society collapses, then feminism disappears instantly and men immediately go back to being in charge and as patriarchal as they want to be.

    The ideology of feminism, like a woman herself, lacks the inherent ability to impose its will upon men. It can only ask men to ‘be nice’ and give women what they want, because men are the ones who fend off danger and actually build society.

    To actually answer your rhetorical question “(W)hy didn’t the suffragettes ask for dismantling the patriarchy?”: Because what good would it have done them to ask? In order for the “patriarchy” to be dismantled, men would’ve had to have been the ones to dismantle it voluntarily.

    BUT, they (and other women’s groups around the world) did manage to convince the men of the time to give women the vote, and that was the nose under the tent:

    The reason we have such a problem with feminism today, even though it wasn’t anywhere near as big a problem in the past despite being still just as “fundamentally Jewish” back then, is because the government wasn’t as big before. Now, men have gradually come to reside under the thumb of women, a reality that is enforced thanks to the women-favouring laws like no fault divorce, child support, Duluth, etc. that you list.

    Feminism only has the power it has today because women themselves have voting influence over a large, tyrannical government.

    It is not, to paraphrase Sharkly’s earlier post, because feminism is infused with magical Jew juju.

  267. Kevin says:

    This is the stupidest thread ever. We have people demonstrating their animosity and ignorance about Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims. Can we get someone to mock Confucius, say bad things about Hindi and Buddists so all the bases are covered (FYI Milton Friedman and 19 other Jewish economists have won Nobel prizes).

    Its amazing that women will initiate violence against men. I am a soft old man not looking for physical violence, but even when younger and stronger I was not as foolish as these women. They have lost their minds. Its only the vestiges of an old dead world and feminist delusions that convinces them to go against thousands of years of healthy culture and biology and attack men that on average are going to win and win in a way that seriously injures (or kills) the woman.

  268. earl says:

    We have people demonstrating their animosity and ignorance about Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims.

    Welcome to the internet.

  269. Gunner Q says:

    “Can we get someone to mock Confucius, say bad things about Hindi and Buddists so all the bases are covered”

    Buddha’s momma is so fat, she’s on both sides of the family. Only because you asked.

    …I want my IQ points back.

  270. virginia says:

    This judge apparently read the preceding article and decided to do his part:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-news-woman-hangs-toddler-avoids-prison-20180717-story.html#

  271. Boxer says:

    Dear Kevin:

    This is the stupidest thread ever. We have people demonstrating their animosity and ignorance about Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims. Can we get someone to mock Confucius, say bad things about Hindi and Buddists so all the bases are covered (FYI Milton Friedman and 19 other Jewish economists have won Nobel prizes).

    One of my older cousins (another divorce bastard) came home from his mission with a story about host desecration. Apparently one of his companions found the church unlocked, so they decided to be willfully disrespectful. He actually boasted about this idiocy when he got home, and many people chuckled. When he did it in my grandfather’s presence, he was met with a cold stare, and a question as to whether that made a better person of him…

    Until recently, I thought this was a simple matter of quality between peoples. I thought my grandfather was telling my cousin not to act like dishonorable Christian scum – because we’re supposed to be better than they are. I now believe there’s a much deeper lesson I missed. Namely, people who are into mindless rebellion against tradition are acting out a weird psychodrama based in a hatred of patriarchy. They hate religions (their own or other peoples) because they ultimately need to vomit up a rebellious spectacle, rooted in the hatred of their own fathers.

    One must note that most of the people here who rail against (((Jews))) have never likely to have been personally bothered by any. Most of them are North Americans, not Israeli Arabs. It can only be explained by a neurotic fixation on a community which symbolizes healthy masculine traits.

    Boxer

  272. ray says:

    info —

    No they don’t look like The Human Torch from Marvel Comics, either. No more that they look like that silly Gold Guy that Sharkly posted.

    The amazing stuff people come up with! Shoulda left them planting taters . . . .

    When two entered into Sodom, the local men tried to rape them. Now, if they look like Gold Guy, or the Human Torch, are those ‘men’ gonna want to force sex on them? Probly not eh?

    Angels walk this planet frequently; Scripture alludes to this in various places. Now if they looked like Marvel Comics characters, don’t you imagine that might make the news? A lot?

    Use your common sense, in conjunction with Scripture. They look like men . . . but, not quite. Particularly if you look closely. When they get mad, yeah, it might SEEM like their faces are made of ‘lightning’ all right. Torture and murder their King; you’ll see their faces light up quick, and no mistake. And you see it again as His troops enter into this world in preparation of His coming in war. Which already has begun. How much you see depends on your spiritual eyes.

    On the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they remind me of Catholics. I like their family-centered traditionalism, but of course they’re deceived about a mere angel being Christ. Angels are small things indeed compared to Him.

    Sharkly — No I won’t be making fewer threats here, not that what I stated was a threat. It was a guarantee. Don’t get between me and my enemies. Stop trying to gentrify what you don’t really understand.

    If you don’t like that part of me now, you are REALLY not gonna like me here pretty quick. Sorry to disappoint your sensibilities but my duties to God take precedence over your feelings.

    I checked your ‘Russian Faith’ article. It reads rather like a modernist view of what people think ‘saints’ are. Really sweet and gentle people who never get mad, never turn in wrath upon evil, never even CONSIDER marching across the Jordan, and up to Jericho, with the intent of slaughtering ALL the persons thereabouts. Including children and babies. Because the LORD said.

    Not exactly the modernist, sentimentalist scenario proffered by that (typical) article.

    I don’t like the idea of ‘churches’ establishing people as ‘saints’, or Official Holy People, or etc. I don’t even like the IDEA of creating/distributing/exhibiting the statuary or images of humans or angels who are presumed to be ‘holy’. Scripture wisely warns against it, but most churches and people do what they want anyway, who coulda guessed? That’s how folks like the JWs start confoozling Christ Jesus with a mere angel.

    For example, I like the general conservatism of Eastern Orthodoxy, but as usual, they mess up by exhibiting the images of angels. It detracts from concentration on Father and King Jeshua, which is the ONLY place that worship — and yes, also devotion, hello earl — should be directed. Cheers.

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    I only ever saw one female-penned play; The Knack by Ann Jellicoe: that was enjoyable but I suppose much dated now.

    You should see the 1944 play “Harvey”, written by one Mary Chase. It was performed in London in 1949, perhaps you missed it for some reason?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Harvey_(play)
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mary_Chase_(playwright)

    I have no opinion on her other plays including the other two that were made into movies, as I’ve not seen them. But it was no surprise to me to learn she was of Irish stock, given some of the aspects of Harvey the play as well as Harvey the pook. The movie made in 1950 featured Jimmy Stewart, and contains this scene where Stewart’s character Elwood P. Dowd is interacting with a shrink, who is supposed to cure Elwood of his absurd belief in Harvey the pook.

    Perhaps it is appropriate right about now in this comment thread. I wonder who will be offended?

  274. SirHamster says:

    In the end times, your Holiness tradition won’t matter. If you profess Christ, and live it…..you will be hauled before the masses and made an example of…….and if you won’t recant……..well, the ones persecuting won’t care if you are Catholic or Protestant

    I always appreciate when you post snippets of your Salvation Army experience. I enjoy seeing the admirable aspects of each tradition.

    Jesus knows and keeps His own. Amen.

  275. earl says:

    Namely, people who are into mindless rebellion against tradition are acting out a weird psychodrama based in a hatred of patriarchy. They hate religions (their own or other peoples) because they ultimately need to vomit up a rebellious spectacle, rooted in the hatred of their own fathers.

    Pretty much. There’s a lot of groups out there with daddy issues.

  276. Gunner Q says:

    Virginia, that Conservation link was so awesome that I fisked it on my lunch break. Hopefully Dalrock doesn’t mind my seizing the inspiration.

    https://gunnerq.com/2018/07/17/a-mangina-down-under/

  277. feeriker says:

    FYI Milton Friedman and 19 other Jewish economists have won Nobel prizes.

    So what?

    Undeserving people win Nobel Prizes all the time – the USA’s most recent ex-president being a particularly egregious example.

  278. BillyS says:

    One must note that most of the people here who rail against (((Jews))) have never likely to have been personally bothered by any. Most of them are North Americans, not Israeli Arabs. It can only be explained by a neurotic fixation on a community which symbolizes healthy masculine traits.

    Most of us (those in the US) have to live in the “paradise” they have created, the one pushing all kinds of crap. Soros would be one of the major causes, using his money in a very ungodly way. I see it as a continuation of their rebellion against God that is quite unfortunate, but that has led to so much of their trouble, including heading into captivity when they used to have their own country in the past.

    I have little compassion for most of the so-called Palestinians (a made up term) whose leaders cause the troubles they face.

    I suppose your perspective depends on whether you are a “enjoy the decline” type of person. I hate it, but not much I can do to stop the slide. That doesn’t mean I will be silent about those who are destroying our society, even though I think my use of “(((ray)))” upthread was the first time I ever used triple parentheses in this context.

  279. Boxer says:

    Most of us (those in the US) have to live in the “paradise” they have created, the one pushing all kinds of crap. Soros would be one of the major causes, using his money in a very ungodly way.

    Who is George Soros’ rabbi? Where does he pray?

    That doesn’t mean I will be silent about those who are destroying our society, even though I think my use of “(((ray)))” upthread was the first time I ever used triple parentheses in this context.

    Your society is being destroyed because men like you are unable to tell your women “no.” This isn’t the fault of some nefarious group of outsiders. It’s your fault.

    Your response, to blame uninvolved men for the bad behavior of your women, is both ineffective and thoughtless.

    Boxer

  280. earl says:

    Now I ask you, which do you think is which?

    There’s no such thing as a ‘Vatican 2’ sect….just as nobody ever called the church the ‘Vatican 1’ sect after that council. I don’t go the ‘church of the Vatican 2’.

    The problem the church has…which may have started around the time of Vatican 2…was an infiltration of homosexual men into the clergy. These are the men trying to bring it down.

  281. earl says:

    Although we do recite the Nicene Creed at Mass…perhaps I go to a Nicaea sect and I wasn’t even aware of it.

  282. ray says:

    Boxer — “Your society is being destroyed because men like you are unable to tell your women “no.” This isn’t the fault of some nefarious group of outsiders. It’s your fault.”

    Damn straight. People just LOVE to find someone, anyone, else to blame for their own faults, insecurities, and weaknesses. Just like ole Adam ‘n Eve BOTH did, right from the get-go. Folks cant stand up to females, but The Jews now, hmm . . . yeah, no push-back there. Heck Israel’s already surrounded!

    All the forces of society, government, and law will not land on your head if you Blame The Joos, like it 100 percent will if you call out The Sisterhood. Even one of them. If you go triple-paren, you will be welcomed with glad open arms by a pre-existing ‘brotherhood’ of like-minded punks, only too ready to affirm your cowardice and pliability, and accept you as one of their own.

  283. Thanks Sir Hamster.

    Christ never punched evildoers in the mouth. He spent more time telling people not of “Heaven” but of the place of “gnashing teeth and maggots”

    He never once used the term “Catholic” when He told Peter to build upon the rock, or to “feed His sheep”

    He rebuked men more than women for the fact that the men that He chose were going to be the ones leading. More was expected. He never cussed, spat or made excuses. He told the Truth. He wept openly for His Disciples that He called “friends” and even wept for the Jews.

    He also did the will of the Father on everything. His Fathers house, His Fathers promises, His Fathers expectations. Everything was embedded deep in Jewish parable, tradition and bringing a final Covenant. Everything was by His Fathers will. Not His Will.

    Reminds me of that hymn we rarely sing in the Salvation Army “Not my will, but oh thine oh Lord…” we would rather sing silly love songs to Jesus now with drums, guitars, tattoos, and a show. Shame on us.

    Even The Cross, which Catholic, Protestants and Orthodox attest He went to face and suffered for all of humanity. We all believe that He rose on the third day, defeating death. We all believe that He will return to bring His Fathers kingdom to fruition.

    We all use the Bible, and the only reason why the Apocyphra is not in Protestant Bibles is for the reasons of not “divenely inpsired” by God. Even in The Salvation Army, founder William Booth agreed the books give good history, but at this time are not required for Christian practice or faith. In fact, I have never been in a COE or Catholic service when any of the Scriptures from those books were quoted (Esdras et al).

    We all believe God is triune in the Father Son, and Holy Ghost

    We can again bite, scrape and claw about who said what, and which council, meeting, or treatise said what on what year for “demoninational practice” but brush these aside we do have much more in common.

    As for “religious scholars” be it in Catholicism, or Protestantism……I really don’t give much water to them……sure they can give us a backwash of what the times were like. What life was like back in the time of Christ or help clairify a cultural behavior…………….

    The Disciples and early Believers didn’t have “learned papers” from the temples, nor did they spend years in Seminary. They were prayed up, had high expectations, a deep faith in His Gospel for all of humanity and they turned the world upside down.

    With all the revivals, the retreats. The books. The churches. The Christian book stores, the podcasts, the camps, the seminars, the workshops. The chat forums. The fellowship, the prayer breakfasts, the speakers, the YouTube channels………………

    and people INSIDE the church are so ignorant……and prayer is just about dead in our faith today. Idk……there is something missing, and when I mention “prayer” no one wants to, or they pray for a few seconds at the Mercy Seat or tell me “I’m always praying”

    and I want to say……be careful “lest the Lord rebuke you and call you a liar”

  284. earl says:

    He never once used the term “Catholic” when He told Peter to build upon the rock, or to “feed His sheep”

    How the church got the name ‘Catholic’.

    https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

    As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

    Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

  285. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin
    This is the stupidest thread ever.

    I dunno about “ever”, but it is sure is getting close. The usual “Only Real Man” plus “Only Real Christian / No True Christian” boring tediousness plus now “No True Jew” added on for extra ennui. Looking forward to Dalrock’s next posting for sure.

  286. ray says:

    Follow-up, previous OPs —

    http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17/tip-pentagon-covering-up-fact-that-female-officers-nearly-sank-navy-ship/

    Anonymous Coward — We’re not going to stop speaking the truth because you and Kevvie are made uncomfortable. TFB.

  287. OKRickety says:

    First, let’s consider the idea that the Roman Catholic Church (referred to by Earl, for example, as “the Church”) is not what is meant when the Bible refers to the Church. The Church is, instead, the body of Christ in the form of all of Christ’s followers.

    Now, suppose that initially all Christians (the Church) agreed on all matters of doctrine. As is typical of mankind, Satan got involved and disagreements arose on important aspects of doctrine, and they became two groups, one (a small minority) following God’s will completely, and the other (the vast majority) apostate in belief. It would be correct, I think, to call the latter group catholic as their beliefs would be, relatively speaking, “universally accepted”. However, that does not make their beliefs correct in the eyes of God.

    My point? The name used by a group of believers is less important than the beliefs of the group. Although Earl (and others) no doubt believe the Roman Catholic Church is following God better than any other group, it would be useful to keep in mind that millions of Protestants vehemently disagree. This is quite unlikely to change on this blog (or anywhere else), and I doubt there is much to be gained by lengthy discussion of the differences, much less by heated argument as to who is correct.

    For me, I use Roman Catholic Church as a designation for that group. I think everyone understands who is in that group. You may consider the name incorrect, but I do not intend its usage to be derogatory or insulting. However, I find others’ insistence that the Roman Catholic Church is the catholic Church to be disrespectful of other Christians, and continued harping on it especially so.

  288. ray says:

    Oops. Attribution for above link, MensActivism.org

  289. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    More gifts from Hollywood:

    * A new Netflix show, American Jesus: https://www.thewrap.com/netflix-mark-millar-tv-series-films-millarworld-american-jesus/

    “American Jesus” follows a 12-year-old boy who suddenly discovers he’s returned as Jesus Christ. He can turn water into wine, make the crippled walk, and, perhaps, even raise the dead! How will he deal with the destiny to lead the world in a conflict thousands of years in the making?

    I suppose he’ll also teach us that trannies are the True Christians?

    And from the CW network, a new Batwoman: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/batwoman-tv-series-works-at-cw-1127574?

    But wait for it … Batwomanis not just a woman — she’s a lesbian!

    Batwoman revolves around Kate Kane, who, armed with a passion for social justice and flair for speaking her mind, soars onto the streets of Gotham as Batwoman, an out lesbian and highly trained street fighter primed to snuff out the failing city’s criminal resurgence.

  290. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Okay, I’m really out of it. I thought this was a new thing, Batwoman being lesbian. But after some googling on this “new thing,” I learned that Batwoman has been gay Jewish social justice warrior since 2006: https://deadline.com/2018/07/batwoman-tv-series-i-the-cw-lesbian-superhero-lead-caroline-dries-greg-berlanti-1202427678/

    Batwoman already has been a trailblazer for LGBTQ+ representation in comics. After a long hiatus, she was reintroduced to the DC comic universe in 2006 when she was established as a Jewish lesbian, becoming the first-ever lesbian superhero title DC character.

    I think the Adam West Batman was my first favorite TV show, back when I was very little. The first TV show I remember watching. My, how the world has changed since I was young.

  291. earl says:

    However, I find others’ insistence that the Roman Catholic Church is the catholic Church…

    That particular link pointed out the Roman part came into play from the Anglicans. I never knew that before.

    ‘So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.’

  292. Sharkly says:

    About what angels look like: I’d post a picture, but I don’t want to Dox myself.

    I guess I’m the only one who didn’t know that triple parentheses was secret code for (((Juden)))
    That’s why I come here, I learn something new all the time.

    [[[Jeff Strand]]] Triple brackets, that’s my code for some Jew obsessed square who is preoccupied with thinking there is an infinitely powerful devious apostate illuminati Jew hiding behind every bush.
    If y’all are afraid of some clumsy Jews, who let slip their sinister plans for enslaving the world to their Shylock Banksters, you would be absolutely terrified if I told you of the great untold manipulations of the Mennonite Mafia.

    Ray says: Sharkly — No I won’t be making fewer threats here, not that what I stated was a threat. It was a guarantee. Don’t get between me and my enemies. Stop trying to gentrify what you don’t really understand.
    Well, could I get you to explain it to me? Or is it a secret mission?

    Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
    12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
    13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

    25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
    26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
    28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.
    29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
    30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
    31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    [[[Jeff]]] is right, the Jews are enemies of the Gospel, and (((Ray))) is right God made promises to the Jewish fathers that would behoove us to mercifully bless their descendants and not curse them.
    Can’t we just all get along? KUMBAYA my Lord! Kumbaya!

  293. Pariah says:

    For the sake of fighting feminism, I think it’s best we don’t squabble too much over doctrinal differences.

  294. earl says:

    ‘And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.’

    Jeez I guess heretical Antipope Francis Bergoglio who probably isn’t a Catholic wasn’t so kooky about his statements about the Jews not having their covenant revoked after all. Unless Jeff wants to claim that St. Paul was a heretical writer of the New Testament.

  295. Sharkly says:

    Dang it! Earl.
    You’re making me side with the Antipope over [[[Jeff]]].

  296. Boxer says:

    Jeez I guess heretical Antipope Francis Bergoglio who probably isn’t a Catholic wasn’t so kooky about his statements about the Jews not having their covenant revoked after all. Unless Jeff wants to claim that St. Paul was a heretical writer of the New Testament.

    I like the Antipope. He trolls trannies and makes them cry…

    https://www.xrock.com/newsy/pope-francis-criticized-for-not-accepting-transgender-community

  297. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written,

    Well, what does “all Israel” mean?

    Does it mean every single person born of Jewish blood? That would include child molesters, and murderers, and leaders in the Bolshevik genocide, and all manner of sinners. So no, I don’t think “all Israel” means that if you have Jewish blood, you’ll be saved on Judgment Day, unlike sinners without Jewish blood.

    My Catholic study Bible says that “all Israel” means that, among the saved Jewish Christians will be people with blood from all 12 tribes. So all 12 tribes will be represented among the saved Jewish Christians. Hence, “all Israel.”

    Dispensationalist Christians have misinterpreted that line to that point that they practically worship people of Jewish blood and the state of Israel.

  298. feeriker says:

    Dispensationalist Christians have misinterpreted that line to that point that they practically worship people of Jewish blood and the state of Israel.

    Few people are as zoologically ignorant of the Bible –or indeed, of anything and everything demanding a functioning cerebrum– as “dispensationalist” Christians. The fact that they believe in a pseudo-theology that was non-existent until magically “discovered” in the mid-nineteenth century (apparently not only the authors of the NT, but all the great theologians of Christianity’s first 1,800 years were asleep at the switch) explains volumes about how easily deceived they are. Small wonder that their numbers include so many prominent false teachers.

  299. pariah says:

    Israel is all those who are of the faith of Abraham. Read Galatians chapter 3 and Romans chapter 4. All Israel will be saved, because spiritual Israelites are those who have faith in Jesus Christ. True Christians are Israel, not Jews, or (((Jews))), or [[[churchians]]], or cuckians, or pastorbators, or ad absurdum.

  300. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Woman banned from gym because she complained about sharing locker room with a tranny: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/07/17/planet-fitness-bans-woman-from-gym-after-she-complained-about-sharing-locker-room-with-trans-man

    A Leesburg, Florida, Planet Fitness gym is under fire after reportedly revoking a woman’s membership after she said she was uncomfortable with having to share a locker room with a transgender man.

    I think the legal term is “transgender woman,” but the article is on a conservative site.

    “Mrs. H,” who, according to a Thursday letter from Liberty Counsel, is a survivor of sexual assault, and felt incredibly uncomfortable with the man’s presence. The man was identified as Jordan “Ivy” Rice.

    Again, legally this tranny is a “woman.”

    “This is not the only incident with Mr. Rice known to Planet Fitness,” a portion of the letter read. “Another woman reported that [Rice] exposed his naked body to her in the women’s locker room at this location. In another instance, [Rice] was involved in an argument with another woman over use of the tanning room.

    Legally, “her” naked body. So … why would a woman feel uncomfortable seeing another woman’s naked body? Does she not know that some women have penises?

    Misogynist, anti-woman harassment should have no place in Planet Fitness locations, and violates Florida law.”

    But … how can a “trans woman” be misogynistic?

    Who is the victim? Who is the harasser? I love seeing the Left implode from its own ideological contradictions.

  301. Opus says:

    @RPL

    I confess that I missed the 1949 West End production of Harvey and have no reasonable excuse for such an omission other than to plead that I had yet to be born – though I know that is an inadequate excuse.

    Despite my obviously dismissive chagrin for female penned drama the moment a woman (I am thinking here of Agatha Christie) produces something utterly brilliant such as Witness for the Prosecution (I saw the 1958 movie) or The Mousetrap (not seen – apparently that is reserved exclusively for American tourists) misogyny vanishes and presumably because there is no need for special pleading. Don’t get me on the subject of why I detest Jane Austen (oh please do!).

    To add to the misogyny there will never be a great female orchestral conductor for the simple reason of lack of upper body muscle – their arms will tire and the orchestra will respond accordingly. In short all female orchestras play a lot more quietly than all-male orchestras. Pretty much the same problem as with female Tennis.

  302. anonymous coward says:

    Christ never punched evildoers in the mouth.

    Not true, think again.

    Christ was a carpenter, but the only object mentioned in the Gospels to be made by Christ’s hands was a whip. It wasn’t decorative either.

  303. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    Your society is being destroyed because men like you are unable to tell your women “no.” This isn’t the fault of some nefarious group of outsiders. It’s your fault.

    Yeah right. I have done so much of that. I am not sure when, but you must know better since you can apparently read my mind….

    You do falsely assume that the individual has that much power. I never did much of that even in my relatively blue pill days. I have opposed it and spoken out far more than most. That is one of the reasons I am divorced as well, since my exwife couldn’t handle Christian truth on these subjects.

    But Soros claiming to be an ethnic Jew and spending millions (billions?) to push for progressive things has nothing to do with our current societal situation? What are you smoking?

    I don’t claim a Jew behind every tree causing evil, but clearly many in leadership of government, media, and rich people like Soros have done very great damage with their influence. To deny that is more than a little stupid.

    They have plenty who work with them and also who have money and influence, but that doesn’t make their role any less important. It kind of sounds like those in Jeremiah’s day who claimed God would not send Judah into captivity because they were the chosen people. They focused on other problems, not their own sin. Many today want to do the same and completely ignore the sin of those who claim the name “Jew” and cause great harm.

  304. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    Well, what does “all Israel” mean?

    How about it means “all Israel”? Why complicate this. The context is the nation of Israel, not something else. Gabriel told Mary that her child (Jesus) would sit on the throne of David, a Jewish throne, as just one example. Did God not know that it would not end up being true a mere 30-35 years later?

  305. BillyS says:

    feeriker,

    Few people are as zoologically ignorant of the Bible –or indeed, of anything and everything demanding a functioning cerebrum– as “dispensationalist” Christians. The fact that they believe in a pseudo-theology that was non-existent until magically “discovered” in the mid-nineteenth century (apparently not only the authors of the NT, but all the great theologians of Christianity’s first 1,800 years were asleep at the switch) explains volumes about how easily deceived they are. Small wonder that their numbers include so many prominent false teachers.

    Not true. The ideas have been followed for many years before. I take what is written seriously, even if it goes against the grain of those who would exalt themselves over God’s plan. (Depending on what you mean by dispensationalism of course.)

    Kind of ironic I defend the role of Jews when Boxer is bashing me for also blaming some for doing their utmost (and seceding to some extent) to destroy our society and Christianity along with it.

    I don’t worship Israel, but I don’t think the fact it came back together is pure chance, as many seem to. The answer lies in searching things out, not believing rhetoric.

  306. BillyS says:

    Pariah,

    Israel is all those who are of the faith of Abraham. Read Galatians chapter 3 and Romans chapter 4. All Israel will be saved, because spiritual Israelites are those who have faith in Jesus Christ. True Christians are Israel, not Jews, or (((Jews))), or [[[churchians]]], or cuckians, or pastorbators, or ad absurdum.

    Then the promises in Romans 9 about God regathering the physical Jews would be meaningless. True Christians are followers of faith, but we were grafted in, as it says. We are not the tree. They will be returned when they accept their Messiah. It will be those alive when that happens, but the enough of the promises to the Jewish people were unconditional that writing them off is foolish.

    Anyone who claims to take over the promises to the Jewish people is quite arrogant and should really evaluate their salvation. Putting themselves above what God has said is quite dangerous.

    It is not surprising that the Jewish people have reaped such unfortunately. They practiced (and continue to practice) intense hostility to Christians, so they are reaping what they sow, but they will be restored (as a people, not specific individuals) in the future, after 2/3rds of them die under intense persecution.

  307. info says:

    ”In the end times, your Holiness tradition won’t matter. If you profess Christ, and live it…..you will be hauled before the masses and made an example of…….and if you won’t recant……..well, the ones persecuting won’t care if you are Catholic or Protestant”

    You will not even be persecuted for “professing Christ” but for whatever crime they can accuse you of.

  308. Gunner Q says:

    “You will not even be persecuted for “professing Christ” but for whatever crime they can accuse you of.”

    Homophobia, testosterone and non-inclusiveness. Good enough.

  309. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    Doug Wilson has a post out (So You Married a Feminist). Perhaps you and others would be interested in it.

    Sheila Wray Gregoire had a post 3 months ago that appears to qualify for the Lowering the Boom  category. In Drawing Boundaries with the Silent Treatment, she advocates that, in cases of long-term silent treatment by her husband, the wife should “honour” her husband because she loves him and wants him to be happy. Here is what she suggests the wife tell her husband:

    “I will be moving out of the bedroom. This is not what I want; but I do want to honour you. … So I will be making an appointment with a marriage counsellor, and I would request that you go with me. Unfortunately, if you choose not to, then I don’t know how we can return to sleeping in the same bedroom.”

  310. Heidi says:

    I see Doug Wilson is offering again his thoughts on men and feminists:
    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/so-you-married-a-feminist.html

    ” The first thing for you to learn is how to take responsibility before God for the whole thing. You can’t really complain about how she doesn’t respect the fact that you are the head when you don’t respect the fact that you are the head….[But father-bashing is bad]…. This means that we believe that when you sin, God looks at you, and when your wife sins, He looks at her. But who does He look at when something in the family is dislocated? He looks to the head, which would be you.” (Your wife’s rebellion is your fault!)

    ” The MGTOW reaction is a very carnal reaction to feminism, just as feminism was a reaction to various forms of masculine boorishness…. So I am talking about studying responsible writers, theologians, historians, and not the rants of bitter guys in basements.” (Preemptive ad hominem, just in case you wanted to criticize Wilson.)

    ” Make it impossible for your wife to think that “he is just unwilling to change.” She should see you changing all the time—but you are doing so in response to the Word of God.” (AKA “the tingle”)

    ” And last, you must be praying that God would bring the whole thing down to a testing point. It must be brought to a head, but not by you. You want that testing point, the point where you make a decision and she learns to submit to it because you made it, to be manifestly a moment of God’s appointment.” So you need to make a decision because you’re the head, but it has to be a decision that God forces upon you. One wonders what sort of a testing point would qualify.

    “There are many other things I could say, and there are many ways in which what I have said could be misunderstood or twisted, but I trust you have gotten the gist.” (Yes, I think we have, thanks!)

  311. Heidi says:

    Oops, OKRickety beat me to it!

  312. OKRickety says:

    Heidi, I beat you to the reference, but you did analysis. For what it’s worth, I’m bothered more by Gregoire than Wilson. I think there is greater danger in “Christian” women teaching falsely.

  313. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gregoire is a 2nd stage conservative feminist raised by a single mother married to a blue-pill provider-mule. There’s nothing in that article she hasn’t been saying for years. She’s all about feminizing or even neutering men to make them better Betas, then being frustrated because betaized men are not sexy.

    More fried ice. Now!

  314. Heidi says:

    Gregoire and her ilk do present a special problem, especially since she is so often categorized as being “traditional” and a strong supporter of marriage. It’s very tempting to look at her posts, say “Well, this sounds reasonable,” and be convinced of some bad doctrine. I note, however, that Xantippe on Catholic Answers Forums thinks she’s the greatest, and Xantippe’s more overt feminism serves as a good klaxon of the danger found in her blog.

  315. vfm7916 says:

    Prior Comment eaten by filter, so:

    @feeriker, @BillyS:

    Ron Unz has a disturbing article on talmudic practices over at Unz Review, if you have not already seen it. I’m digging into the background material myself as my skepticism kicked in, but the point he makes about allergies to certain information connects to a great deal of my personal experiences.

  316. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    “Ray says: Sharkly — No I won’t be making fewer threats here, not that what I stated was a threat. It was a guarantee. Don’t get between me and my enemies. Stop trying to gentrify what you don’t really understand.
    Well, could I get you to explain it to me? Or is it a secret mission?”

    I told you three times that my methods of obedience to my Father are not your business, and to stop pushing. But you kept insisting they are your business, so now you mock, as you mocked my explanation of why your Hallmark Cards angel didn’t mesh with Scripture’s information concerning their appearance. That’s your reaction to truth, because you didn’t like it I guess.

    Jeshua can answer your mockery from now on. If He wants.

    I note sadly to this site that if I hadn’t brought up the most recent infiltration attempt by Teddie’s Team [[[Anonymous Coward, Billy S, Jeff Strand et al.]]] that NOBODY on this page — of largely Christians — would have said one word about it. Then it’d start showing up regularly, the meme-normalization method I’ve watched the MENSA Lost Boys employ so often before.

    The anti-christs parade before you, and your wish is to ‘get along’ with them. Because the cool people do. Because it makes lives, and discussions, smoother and more congenial. Really, not much different from the silencing of ‘Christians’ the past half-century by Feminism.

  317. Notice how every man who “criticizes” in the conservative protestant church worldview is now a bitter man who lives in a basement?????

    Studying responsible theologians, historians, and writers…..he must mean “focus on the family” and anything from Platt, Chandler, Idleman, Piper, Driscoll camp……

    I would prefer to study the Bible….but no one does that anymore…..we have books from the above mentioned that tell us all we need to know. The Bible? We just need a verse or two, and of course the “don’t judge” one…..and a few others…..there! You’re a born again and a “real, mighty man of God”

  318. Anonymous Reader says:

    Heidi
    Gregoire and her ilk do present a special problem,

    No, they present a typical problem.

    especially since she is so often categorized as being “traditional” and a strong supporter of marriage.

    She is traditional, by the standards of modern traditionalism, and she’s a strong supporter of marriage as long as it’s female led / dominated. I wager that 90% of what Gregoire teaches would be agreeable to most women in tradcon churches. That’s the problem, and it is typical.

  319. Anonymous Reader says:

  320. Sharkly says:

    @ Ray,
    I don’t like the idea of ‘churches’ establishing people as ‘saints’, or Official Holy People, or etc. I don’t even like the IDEA of creating/distributing/exhibiting the statuary or images of humans or angels who are presumed to be ‘holy’.

    I agree 100% I don’t like anybody put forth as a model, who was not put forth as a model in the Bible. I cringe when some pastor says something like; Ain’t that Tim Tebow a model Christian man. You know it is only a matter of time before he shames himself by chasing after some downhill disaster like Lindsey Vonn. No extrabiblical, saints, or popes, or prophets, for me. And I believe you perceived that the photos of Michael the protector of the Jews the winged angel with the medieval weaponry were posted for humor, I didn’t anticipate anybody paying them homage.

    If I joke about your secret mission, it is only because I don’t find anywhere in the New Covenant(your published commission) where you are called to threaten your fellow man. Or “Guarantee” him violence, or whatever you want to call it. But hey, maybe you could point it out to me?

    The anti-christs parade before you, and your wish is to ‘get along’ with them. Because the cool people do. Because it makes lives, and discussions, smoother and more congenial.

    Hey, I picked up some antichrist vibes form Jeff Strand too, like his hatred of Jews, and such, but yes, I still want to get along with him. Not because I’m cool,(thank you for your endorsement) but because I’m attempting to follow the New Testament example.
    1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
    What are you doing to win Jeff? Threatening him? You don’t have to agree with him. I disagreed, and then gave him a God breathed piece of God’s word to back up my disagreement.
    Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
    I may be a stupid human with faults and feelings, but I can wield The sword of the Lord, and so can you.
    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
    2 Corinthians 10:1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, … 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Ray, We don’t war according to the flesh. The weapons of our warfare are not fists of flesh or threats by human breath. We’ve got mighty weapons but we need to bring our fleshly bloodlust into captivity and obey Christ, or we ourselves become the enemy by also exalting ourselves against the knowledge of God. I don’t try to be a peacemaker because it makes discussions smoother and more congenial, as you said it does. I do it because we are to be seeking unity, and making peace, that we might, by all means save some. Trust me, I’m formidable, and I have been quite tempted to beat some false teaching hirelings into a pulp. It is easy to convince yourself that your anger will accomplish the righteousness of God.
    James 1:20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
    Maybe it is because I don’t have “short man’s complex” that I, normally feeling powerful in person, don’t have to resort to feeling powerful behind the keyboard. I tend to realize my powerlessness to wield my might to reach through the screen and slap anybody, and so I remember that I have a weapon that will accomplish God’s purpose. Now, I can’t guarantee that my using God’s word is the same as God sending it, and that it will not be in vain.
    Proverbs 26:7 Like a lame man’s legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools.
    But, dishing out God’s word is my best chance at not being a fool, and my best chance at being used by God to accomplish his purpose. Also, if you have to push every disagreement, you will eventually end up in a denomination of one. We have to accept that others will have shortcomings, and forgive them, even as we try to guide them in the correct path. And I bet you already knew most of this. Trust me, I struggle with it too, and I trust you’ll point out when I’m out of line. Also, to be most effective, correct me with the word of God, not your secret stuff. I enjoy the mysterious things you share, and I ponder them, but I often don’t know what to make of some of it.

    For example: I think it was you who talks about the “Spirit of Jezebel”, and assigns it to various things. Is that Jezebel’s personal soul, or a specific demon spirit that once inhabited Jezebel, or is it like her “Team Spirit” just sort of the way Jezebel would feel, What Would Jezebel Do? If you’ve got a way of tracking demon spirits I’d be interested to hear about it. My old church was lacking that, but Dalrock’s blog is my current church, so I’d like to avail myself of any special powers that you may have brother. Also you sometimes seem to hint at understanding certain prophecies, and I’d be curious to try to discern some of that if you’d care to share it. And I’m not mocking. If you have something special form the Lord, I’m interested. Wisely I’m skeptical, but I’m willing to consider that you may have been given some insight, and if it is genuine, I’d like you to share it, if you can.

  321. Hmm says:

    Heidi & OKR,

    One thing Wilson does in his article that he had failed to do to date is delineate the difference between accepting responsibility and blame:

    “Taking responsibility is a very different thing than saying you are the one to blame. Because of the egalitarianism that underlies feminism, we have lost our covenantal categories. This means that we believe that when you sin, God looks at you, and when your wife sins, He looks at her. But who does He look at when something in the family is dislocated? He looks to the head, which would be you.

    “So the first thing you need to do, between you and God alone, is to take responsibility. As you pray, pray to God as His appointed representative of the Galligers, as the Galligers, and acknowledge to Him what is happening in your household. Acknowledge it, confess it, and lay it out before Him to deal with. Do this without any expectation that this will result in any breakthrough conversations with your wife within two days. Start to function in the presence of God as the head of your family vertically before attempting anything horizontally. Do this long enough that it becomes a habitual cast of mind for you.

    “Your model in this, as you take covenantal responsibility, would be Job. Remember that when his children were done with their feasting, Job took responsibility for them before the Lord, and it was good.

    “ ‘And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually’ (Job 1:5).

    “And Job was doing this, not because of anything done overtly, but rather for things that they might be doing in their hearts. How much more, when something is clearly wrong, should the head of the house be acknowledging it daily to God? And remember that you are taking responsibility before God, which is not the same thing as blaming her before God. Adam blamed his wife in God’s presence, and that was not a spiritual exercise (even though his wife had a share in the blame).”

    I actually think this is a useful distinction. We are not to blame for the sins of our wives, but we put ourselves out before God as the ones responsible (with His help) to fix it.

  322. Jeff Strand says:

    Yeah, you guys are right. Any talk of a “Jewish Faction” or “Israel Lobby” secretly pulling strings on U.S, policies is crazy tin-foil-hat conspiracy talk. Yep. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Whoops!

    (From “The Times of Israel” newspaper, 17 July 2018)

    In a video clip aired Tuesday by Israeli television, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted that Israel was responsible for US President Donald Trump’s decision to quit the Iran nuclear deal.

    In the video, which the Kan public broadcaster said was filmed two weeks ago, Netanyahu can be seen speaking to activists and senior members from his Likud party.

    “We convinced the US president [to exit the deal] and I had to stand up against the whole world and come out against this agreement,” Netanyahu says in the video. “And we didn’t give up.”

  323. OKRickety says:

    Hmm,

    As I have said before, I believe, although I have trouble understanding it, that there is a difference between responsibility and fault (and blame is involved, too). However, most people do not recognize this difference, which leads to misunderstanding. I would love to find a good explanation of the relationship between responsibility, fault, and blame.

  324. Jeff Strand says:

    This may also be relevant. From The Thinking Housewife blog:

    AN African man who was an innocent bystander to a shooting was shot seven times by an Israeli security guard in a bus station three years ago. As Haftom Zarhum lay bleeding on the floor, he was kicked, pummeled, beaten with chairs and spat upon by a vicious Jewish mob. One man who tried to save him was also beaten. Medics did not attend to Zarhum for 18 minutes. He died a few hours later.

    Only one of his attackers, David Moyal, has been convicted in connection with the crime. He was finally sentenced this month — to $100 days of community service. He was also ordered to pay the equivalent of $560 in restitution. The family of Zarhum has been denied restitution by the national insurance program.

    The story of Zarhum has received no coverage in the American press.

    The same week that Moyal was sentenced, Elor Azaria, an Israeli soldier who shot in the head a Palestinian who was wounded and incapacitated on the ground, returned home to a hero’s welcome after nine months in jail. Azaria is widely celebrated for his act of murderous vengeance.
    In Judaism, revenge against gentiles is good. Hatred is a virtue.

    Christianity teaches its followers that if they do not love their enemies, they will rot in hell for all eternity. Talmudic Judaism teaches its followers that if they do not kill their enemies, paradise on earth will never come. Even secular Jews act upon this law of revenge and hatred as they engage in the vicious social murder of critics of Jewish power. The Talmud makes the law of revenge and non-forgiveness explicit:

    “Take the life of the Kliphoth and kill them, and you will please God the same as one who offers incense to Him.”
    — Sepher Or Israel (177b)

    This is only one of many such statements in the holiest book of modern Judaism. This law of revenge and holy hatred seems to have seeped into the attitudes of secular Jews, who react with extreme intolerance, to put it mildly, toward those who refuse to submit without complaint to Jewish power. As Ron Unz writes today in the Unz Review:

    “A religion based upon the principal of “Love Thy Neighbor” may or may not be workable in practice, but a religion based upon “Hate Thy Neighbor” may be expected to have long-term cultural ripple effects that extend far beyond the direct community of the deeply pious. If nearly all Jews for a thousand or two thousand years were taught to feel a seething hatred toward all non-Jews and also developed an enormous infrastructure of cultural dishonesty to mask that attitude, it is difficult to believe that such an unfortunate history has had absolutely no consequences for our present-day world, or that of the relatively recent past.”

    Indeed, it has had great consequences. Unless you understand the depth of Jewish vengeance and the longevity of Jewish grudges, you cannot understand many of the events of our world. I highly recommend all of the article by Unz, who is himself Jewish.

  325. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    “Maybe it is because I don’t have “short man’s complex” that I, normally feeling powerful in person, don’t have to resort to feeling powerful behind the keyboard.”

    I’m six feet tall. Just stop.

  326. Sharkly says:

    Ray,
    I wasn’t saying that you had short man’s complex, I just was trying to relay that I feel powerful in person, but I realize that On the internet, my power is limited to leading others, I won’t get very far with threats and bluster, which are unbecoming.

    Jeff Strand,
    In a video clip aired Tuesday by Israeli television, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted that Israel was responsible for US President Donald Trump’s decision to quit the Iran nuclear deal.
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/pm-expected-to-reveal-how-iran-cheated-world-on-nuke-program-1.6045300
    In case you missed it, it all happened out in the open. Israel exposed the lies of Iran’s nuclear program. That wasn’t some Jew magic, it was just the result of Netanyahu exposing Iran’s lies.

    If you weren’t so conspiracy minded, you’d find many of these “conspiracies” have explanations rooted in human nature. Like in that case, the Jew’s desire to not be nuked by Iran. We’d have also backed out of the Iran deal, if Iran had instead been similarly exposed by the Jamaicans.

    Don’t get me wrong, apostate Jews are sinful, and dead wrong about many things, they killed our sinless savior, and Etc. I just don’t feel any need to constantly make sure everybody is on Jew alert. But, maybe you could give me some Jew hunting help here, I’ve been online dating this girl for a little while and I am beginning to suspect she is not gentile? Please help!

    /s

  327. ingracious says:

    I’m sincere in wanting to let things end here between myself and Jeff, so I won’t address his more recent posts and will instead only dip in to add something positive:

    @Sharkly

    “Can’t we just all get along? KUMBAYA my Lord! Kumbaya!”

    Baba yetu!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A

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

    (Hey, the cinematic video even has Native American bead trading in it!)

  328. Jeff Strand says:

    Sharkly,

    You are really embarrassing yourself. Why don’t you try educating yourself? Start here:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/07/04/real-insiders

  329. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “I’ve been online dating this girl for a little while…”

    I suppose if that’s the best you can do. I tend to prefer girls who are at least a 7, and I never had a problem pulling them. My wife of almost two decades is now in her 40’s, in great shape, and still turns heads and pulls compliments everywhere she goes.

    But again, if that’s all you can pull…I guess it’s better than sex doll. Go nuts. And make her some lobster and a bacon cheeseburger afterwards.

  330. Luke says:

    Jeff Strand, the lessons I take from your July 19, 2018 at 11:29 pm repost:

    1) If that African had not been in Israel, he would not have been killed by Israelis. That’s an entirely avoidable danger, that no chance should be taken. The Israelis should IMO do the humane thing and immediately send all Africans home, where they’ll be safe from any violence.

    2) Sounds to me as if the Palestinians should stop causing s**t, and not attack Israel and Israelis any more. That way, they won’t keep losing in war (they consider any violence by any Muslim against any nonMuslim to be legitimate war to the death; the Israeli in question apparently just took one of them at his word).

    3) I think the Israelis would do best of all to ASAP expel all Muslims from 100% of the territory they control, as the Muslims have made it clear they can never behave peaceably enough as a group to belong in any Westernized nation. Failing that, the Israelis should draw an East-West line roughly through the middle of West Bank, moving all Muslim males north of it, and all under age 50 Muslim females south of it. They then ask the Muslims one last time if they want to negotiate sincerely. If the Muslims want to make real peace, fine. If not, the problem solves itself in a few years, without having to kill or deport one Muslim.

    4) Gaza? The Israelis should inform Hamas that every rock, bullet, rocket, mortar shell, drone, incendiary kite or balloon that Pals send toward Israel or Israelis will result in immediate irrevocable territorial loss (a city block at least per incident), with all residents immediately and permanently expelled into what remains of Gaza. Either the Pals stop causing s**t, or eventually they all live on one 1/2 acre lot, where a single 500-pound aerial bomb ends their trouble-making, and there is peace there at last; either one is fine by me.

  331. seventiesjason says:

    Luke. applause

  332. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    Ok mom. I’ll get right to work on your directions.

  333. Boxer says:

    I suppose if that’s the best you can do. I tend to prefer girls who are at least a 7, and I never had a problem pulling them. My wife of almost two decades is now in her 40’s, in great shape, and still turns heads and pulls compliments everywhere she goes.

    Such “hot grannies” regularly appear on Dalrock, to the jeers and taunts of the peanut gallery, to tell us how many men desire their wrinkly asses.

    But again, if that’s all you can pull…I guess it’s better than sex doll. Go nuts. And make her some lobster and a bacon cheeseburger afterwards.

    That woman has a fairly nice figure.

  334. Sharkly says:

    Jeff Stand,
    Sharkly, You are really embarrassing yourself. Why don’t you try educating yourself? Start here:
    Then you link to a 13 year old story about how Jews have organizations to protect their interests.
    Ow oh oh! my head hurts! It can’t hold all the new revelations that I’ve learned. Like Blacks and other groups don’t also have organized groups that lobby for their interests, sue for their interests, and seek to control how they are spoken of and portrayed in the media. Just because White’s, as the predominate group in America, don’t have as much in the way of an organized lobby as certain minority groups do, does not make me suspicious of them. I know their lobbies are race based, and up to no good, as far as my White ass is concerned. But I don’t live my life in fear of them and their nefarious plots. You enjoy your Jew fear, obviously I’ve failed to calm you. Like Ingracious, I think I have spent enough time arguing this with you. Apparently you also didn’t get the joke about Abigail Shapiro, who has been immortalized as a Jewish meme. I figured with all you expertise about Jews, you’d have encountered the meme before.

    Apparently the younger generation can’t always be counted on to stay sufficiently racist. /s

  335. Luke says:

    Hair needs to be grown out 150% longer, and I prefer natural blondes & natural redheads. That said, she’s at least a 7.5 (appropriate weight, boobs for once an adequate size, skin/features apparently above average, etc.).

  336. Sharkly says:

    I see y’all eyeing up “my” Jewess. /s LOL There are JewTube videos if [[[Strand]]] wants more.

  337. earl says:

    I see y’all eyeing up “my” Jewess.

    Nah I’m like Strand and can pull any Gentile over an 8 anytime I want. That’s why I come to Dalrock to brag to all you guys about my prowess.

  338. seventiesjason says:

    She’s pretty. I don’t know and never understood this “rating scale” by the numbers. I missed the jr. high locker room talk all boys were having on this scale when it was going on…..more than likely I was washing the toothpaste out of my hair or drying off after being throw in the locker room shower, held down and pummeled by you “real alphas” in my street clothing…..forced to be wet the rest of the day.

    I have met WAY too many guys talking about this girl and that girl they were dating, banging, or whatever…..and she’s this 9 or 8 or 10.

    I meet the girl and she’s average looking. Pretty. When I think 9 or 8 or 10 I think a J Crew model or LL Bean model. I don;t think of some average pretty girl. Most of us are average I suppose….but I have met more men in my life who were “doing” or “dating” or “banging” a high number…….and I never knew there were that many women thjat high up on the scale.

    Girl is pretty Sharkly. Nice eyes and skin for sure.

  339. earl says:

    I see y’all eyeing up “my” Jewess.

    I am warming up to her though. I’d even ask her if she’s considered dumping that Talmud/Kabbalah nonsense and come back to the God of her fathers.

  340. seventiesjason says:

    Always liked the nerd-chic Lisa Loeb types myself………I miss the 1990’s

  341. Jeff Strand says:

    @Luke: “That said, she’s at least a 7.5…”

    You serious Clark?

    Dude, you really need to get out more. She’s a 5.5 in my world. Where do you live…Khazakstan?

  342. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “Then you link to a 13 year old story about how Jews have organizations to protect their interests.”

    Yeah, it’s totally normal that (as the lobbyist admitted) a lobby for a foreign power can “get the signature of 70 senators on a napkin within 24 hours”. Every organization has such power, right?

    You are a moron.

  343. Jeff Strand says:

    Btw, I love how all you guys are gullible enough to think that Sharkly is really going to post a pic of the chick he’s dating on here. That’s a pic he cribbed off the net somewhere. Lol, I have a bridge to sell you guys!

  344. Luke says:

    Jeff: I work (and mostly live) on oil rigs, generally within 150 miles of the Mexican border.

  345. Jeff Strand says:

    Luke, ok bro. I guess that explains it, lol.

    Seriously though, that’s a good job you’ve got. I just made a large financial investment in an oil service company with a breakthrough new technology in enhanced oil recovery. It’s related to biotech. You’ll be hearing a lot about it in the years ahead.

    Stay safe out there.

  346. Jeff Strand says:

    Btw, take a good look again at Sharkly’s “Jewess”. Did any of you guys figure out that she’s a sex doll? Go back and take a good look.

    Can’t believe you guys fell for that! LMAO!

    (I dropped a hint when I told you there was no way he’d post a pic of an actual girlfriend on here)

    Sharkly, go back and jump on your sex doll some more. Go nuts, just spare us the grisly details. Please!

  347. Jeff Strand says:

    @Boxer: “Such “hot grannies” regularly appear on Dalrock, to the jeers and taunts of the peanut gallery, to tell us how many men desire their wrinkly asses.”

    This made me lol. How old do you think I am? Let me put it this way – when I married my wife I was in my early 30’s and she was in her mid 20’s (and smoking hot). She has proven herself over all these years to be a total NAWALT, has given me two beautiful daughters, and makes a strong effort to keep herself fit, feminine, sexy, and attractive for me (and she has succeeded in this, trust me).

    So I think I did pretty well, lol. I dated a lot of really hot chicks in my 20’s. But when I was getting married in my early 30’s, you’ll pardon me if I wasn’t chasing teenagers. Is that what you would do? (I actually did date a 19 year old when I was 30, shortly before I met my wife. And I was the one who ended it, as she was too young for me to relate to her).

    Nope, I was quite happy as a 31 year old to be marrying a hot 25 year old NAWALT, who is very sweet, feminine, submissive, and anti-feminist. And in almost two decades gone by, she’s never once given me a single reason to regret that choice. But then, as the commenters on here constantly remind me, I’m extremely Alpha…so what I take for granted for me is way out of reach for your ordinary guy.

    Your mileage may vary.

  348. Sharkly says:

    I hope everybody caught the Sarcasm stop sign “/s” in my original post. I’m not actually dating fox news commentator Ben Shapiro’s sister. She became a meme as a hot Jewess over at 4chan, while they were trolling her brother Ben.
    I was trolling [[[Jeff Strand]]] to see if his “Jew-dar” was working.
    I think Jeff did not recognize the meme, and instead Jeff felt inclined to rate her.(somewhere below a 7) I assume he must have docked her a point for possible Jewishness. LOL Abby actually got married less than 2 months ago.

    I am not dating, I’m actually still scrapping with my wife in an ongoing divorce. If you have a moment pray for my marriage. It could still be salvaged if my wife decides against blowing up our home, but it would be a long road, and nobody is teaching women to repent of their evil these days. Oddly enough my wife’s face looked similar to the photos I posted above, when I first met her. She had that exact haircut too. Obviously she grew it out for our wedding, and has kept it long mostly since then. Age is doing a number on her SMV. But I felt she was hot enough to marry her, back in the day. And fortunately I’m not one who has trouble getting it up if everything isn’t perfect, so all that matters is that I still find her attractive enough, that I’m not ashamed to go out in public with her.

    Poor Jeff, his attractive wife is pulling all the compliments. I may be the better half in my marriage. Either I’ve still got it or the young women are getting incredibly loose here in the Bible belt, because they’re still behaving themselves scandalously to get my attention and throwing out indicators of interest (IOIs) like a chaff dispenser during missile lock. I rolled out of bed this morning looking like a handsomer version of a Jack Donovan publicity photo and without the graffiti. I guess I need to enjoy the vanity while it lasts. I ain’t pulling nobody, they’re throwing themselves at me! Even with my charm and charisma turned down right now. It’d be disgusting, if I still had the prestige and money I once had.

  349. Sharkly says:

    I said I was done wit [[[Jeff]]], but I can’t resis playin’ wit de tar baby.

    But then, as the commenters on here constantly remind me, I’m extremely Alpha.
    LOLZ I kind of sense insecurity.
    I actually did date a 19 year old when I was 30, shortly before I met my wife. And I was the one who ended it,
    Who cares who ended some relationship you had decades ago before you married your smoking hot perfect wife? … Oh, that’s right, an insecure guy would still care. And he’d want to make sure we knew he never got dumped, because he also cares way too much what we might think of him. LOL

    I just made a large financial investment in an oil service company with a breakthrough new technology in enhanced oil recovery. It’s related to biotech. You’ll be hearing a lot about it in the years ahead.
    Watch out world! I’m gonna be somebody! LOL If you were Alpha you wouldn’t have to blow smoke about what you might become, you’d keep that speculative stuff to yourself, and just casually drop hints about the pot-O-gold you already are. While I hope all the best for you and your investment, that line is also the kind of swill they give you when they’re trying to dump that crap stock on you. Been there! But, I do hope that it works out for you and the whole world as well as they sold it to you. I’ll be filling up my car with 25 cent gasoline again at the STRANDard oil station. So I can drive the family to StrandLand the hot-wife showcase of the new millennium.

  350. Jeff Strand says:

    Sharkly,

    You fooled most of the idiots on here, congrats. I couldn’t help messing with them myself, but they were asking for it (giving your sex doll a 7.5 rating….really?)

    Anyway, when it got tiresome, I hope you won’t hold it against me that I pointed out the obvious to them. And btw, it would be funnier if you dressed your doll up in striped pajamas before you jumped on top of her…while you tell “Rebekah” what a dirty little slut she is. But comedy is not your strong suit.

  351. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “And he’d want to make sure we knew he never got dumped”

    Love how you put words in my mouth. Never said I never got dumped. But in all honesty, thinking back to my bachelor days, it wa probably about 80/20 in terms of me dumping them. It’s funny you think merely relating facts of my life experience is bragging. I guess to you it would be. To me, it’s just normal. It took the commenters here at Dalrock to point out to me that as a natural Alpha, I just ASSUME most other guys had the same experiences. But in reality, it’s nowhere close.

    For example, I take marrying a NAWALT as something very easily doable, since I did it. And I take dating lots of different hot chicks before that as normal as well…most of whom were devastated when I broke up with them. I have now come to realize how unobtainable my experiences are for the average male, who is nowhere near the natural Alpha that I am. Not bragging. Just the way it is. I’d be lying if I said otherwise.

  352. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “when they’re trying to dump that crap stock on you.”

    Relax, I’m not pushing a stock on you. When it comes to this breakthrough oil recovery technology, there’s no stock for you to trade if you wanted to – the company is privately held. You see, I got in pre-IPO. Which is how the smart money does it. But you couldn’t get in if you wanted to – you have to be an “Accredited Investor”. Which I am. Yes, I am already a multimillionaire.

    What can I say? I told you I was a natural Alpha, lol.

  353. Opus says:

    I have dated a couple of Jewesses and have known a number of Jewish men (in the non-biblical sense and whom I tended to like) and I am not complaining because Jewish women always want to feed you. I cannot but observe however that in terms of crudity both the men and the women greatly outdo us gentiles. Your mileage may of course differ.

  354. Sharkly says:

    @[[[Strand]]]
    You said I put words in your mouth, and then…
    It’s funny you think merely relating facts of my life experience is bragging.
    You proceed to try to put thoughts in my head.
    You misunderestimate me. I don’t think you’re relating exactly factually regarding your own personality,(how Alpha you are) and I have yet to find your comments that impressive.
    As I mentioned above the fact that you chose to specify that you broke up with some girl decades ago seems insecure. If I were to relay a similar story, I don’t think I’d feel any need to specify that I ended it, because either way I am who I am, and I don’t need to point out I was not dumped, because my reputation is not in the least dependent on that.
    And you sort of outed yourself again with your “smart money” silliness. I used to buy a ream of paper at Walmart print off a bunch of Private Placement Memorandums and sell them to guys like you for millions. Pre-IPO Baby! Although most of the guys I dealt with were far more savvy than yourself. You’ve got to be pretty naïve to think the folks that took your money would turn down my money. While they want to get as many of their investors as possible to sign stating that they are “Accredited”, at the end of the day you accredit yourself by signing stating that you are Accredited. LOL Not exactly a claim to fame. Been there done that, moved on. And having money does not prove you are a natural Alpha. I’ve been in the homes of mega-rich folks who were just as insecure as you, and wanted to be seen hanging out with Alphas like me. McKayla Maroney is not impressed. But, Please stop with the AMOG stuff for everybody else’s sake. If you want to feel you are the uberAlpha great, but leave it unsaid, like a real Alpha, I’ll beat you at your own game. you’re not tall enough for your own ride.

  355. Boxer says:

    Dear Jeff Strand:

    This made me lol. How old do you think I am? Let me put it this way – when I married my wife I was in my early 30’s and she was in her mid 20’s (and smoking hot). She has proven herself over all these years to be a total NAWALT, has given me two beautiful daughters, and makes a strong effort to keep herself fit, feminine, sexy, and attractive for me (and she has succeeded in this, trust me).…so what I take for granted for me is way out of reach for your ordinary guy.

    We’ve heard all this before, and I’m sure we’re all happy for you. It doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one normal man in the world that might find your wife attractive. That’s you. To the rest of us, she’s just another saggy, stinking 40-something.

    Yes, I am already a multimillionaire… What can I say? I told you I was a natural Alpha, lol.

    Your next story will involve bikers and dopers and streetfights.

    My father and grandfather are multimillionaires, which means, at least insofar as I’m named on some trust documents, I could probably pass as one too. Big deal. It doesn’t matter, and no one gives a shit.

    This sort of internet boasting makes you less interesting, not more. If ever you decide to give sound advice to the young brothers, about practical matters, I’d love to participate. Wake me when that day arrives.

    Boxer

  356. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “While they want to get as many of their investors as possible to sign stating that they are “Accredited”, at the end of the day you accredit yourself by signing stating that you are Accredited.”

    Just stop man. You’re embarrassing yourself. To be an “accredited investor”, per SEC rules, you’ve got to prove a net worth of greater than $5 million, or, alternatively, an annual income of greater than $200k by yourself as an individual, or greater than $300k annual income combined with your spouse. To participate in the private placement, I had to have my lawyer draw up papers proving the above before the CEO would even give me the time of day. Of course, the minimum investment in the private placement was itself in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars, so that in itself would also discourage the riff raff.

    That you didn’t know any of this shows how full of schit you are. And yes, this is “the smart money”. It’s not taking a chance, it’s a certainty – the technology has been tried already on over 50 oil fields across multiple continents. You’re talking 300 oil wells. The results were a success rate over 90%, and average increase in production following the treatment was close to 100% (meaning, pretty much doubled). One of the larger players in the oil service biz has already inked a partnership in the North Sea, and will probably buy out the company in the next few years, which will make me even richer. The public, i.e. the “dumb money”, will never get in on this, because it will be bought out before it can IPO. But being the “smart money” myself, I made sure to get in on it.

    Lol, I told you I was a natural Alpha. Dated a ton of hot chicks in my younger years, then happily married to a hot, sexy NAWALT for almost 20 years now, currently a multimillionaire, income from my “day job” alone puts me in the top 5% of household income. I own a side business I built from scratch (seed money was from stock options from my day job) that now holds over a million dollars in assets, owned outright (my business has zero debt). Many hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts. My kids’ future college tuition is prepaid already, and they are in private school for middle school and high school. And my large investments in the new oil recovery technology, as well as in a breakthrough new cancer treatment currently in Phase II clinical trials, will almost certainly make me additional 7 figures in the next few years.

    Not bad for still in my 40’s, huh? Now you may view this as bragging, but I assure you I have not exaggerated a single thing…just stated the bare facts. This is simply my life. Perhaps this is why my NAWALT wife will often look at me adoringly and tell me how I amaze her. You see, as a natural Alpha, that’s how you deal with female hypergamy. You just let your Alpha shine through.

    One last thing – in case you think my success was handed to me, you’re wrong. I grew up middle class, not rich. My mom was a housewife and my dad was a plumber. I started my career in my early 20’s making about $12k a year, and I worked constantly. It would be another 4 years before I would break $30k in income. But I just work hard and go for what I want. I used to think anybody could do it, since I did. But the commenters here finally convinced me almost no one else could do it – I am just a natural Alpha.

    It is what it is. Go ahead and hate, that’s a sure sign of betatude.

  357. Jeff Strand says:

    @Boxer: “If ever you decide to give sound advice to the young brothers, about practical matters, I’d love to participate. Wake me when that day arrives.”

    I’ve tried that in the past. Was told in no uncertain terms that my advice is useless because I am a natural Alpha, and the average reader on here could never even think of emulating me. And that includes both my financial success (see above post) as well as success with the Fairer Sex (found a married the supposed “unicorn”, i.e. a NAWALT).

    So my advice would only be helpful to other Alphas, sorry.

  358. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “As I mentioned above the fact that you chose to specify that you broke up with some girl decades ago seems insecure.”

    Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I’m really insecure, lol. Man, talk about projecting!

    You know as well as I do that the only reason I mentioned I broke up with her was to make it plain that I had no interests in teenagers when I was a man of 30 years old. Unlike some of the creeps on here. But the point is, I could have had a hot 19 year old. But at that age, I was choosing girls in their mid 20’s, which was a much better match for me. The 19 year old, after a few dates, I sent on her way, in a respectful manner, as she was a sweet girl. Good wife material. But I wasn’t interested in taking it further – she was too young for me, period.

    Btw, I’ve had plenty of amazing sexy times with a hot 19 year old – I dated one that was smoking hot (looked like Kelly Bundy) for a couple years. But I was in my mid 20’s at the time, lol!

  359. Boxer says:

    I’ve tried that in the past. Was told in no uncertain terms that my advice is useless because I am a natural Alpha

    Yeah, I’ve been accused of that too. The people who said that were selling tickets to some goony game seminar, and they didn’t like my honest questions, as to how paying 250.00 for a seat at the convention was going to help Poindexter get poon. Seems easier to just to buy a new shirt, go to the club, and start talking to actual wimminz.

    So my advice would only be helpful to other Alphas, sorry.

    Uh huh. You’ve done endless amounts of bragging, and babbled some neofeminist white power nonsense, and nothing else. You’re an expert investor, so I’m sure I’d be interested in some long-term strategies for padding my Fidelity account. Feel free to start lecturing whenever you’re ready.

    Boxer

  360. Jeff Strand says:

    @Boxer: “You’re an expert investor, so I’m sure I’d be interested in some long-term strategies for padding my Fidelity account”

    After you called my wife a “sagging, stinking, 40 something”? Yeah, I’ll get right on it.

    Here’s an investment for you. Trades on the NASDAQ. Ticker symbol is F.U.C.K. Y.O.U.

    It’s gonna be a gold mine, so go all in!

  361. Boxer says:

    Dear Jeff Strand,

    Please see inside text…

    After you called my wife a “sagging, stinking, 40 something”? Yeah, I’ll get right on it.

    This response is identical to that of the feminist harpies who show up here, talking about how HAWT and DESIRED their wrinkly, smelly asses are, at age 45. Like your sisters, you are shocked by the truth. Good.

    Here’s an investment for you. Trades on the NASDAQ. Ticker symbol is F.U.C.K. Y.O.U. It’s gonna be a gold mine, so go all in!

    In other words, despite all your self-proclaimed accomplishments, you have nothing valuable to impart to the young brothers, who might just be starting out and curious about building wealth.

    You’re a completely useless cunt. Truth to fuck’n tell.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  362. seventiesjason says:

    I’ve met one genuine “alpha” in my life. He was very self-actualized. You just could not be “blue” or “upset” around him. He wasn’t the “life of the party” nor did he flash money. He was a really good lookng guy, taller than me (which is a rareity).

    He never had anything negative to say about people. Perhaps he did at home, or with a closer circle of friends….but out in public….nightclub, skulking rain drenched San Francisco streets in the dot.com era looking for fun…….with him a grip of other guys…..notta a negative thing to ever say about anyone, or anybody.

    He was a big shot at the Charles Schwab investment house in San Francisco

    Always could pull the hottest girl without really saying a word……….always had a smirk, and a friendly remark….not sarcastic. He did give some okay advice about women back then to me, perhaps I should have followed it…….instead of “books” and “PUA” and “cocky-funny” stuff…..he just said, and from what I can remember…piecing it together from several conversations from those crazy late 1990’s San Francisco nights:

    “Anything I would tell you just wouldn’t work. You have to find that on your own. Women are fickle. It takes practice. Time. For all the women I do get, plenty I never hook-up with…….seriously……many that come back to my place do a grip of drugs, and drink and pass out……bedding a drunk-high-out-of-it girl isn’t fun…….it’s stupid really. I won’t tell you to be yourself. Risky. Dangerous. All she has to do is scream rape a week later………girls like that are unstable. When you bed a gal, make sure she knows who you are, and she knows where she is.”

    “You should kick back from the drugs and drink a bit……a half-decent-pretty-gal wants to have fun sexually and she may run a bit with a wild addict once, maybe twice but in those matters, after the age of 25….many just don’t want a guy like that. The ones that do are not worth your time, unless you are an addict…..which you are teetering on becoming btw.”

    “I’ve actually gotten some great style pointers from you. You know how to dress. You got that. You’re a pulled down shade….just oblivious to women…..seen many over our adventures checking you out….you just are afraid….and they may….may sense that…….”

    “The kind of woman you want doesn’t go to bars, or nightclubs. She goes to the library. She likes a decent art show. She likes the symphony. Those are harder to crack, because you do have a wilder edge, and many in that scene don’t like that. Kick off the drugs and drink, go to the library, go to a lecture or reading. That’s more your speed.”

    He’s been married since 2003? 2004? I checked him on FB. Married. Three kids…well, teenagers now

  363. MKT says:

    “currently a multimillionaire, income from my “day job” alone puts me in the top 5% of household income. I own a side business I built from scratch (seed money was from stock options from my day job) that now holds over a million dollars in assets, owned outright (my business has zero debt). Many hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts. My kids’ future college tuition is prepaid already, and they are in private school for middle school and high school. And my large investments in the new oil recovery technology, as well as in a breakthrough new cancer treatment currently in Phase II clinical trials, will almost certainly make me additional 7 figures in the next few years.”

    I don’t usually side with Boxer, but this sort of bravado from an anonymous internet guy is less than worthless. I’ve been involved with the financial markets for decades (hence my name). I’ve seen very few people beat the S&P 500 consistently over the long-term. If you have, please provide evidence. Even Ray Dalio doesn’t do nearly as well as most people think.
    https://www.gurufocus.com/news/607625/ray-dalio-lots-of-character-less-than-inspiring-results

    I’m sure a guy like you has third-party validated results somewhere….right?

  364. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. Especially when you are talking out your ass, from a place of total ignorance. For example, you have never met nor even seen a pic of my wife. So you would have to admit you are full of schit.

    Pray tell, are you a married man? Do you have a family? Children? Enlighten us, lest we come to the dreaded conclusion that you are a “useless cunt”.

    Your jealously of me is absolutely unreal. Get ahold of yourself, betaboy. Are you this much of a whiny little bitch with every Alpha that you come across?

  365. MKT says:

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

    I’ve never said anything about VD, good or bad, on here, so that statement has zero credibility. For the record, I’m neither a fan nor a hater, and had to find the blog where you found that pic. You should’ve at least included the other pic w/Spacebunny, along with a photo of you and your wife/GF (you have one, right?). I will say Vox is in the “some good stuff, some garbage” camp and has megalomaniac tendencies. The fan boys who hang on to his every word are out to lunch IMO.

    Godspeed,
    MKT

  366. Jeff Strand says:

    MKT,

    A lot of my wealth was made outside the stock market. I bought my first house in 1998 very cheap, sold it in 2005 at the top of the real estate frenzy for almost 3x what I had paid for it. Everyone told me I was nuts to sell, because “real estate can only go up”. I ignored them and sold anyway, and you know what happened next – CRASH!

    Took the proceeds, combined with a couple hundred thou in company stock options from my day job, and went all in on precious metals and some mining stocks at that time (2005). Sold in 2011 after it tripled. Took that money and started buying property like a madman – that was the bottom of the crash, and I was paying $35k each for properties that had sold for $150 to $160k in 2005-2006.

    Got to be drinking and fishing buddies with a property broker, and he then sent some deals my way. I sometimes bought as many as a half dozen properties in one fell swoop. Put all these properties under the umbrella of a business I started…they’ve since almost doubled in value, and voila! I now own a company worth at LEAST seven figures (because the underlying assets themselves are worth that on the open market) and has ZERO debt. So in the meantime, I get a schit ton of income coming in every month in the form of business proceeds (which are basically rental income) .

    So what do you think? Is that Alpha enough for you, lol?

    And that’s just ONE PART or the financial empire I’ve built. When it comes to that biotech with a breakthrough new cancer treatment (currently in Phase II clinical trials), just by myself I own one half of one percent of the entire company. A company that I fully expect to be bought out within 3 to 5 years by Big Pharma….for BILLIONS! Believe me, I’ve done my homework on this stuff. (The breakthrough in enhanced oil recovery is a lesser investment for me – I calculate I’ll still make MINIMUM of a half million on that….and that’s being conservative).

    And you saw where I started from – raised middle class, by a plumber and a housewife. If I can do it, anybody can do it. But you have to be very intelligent, very motivated, a very hard worker, lots of discipline, etc. You have to be Alpha, in other words. And for lots of guys, it’s just easier to give up, live on weed, beer, porn, and video games, call themselves MGTOW, and be done with it.

    Again, it is what it is. I’m not bragging. But I’m not gonna lie either. This is my life. It’s not for everyone, and that’s cool. The world needs ditch diggers too, lol.

  367. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand sez:

    Yap yap yap… So what do you think? Is that Alpha enough for you, lol?

    This is actually a worthwhile topic. It’s a shame you can’t contribute anything meaningful, but I do give you credit for bringing it up.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/07/21/on-the-reproduction-of-capital/

    This one’s for the young bros.

    Boxer

  368. Gunner Q says:

    Jeff Strand @ 12:33 pm:
    “But I’m not gonna lie either.”

    You lied, Jeff, and I’m calling you out on it.

    ” I bought my first house in 1998 very cheap, sold it in 2005 at the top of the real estate frenzy for almost 3x what I had paid for it. Everyone told me I was nuts to sell, because “real estate can only go up”. I ignored them and sold anyway, and you know what happened next – CRASH!

    Took the proceeds, combined with a couple hundred thou in company stock options from my day job, and went all in on precious metals and some mining stocks at that time (2005). Sold in 2011 after it tripled. Took that money and started buying property like a madman – that was the bottom of the crash, and I was paying $35k each for properties that had sold for $150 to $160k in 2005-2006.”

    Your wealth came from perfectly timed manipulation of a housing market that did NOT follow the boom-bust cycle you describe. Housing prices were not allowed to collapse by the government– that’s where all that TARP money went–and because properties were overly financed by debt.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp.asp

    Property prices still fell but not by eighty fricking percent. TARP was implemented to prevent that–the banks would have failed, you see. Furthermore, most of the budget-valued properties there were, were not sold because they were “underwater”, burdened by far more debt than the property was worth. Selling at the prices you describe would have condemned the seller to a lifetime of unpayable debt. Property owners therefore rode out the depression, which prevented market prices from resetting.

    Prices never fell below the debt the properties were burdened with. This is why the automotive industry also had trouble, because most people use debt to purchase new cars.

    Most laymen don’t understand that the 2010 housing bubble was an exercise in gov’t manipulation and unintended consequences of massive debt rather than an ordinary economic cycle. You would have done better to claim being a stock market day trader. Dumb luck is always plausible… but not grounds for bragging.

    You lied to us, Jeff.

  369. MKT says:

    “Most laymen don’t understand that the 2010 housing bubble was an exercise in gov’t manipulation and unintended consequences of massive debt rather than an ordinary economic cycle”

    And it started years before, with gov’t-forced loans to minorities w/bad credit. Of course, the gov’t denies this, but I know people in the banking industry who confirm it. There was a Fed paper from 1989 that kicked off the insanity.

  370. feeriker says:

    MKT says:
    July 21, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    The real estate market is the “soft underbelly” of the Fed fiat currency/debt pyramid scheme. This why its collapse would be catastrophic for the entire economy and why the One Percent will use every means at its disposal –including lethal ones– to keep the whole rotten, destructive scam going indefinitely.

  371. MKT says:

    Jeff,

    Thanks for the breakdown. However, as for the cancer treatment and oil investments, don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

    Plenty of people have said things like “I fully expect to be bought out within 3 to 5 years by Big Pharma….for BILLIONS!” While some penny stocks are clearly garbage, others have great use cases and research to back them up. However, all it takes is competitors, new gov’t regulations or a change in the industry landscape to make your idea obsolete. That’s why investment newsletters claiming to “find the next Microsoft” never pan out for their subscribers.

    Hopefully, they’ll work out for you, but don’t count anything as part of your net worth until it has actual value (i.e., someone offering to buy it for X price).

  372. earl says:

    So what do you think? Is that Alpha enough for you, lol?

    Why are you trying so hard to convince us what greek letter you are? Thank God for his blessings and be happy with your lot in life.

  373. seventiesjason says:

    The world is gonna be needing ditch diggers a lot more than “alphas” sooner than later.

    An old Mexican man I knew in Fresno……he told me “in the next crash, a guy like you will be okay….you know how to work….you’ll take any job and do it. Sure, it will be tough……..but you’ve been through this…..you know what to expect. The middle class-rich and the welfare class are going to be hit real hard……and they won’t know what to do excpet riot or blame everyone else”

  374. Jeff Strand says:

    @MKT: “Hopefully, they’ll work out for you, but don’t count anything as part of your net worth until it has actual value (i.e., someone offering to buy it for X price).”

    I hear you, trust me. It’s not like I’ve never lost money on an investment. No one can be right every time, and that includes me. However, on the cancer treatment and oil recovery, I already know the breakthrough technology works in each case. The science is already tested and verified, it’s just that the public isn’t aware of it yet (in the case of the enhanced oil recovery tech, the company hasn’t even IPO’d yet at this point). So yeah, these two investments are basically “sure things”. I sure wouldn’t have such large investments in them if they weren’t!

    Earl:

    I’m not hung up on what Greek letter I am, trust me. I never thought of myself as Alpha until I started posting here. I would give advice based on what I’ve experienced and done in my life (both financially and dating/marriage/relationship wise). My assumption was if I can do what I’ve done, so can anybody else – I’m nobody special. But as I revealed more about myself, commenters started crying foul, saying that it’s obvious I’m a natural Alpha. And so I can’t expect other guys to do what I’ve done. So I finally realized they are right. By any objective measurement, I am a natural Alpha. That’s not bragging, just a statement of fact. Why should I be ashamed to say it?

    It is what it is. So I will openly label myself what I am – a natural Alpha. So when I comment or give advice, you know from what life experience that’s coming from. And if anybody wants advice from – or has questions for – a natural Alpha, maybe I can help you out by answering your inquiries.

    Boxer:

    Still waiting for your answer. Are you married? You a family man?

  375. MKT says:

    “Boxer:

    Still waiting for your answer. Are you married? You a family man?”

    I’ll let Boxer answer officially, but I don’t think you’ll get an answer. Some suspect he’s a Jack Donovan type (homo who bashes the leftist LGBTQ culture). But it’s the internet and we’ll never know…

  376. Jeff Strand says:

    MKT:

    Re: Boxer.

    That figures. Just too funny that he’ll criticize me, a guy who found and married a NAWALT and is raising a couple daughters to be anti-feminists and NAWALT’s themselves. Thereby completely challenging head-on this whole current feminist (((power structure))). And also thereby providing NAWALT’s to be available for marriage and reproduction to the next generation of Alpha males.

    In other words, I am fighting the good fight.

    What is he doing to compare to that? Jerking off to porn? Committing unnatural acts with other men while he bites a pillow?

    He sounds like a real jerkwagon.

  377. Boxer says:

    Two depraved Christian perverts write…

    What is he doing to compare to that? Jerking off to porn? Committing unnatural acts with other men while he bites a pillow?

    It’s very “alpha” of you two degenerates to write more homosexual erotica here on Dalrock. It’s such a distinct trend among men of your faith that I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t some sort of religious ritual.

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

    Maybe some of your brethren can enlighten me as to what part of your bible prescribes this weirdness. It’s beyond me, and yet, the pattern clearly exists.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  378. earl says:

    I’m not hung up on what Greek letter I am, trust me. I never thought of myself as Alpha until I started posting here.

    Then you are getting hung up on a Greek letter.

    So I will openly label myself what I am – a natural Alpha. So when I comment or give advice, you know from what life experience that’s coming from.

    That’s the problem of the internet…we don’t know you from Adam. That is unless you have more proof of this Greek letter to provide.

  379. Boxer says:

    That’s the problem of the internet…we don’t know you from Adam. That is unless you have more proof of this Greek letter to provide.

    In a minute, you’re going to tell me that I’m not actually the Secret King of ALL Gamma Males.

  380. MKT says:

    “Two depraved Christian perverts write…”

    For the 150th time or so, you’ve attributed something I never said. Where have I written anything resembling homosexual erotica? This sounds like projection more than anything else.

    And you still haven’t answer the question. Wife? Girlfriend? Celibate? Date with Jack tonight?

  381. Boxer says:

    A few minutes ago, the internet kook MKT wrote:

    For the 150th time or so, you’ve attributed something I never said.

    And to prove that he never started spewing his homosexual fantasies on Dalrock, he… spews some more homosexual fantasies on Dalrock…

    And you still haven’t answer the question. Wife? Girlfriend? Celibate? Date with Jack tonight?

    So far, SirHamster, Cane Caldo, MKT and Jeff Strand have started babbling about homosexuality here. These were all isolated incidents, collected over the span of two years. All of these men claim to be devout Christians. Again, maybe some of the other Christian men can explain this.

    Is gay sex some sort of Christian sacrament? I’m starting to suspect it is, based upon a distinct pattern here, among men of your faith. What say you fellas? How do you explain this? Citing the text of the bible would help me understand it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  382. earl says:

    And also thereby providing NAWALT’s to be available for marriage and reproduction to the next generation of Alpha males.

    As long as they don’t watch tv or listen to modern music, go into academia, read any forbidden books, don’t have any bad influental friends, or succomb to the desires of the flesh and contracept themselves…they might have a shot at being a unicorn. Best teach them to avoid anything that resembles gnosticism, witchcraft, the occult, or any other Satanic tricks out there to get them to rebel from their God given role. It’s more than just knowing how to cook and run a home anymore given the scope and tactics the enemy uses.

    I’ve read my fair share of their tactics and that’s what they do…it sometimes even happens at church activities depending on who is running it.

  383. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “That’s the problem of the internet…we don’t know you from Adam. That is unless you have more proof of this Greek letter to provide”

    Fair enough. While everything I’ve said about myself on these comment threads has always been the truth, you have no hard proof for it. So you have two options: take me at my word, or assume it’s all lies and ignore me. Your choice. No skin off my nose either way.

    Trust me, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

  384. MKT says:

    Boxer,

    Instead of 4 paragraphs of irrational gibberish, just answer the question. It should only require one sentence.

  385. earl says:

    In a minute, you’re going to tell me that I’m not actually the Secret King of ALL Gamma Males.

    You stole that title from its rightful owner…the Dark Lord.

  386. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    It’s very simple. You slammed me for having chosen to marry a NAWALT and raise children. Fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. (Though to refer to my lovely wife – whom you’ve never met or even seen – as a “sagging, stinking mess” is very a$$hole-ish on your part. And protesting too much. Quite frankly, it reeks of desperation).

    But here’s my point. If my choice to marry a NAWALT and raise a family is so condemnable, let me see what you’re comparing to. What is your marriage and/or relationship status? So I have something to compare to….since obviously I’m doing it wrong and you must be doing it right (since you see yourself in a position to condemn me). Enlighten us. So perhaps readers here can follow your lead…

  387. earl says:

    Again, maybe some of the other Christian men can explain this.

    If you are saying things that make people uncomfortable…perhaps your lifestyle is reasoning to refute the arguements you are making. Of course just making baseless accusations is quite a common retort if you have nothing.

  388. Boxer says:

    You stole that title from its rightful owner…the Dark Lord.

    Ain’t true, dammit. I am the secret king of all GAMMA males.

    Don’t tell Jeff Strand, but I’m also secretly Jewish. The internet’s chief rabbi (a halfman calling himself “Hipster Racist”) converted me to the tribe years ago, after I disagreed with him.

    (((γγγboxerγγγ)))

  389. seventiesjason says:

    Boxer……I have had “alphas” and proclaimed “alphas” my whole life hovering above me speaking thunderous, self-righteous tones…….lecturing me……..telling me how great they are….how awesoem they are…..how many lays, and how many women they turned down…..how much money they make, how smart they are, how tough they are, how cool they are…….posturing

    In my life…..alpha to me…..as by countless examples is just a guy who has a quick answer for the most part. Doesn’t make him smart, nice, good, trustworthy or a leader

    The homosexual thing……it’s high school and jr high still for these men. Disagree with them? Out come the “you must be gay” insults within a few comments because they are alphas. They had sex with hot, hot, hot women. Everything is a race to them, and if you somehow come ahead….you must be “gay” and took it up the back end in order to get ahead.

    They are just like women……….they are so quick to insult you when they don’t get their way.

    This is what “alpha” or “leadership” is today. I mean, look at the President. His approval rating would probably go up thee to five points tomorrow if he just put twitter away and cut it out with the snarky, self-indulgent remarks.

    This behavior at the age of fifteen gets the “tee hees” from women, and for the most part these “alphas” never progressed past that age emtionally.

  390. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: ” Best teach them to avoid anything that resembles gnosticism, witchcraft, the occult, or any other Satanic tricks out there to get them to rebel from their God given role. It’s more than just knowing how to cook and run a home anymore given the scope and tactics the enemy uses”

    Believe me, I’m well aware. You can’t even take your kids to a Disney or Pixar movie without being inundated with the *independent, strong, career girl who will never depend on a man for anything* crap. Our whole (((culture))) is against you in this endeavor, to include your fake pope (the Argentinian Apostate).

    One of the things we try to do to counteract this is to model the dynamics of our marriage in front of the kids. Been doing that since they’re wee small. They see Daddy is respected by Mommy as the leader and head of the household. They never see Mommy question Daddy or second guess him. On the contrary, they only see Mommy submit to Daddy in all decisions and in all things.

    So, seeing this over the course of their whole childhood and teenage years, hopefully it just sinks into their psyche as: this is the way marriage is. We also encourage them to think about a future husband and children when they think of their future, rather than overly focusing on career (though they still must learn a skill to where they can support themselves while single – they won’t be bums or sponges. And they can use that income to help their household income once they’re married, at least before kids come)

    Also, my wife and I pray that they will stay sweet and feminine (which we do everything we can to encourage)…and will meet Alphas when the time is right, who will know how to handle a true NAWALT and will take care of them. And I have taught them to pray everyday for the most important intention they can possibly pray for, i.e. that they never lose the Faith.

    Nothing is guaranteed. But my wife and I want to know we did all we possibly could, and so whatever happens in future, at least we will have a clear conscience. The rest is in God’s hands.

    Cheers.

  391. Luke says:

    Jeff, re your apparent belief that other posters here are critical of your “choice” to marry a NAWALT, attractive, submissive, fecund, non-sex-denying, SAHM-inclined woman, it’s not precisely that. Rather, consider how the sluttishness from an early age, already started on cranking out bastard brats, obesity, indebtedness, preposterously excessive hypergamous expectations, general unwillingness to honor commitments if even briefly they seem inconvenient or limiting, etc., have become epidemic among U.S. women. Mathematically, this makes for most decent men (who IMO outnumber the NAWALTs by over 20x). This IMO leads to two inescapable results:

    1) >95% of men are NOT going to be able to find their NAWALT wife, in a game of Musical Chairs, where 69 guys are going to try for one of three chairs;

    2) when the supply so outweighs the demand, to be able to make a deal, so to speak, a man is going to have to either be stratospheric in his MMV to land such a chick (Brad Pitt younger with more money comes to mind), or to effectively dumpster dive (guy who’s an 8 or 9 settling for a sweet sub-4.0 or 5.0 tops).

    If you have your NAWALT, I predict that you actually have one of those situations (you’re not currently worth 8 digits, are you?), or you have a major (if adaptive) case of wife goggles. That you lucked into a true exception, a chick who didn’t remotely understand her options in the SMV (recently dropped 100+ pounds she’s had since before high school, say), is improbable, if remotely possible.

  392. Sharkly says:

    [[[Jeff Strand]]] says: Just stop man. You’re embarrassing yourself. To be an “accredited investor”, per SEC rules, you’ve got to prove a net worth of greater than $5 million …
    Wrong!
    In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, one must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000

    [[[Strand]]] says: To participate in the private placement, I had to have my lawyer draw up papers proving the above before the CEO would even give me the time of day. Of course, the minimum investment in the private placement was itself in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars, so that in itself would also discourage the riff raff.
    Read more: How to become an accredited investor | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092815/how-become-accredited-investor.asp#ixzz5LvxysFY0
    Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
    As mentioned, no formal agency or institution confirms the accreditation of an investor, and no certification is issued. … At this time, the issuer of securities will give a questionnaire to determine whether a person qualifies as an “accredited investor.”
    The minimum investment is whatever the guy selling it to you decides it is, after he sizes you up. He then reaches into his briefcase or desk drawer and sorts through 5 different versions of his minimum purchase notice and hands you one stating what he just quoted you, so that you don’t realize he just picked that number to boost your investment. If the number was only in the multiple tens of thousands range, he either thinks you are a small fry, or he was just desperate for any cash.

    [[[Strand]]] Says: It’s not taking a chance, it’s a certainty – the technology has been tried already…
    LOL The technology is just one small part of the puzzle, and all the parts have to function well for the company to succeed. If only I had a nickel for every company with great Tech that went broke.

    [[[Strand]]] says: But being the “smart money” myself, I made sure to get in on it.
    The first round of funding usually comes from “FFF”(Family, Friends, & Fools) The smart money was the guy who printed up a memorandum for $1 and sold you illiquid stock in a still unprofitable company for multiple tens of thousands of dollars, or perhaps your lawyer, who may have charged you for a form he cribbed off the internet. IMHO
    The owners would not be selling their soon to be precious equity if it was a sure thing. They’d go see a (((Banker))) and get their money while keeping their equity. They are “privately” selling you their “Baby” because they’re hooked on cash. And they could not find a larger investor interested in funding the whole endeavor. Sorry, but that is Fact.

    I hope your investments both return 100X your investment. But your PPM, as you know, was half full of legal boilerplate warning you that it is likely that you will lose all your investment.
    James 4:13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
    Show some humility before your investments either succeed or fail. Admit that you did well in real estate, but you have perhaps only done a couple of these transactions. You are not a seasoned angel. If your start-up had their investment ducks in a row, they’d have given you the questionnaire that your lawyer had to “draw up”. I wish you the best of fortune, But, I’m sorry to say, you sound like a sucker high on his previous good fortune more than a savvy angel investor.

  393. Sharkly says:

    seventiesjason,
    I’ve met one genuine “alpha” in my life. He was very self-actualized. … He wasn’t the “life of the party” nor did he flash money. … He never had anything negative to say about people.

    That sounds like my definition of Alpha too, not just some put-on Jerkboy attitude.

  394. Jeff Strand says:

    Luke,

    It simply comes down to this – I go for what I want, and I don’t let anybody tell me it can’t be done. And I suppose that’s part of being a natural alpha.

    So whether I was told it’s impossible to build up a million dollar business (and a multimillion dollar net worth) from scratch, or it’s impossible to land a NAWALT….my attitude was always, “Not for me it isn’t”.

    Building my financial empire up to where it is now (while still in my 40’s) took a lot of determination, hard work, discipline, smarts, and so on. It’s not for everyone. A lot of people couldn’t hack the work it took. Heck, I don’t think I could hack it, if I had to start over and do it all again!

    Finding and marrying a NAWALT involved generating a lot of prospects, going on a lot of dates, and kicking to the curb a lot of chicks after just a first or maybe a second date. Also, having the right (Alpha) frame of mind, knowing a lot of redpill theory and game, making sure she has similar values and beliefs, is “moldable” and trainable, etc. Probably also helped that I had had a number of serious girlfriends in my 20’s, so I had experience in relationships, knew what I wanted, what were my deal-breakers, etc. (for example, I learned that a chick who has anger issues and screams at me for long periods of time is a NO GO for me)

    Also, realize there are trade-offs. Yes, I like that my wife is a traditional, submissive, surrendered housewife who gives me sex on demand. But since she quit working 14 years ago when we had our first kid, that means all the pressure is on me to support the family, pay all the bills, PLUS I have to give her spending money every week. A lot of guys would resent that. You can’t have it both ways.

    Also, I mentioned how much effort she makes to stay hot and sexy for me, and it’s worked – she’s very attractive for her age and still turns heads and gets compliments now in her early 40’s. But that means she spends a couple hundred (at least) every month at the salon, for nails, hair dying and styling, eyebrows done, waxing, facials and anti-wrinkle creams, etc. Which, of course, really means that * I * spend a few hundred at the salon every month – it’s not like she has her own income. But again, you cant have it both ways, and I’d rather spend the money and have her stay hot and attractive for me. I don’t want to save money by way of her “letting herself go”. No thanks, I’ll pass.

    So you have to know what you want. I knew I wanted a traditional, submissive housewife…so I was prepared to foot the finances going in. Like I told her, “I’ll make the money and you make the babies.” And when the doctor told her she should never get pregnant because it could quite possibly kill her (do to a pre-existing condition), I over-ruled the doctor and told her flat-out she would be risking her life to give me children. Period. And she accepted my decision without question, as always. So it’s a trade-off. She puts her life in my hands, submits to me in all things, etc…BUT it’s on me to provide for her and take care of her. Which I do. Gladly. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Sorry this went on so long. But this gives you a glimpse into what it’s like in a marriage with an Alpha and a NAWALT. Just like my finances, it’s not for everyone. But if it’s something you want, go for it! I certainly have never regretted it, and it’s been almost 20 years now. Don’t let anybody talk you out of it by saying the odds of landing a NAWALT are impossible. I never listened to that crap, and just believed in myself (that’s very Alpha). And since I did it…”What one man can do, another can do”. And like a wise man once said, “Whether you think you CAN, or you think you CAN’T…either way, you’re right.”

    Good luck to you in all your endeavors.

  395. earl says:

    It simply comes down to this – I go for what I want, and I don’t let anybody tell me it can’t be done. And I suppose that’s part of being a natural alpha.

    I never listened to that crap, and just believed in myself (that’s very Alpha).

    So, I’ve done that too and quickly found out that some things can’t be done because of something called ‘humility’. There’s also a little thing called ‘God’s will’.

    Here’s a little advice from my ‘life experience’…exalting yourself often leads to what Scripture talks about and it doesn’t matter what Greek letter you are.

  396. Luke says:

    Jeff, re apparently risking your wife’s life to have her bear you children, why didn’t you go the fertility doc assist route? Ideally, you’d have been able to use her ova (and your sperm), so it’s still be both your and her genetic offspring, just paying another woman to gestate for you two. I did the entire egg donor & gestational surrogate thing 7 years ago, and it cost about 100 grand while being done by white medical professionals in the U.S. Surely you could have afforded it?

  397. Boxer says:

    she’s very attractive for her age and still turns heads and gets compliments now in her early 40’s

    We’ve been laughing at your wife for years. You realize this, yes?

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/grannies-gone-wild/

    Enjoy!

    Boxer

  398. Jeff Strand says:

    Luke,

    We’re Catholic, so what you’re suggesting is not possible. It’s a mortal sin.

    Boxer,

    Still waiting for you to tell us about your wife. Oh that’s right – you ARE the wife! Homo pervert.

  399. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “So, I’ve done that too and quickly found out that some things can’t be done because of something called ‘humility’. There’s also a little thing called ‘God’s will’.”

    Like I said Earl, whether you think you CAN, or you think you CAN’T…either way you’re right.

    As far as God’s will, I assume His will is to follow His Commandments and such. I never assumed His will is that I not succeed financially and not succeed in marrying a NAWALT. On the contrary.

    YMMV. Me, I’ve always been a go-getter. Just how I’m built. I go for what I want, I don’t make excuses for why everything is out of reach. But you do you. Like I said, the lifestyle of an alpha is not for everyone. But it suits me. I can bear the responsibility for it, just as I always have done.

  400. Boxer says:

    Like I said, the lifestyle of an alpha is not for everyone. But it suits me. I can bear the responsibility for it, just as I always have done.

    As near as I can tell, you’re living this alpha lifestyle by being caught in funny lies, and endlessly projecting your homosexual fantasies on amused bystanders.

    Is that really all there is to being a “natural alpha”?

  401. BillyS says:

    Jeff the poser is back.

  402. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    He is claiming to live the alpha lifestyle, whether those claims are true or not.

    His wife could dump him tomorrow and he couldn’t do much about the men with guns that would protect her, but he likes to live in fantasy land and strut around a stage like this where no one gives a hoot about his idiocy.

  403. Jeff Strand says:

    BillyS,

    Then pray tell, why don’t you tell us about your family life. Wife? Children?

    Clearly you have all the answers. Enlighten us, brother.

  404. Sharkly says:

    Good advice earl.

    To all: Perhaps why I am still arguing with (trying to positively influence) Jeff Strand. Is because, even though I don’t like to see myself that way, I was quite like him about a decade ago. My previous long response to him is actually a more humble second draft. I wrote a more snarky and belittling first draft that didn’t go through due to a hiccup in my satellite internet connection that I am forced to use out here, where I live here in the boonies, beside my personal privately owned lake. A crumb I still have left after my colossal(Job like) humbling. I lost the mansion, and am now living in what was my guesthouse. Yeah, I can AMOG better than any of you here that I’ve heard yet, but I now try to refrain from that shit. And it can be difficult after a lifetime of being awesome! Like the apostle Paul sometimes I boast a bit to try to shut up some of the lesser boasters and hopefully turn folks towards God, our real boast.

    Jeremiah 9:23 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”

    1 Corinthians 1:31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    Here is some of what the New Testament says about boasting, if you want to dig through it:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=boast&begin=47&end=73

    But, if you will permit me, for Jeff’s sake, I’ll just crack the door open and boast a bit more. Dude! I founded and ran companies in both the high technology Aerospace and Medical Devices industries. I have both bank funded, and “privately” funded them. Go outside and look up! The thing orbiting above our earth looking back down on you is something I partially built and has my name on it. You think it is the (((Jews))) watching you? No, it’s all my former customers watching!
    And there’s plenty more boasting where that came from. Don’t make me pull rank on you. I could go on like you do, except I wouldn’t be going on about the same stuff over and over, there’s plenty more. I never knew how blessed and fortunate and “lucky” I was back when I was like you thinking I had earned all that by my hard work and giftedness alone. Even now I’m blessed to just have the memories of what it was like to chase my dreams and achieve them. The places I’ve been, the people I’ve met, It is a shame I was such an arrogant prick back when I should have been overflowing with gratitude and comforting the less fortunate. It all came too easy, as I worked like a madman trying(I think) to prove myself to people who are now dead. Everybody else saw how great I was, but never them. Ultimately it only matters what God thinks of us. Some folks cannot be pleased. But God however is pleased by humility.
    Micha 6: 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

    Sorry for boasting there, but I hope y’all will get my point.
    Mark 8:26 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
    It was said that after conquering the known world Alexander(who too thought he was Great) cried for himself, that there were no more worlds left to conquer.
    The point is that there is no prize waiting at the end of a life of achievement. despair and suicide often overtake the achievers after the summit. Your earthly boasting will stand against you in judgement. Turn now and seek a humble peace with God and your fellow man. But I almost think, like me, you’ll have to go through a rough patch of reversal where your best efforts all avail nothing, to realize it wasn’t just you all along.
    Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    Time and Chance buddy! Time and Chance.
    I hope you don’t have to go through what I went through to learn what I have learned. Unlike Obama, I do think you built that. And I’m proud of what you’ve accomplished and much of what you’ve done, Jeff. But you also have to see that it is only by and through God that any of your success was permitted to happen, and He can shut it off or even reverse it in an instant. So fear God and flee from evil. Honor Him in the days of your youth. Your life is vanity apart from what you are doing for God and your fellow man. It doesn’t help others to just say; Be blessed like me! Make your own luck! Just do what I did! Etc. you may not see it now, but you’re not helping by doing that, even if you intend to inspire others to be like you. I used to try to get everybody to be an entrepreneur like me, I thought it was easy, I thought folks were just lazy for not doing what I had done. I thought it was in everybody’s best interest that I “encourage” them to quit being mediocre. LOL I was foolish, and I’m not sure I’m quite through being an idiot, but by the grace of God I’m trying to change.

  405. MKT says:

    Cane Caldo said:

    “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.”

    Boxer fired back, squealing like a pig:
    “Again, I’m not like you, SirHamster, or your ‘dark lord'”

    Nicely done, Cane. Bluff called beautifully.

  406. MKT says:

    “His wife could dump him tomorrow and he couldn’t do much about the men with guns that would protect her, but he likes to live in fantasy land and strut around a stage like this where no one gives a hoot about his idiocy.”

    BillyS, that sounds more like that Artisinal Toad freak who used to post here than Jeff…are you not confusing them?

  407. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “So fear God and flee from evil. Honor Him in the days of your youth. Your life is vanity apart from what you are doing for God and your fellow man. It doesn’t help others to just say; Be blessed like me! Make your own luck! Just do what I did!”

    I DO fear God and flee from evil. I pray every day, my wife and me teach our kids the true Faith, we go to Mass and receive the sacraments when we can (it’s a 200 mile round trip to a true Catholic Mass, so don’t go every week – in my county we have only the apostate Vatican II Sect, led by Antipope Francis and his fellow heretical, faggot “bishops”, and I refuse to have anything to do with those Judases. They sold out to the spirit of (((this world))) a long time ago.)

    But it’s not either/or. Just because I’m faithful to God doesn’t mean I shouldn’t work hard to achieve financial security for my family…just as long as I’m not cheating anybody along the way, you dig? And yes, ultimately all graces come from God…but it remains true that if you want to succeed at something in life, you have to work hard for it. If your kid studies hard for a test and gets an A, if his mom congratulates him on that, would you rebuke her and say the kid deserves no such congratulations? Because all blessings come from God, so really it was God who took the test and not your kid? That’s crazy!

    God loves everyone. Yet I have bums in my own family who are lazy and make no effort to succeed. Guess what happens as a result? In spite of God’s love for them, they still end up poor, busting ass just to make minimum wage, while they are constantly trying to pull down gov’t assistance.

    As far as boasting, I have never done so. I merely stated facts. To say otherwise, I would be lying. Ahhh…you say, all well and good…but what is your MOTIVE for stating these facts? That’s where the boasting comes in!

    To which I reply, my motive is not to toot my own horn, bu to ENCOURAGE the guys who will read these comments. Yes, I have achieved great success in both the financial realm (from nothing to being a multimillionaire while still in my 40’s) and the relationship realm (happily married for many years to a NAWALT – after dealing with my share of crazies in my dating years, believe me – and blessed with a couple of beautiful, respectful children).

    But my point in saying that is to convey to the reader: IF I DID IT, SO CAN YOU. “What one man has done, another can do.” Don’t give up and don’t think your goal is out of reach, whether it’s financial success or finding and marrying a NAWALT and raising a family. Don’t listen to the folks who tell you it’s impossible. Had I listened to them, I wouldn’t be where I am today. Nothing is guaranteed, but I’m just telling you it’s POSSIBLE. I know, because I did it.

    And yes, something terrible could happen to me or my family tomorrow (just read the Book of Job). Of corse I realize that. But so what? Does that mean no one should ever try? You should just lie down and give up, just because there’s a chance you can lose one day whatever it is you’ve achieved? Sorry, I don’t buy that.

    Lastly, believe me, I’m very appreciative of what I have and thankful to God. My wife and I call our home “our little bubble”, because it is a retreat from the craziness of this modern world, with all its wickedness and feminism. Our bubble is filled with love and warmth and stability, and well do we realize how lucky we (and our children) are to have this. As a matter of fact, we have such a great marriage in a peaceful, love-filled household that my wife has commented that she’s worried we are setting the bar too high for our daughters – will they be able to find husbands to where their marriages will be as happy and healthy as what they observe in their parents’ marriage? And she’s got a point…but I look at it as, hey, as far as “problems” go, that’s not so bad!

    Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from brother. Peace.

  408. Sharkly says:

    Thanks for your kind response, Jeff.
    I am glad to hear about your blessings at home and at work. You don’t have to convince me personally what is possible, I’ve even done “the impossible” on plenty of occasions. The key is to realize that we can boldly leap out trusting God and achieve great things, or we can boldly leap out trusting God and get crucified, and that isn’t always under our control. Many folks get defeated, not just mentally, but actually real-world prevented from doing the things we’ve done, before they even take their second step. Their leg has been broken. Blown up by a land mine. It is not a matter of hopping back up and winning the monetary rat-race then. Also don’t idolize worldly success, it seems maybe you want people to join you in following your god, but what god are you following after? on another thread I posted some scripture including this verse:
    Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
    If we are chasing the Almighty Dollar, we are idolaters.
    Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
    Which do you enjoy more, serving God, or making money? … Then encourage the folks here to do the one you love, to follow your God, with you.

    As far as boasting, I have never done so. I merely stated facts. To say otherwise, I would be lying.
    Well I stated a few facts, and I know it was boasting, even though it was the truth. I also sometimes tell of my weaknesses and failures, and telling those facts can sometimes be an act of humility when done for the right reasons. Walk humbly.

    Our bubble is filled with love and warmth and stability, and well do we realize how lucky we (and our children) are to have this.
    Well, please continue sharing your love, warmth, and stability with us. I hear too much boasting, putting other people and whole other races down, and unhinged lack of understanding for folks less fortunate, amongst the godless folks I work with, so please help me to encourage others to not be spewing that in here, where we fellowship, and build each other up in Christ. Thanks Bro!

  409. Luke says:

    Why the near-obsession with the Mormons? They’re clearly apostate from Christianity, and not coming back into the fold anytime soon, not as a group. (Their top holy book isn’t even the Bible, for crying out loud.) Individuals, now, either young or old enough to not care anymore/having nothing else to lose, often that’s a different story.

  410. OKRickety says:

    Luke,

    “Why the near-obsession with the Mormons?” I think Mormon belief is seldom a big topic here, and, when it is, it is often related to Boxer because of his Mormon background. It’s far more common to have the arguments about Roman Catholic versus Protestant repeated for the umpteenth time.

  411. stickdude90 says:

    It’s far more common to have the arguments about Roman Catholic versus Protestant repeated for the umpteenth time.

    Let’s not forget the pre-Vatican II vs. post-Vatican II Catholic fights to the death…

  412. S. Chan says:

    The BBC has just published a story “Big D*ck Energy: one woman’s guide to getting it“. The story is subtitled “No, you don’t need to be a man to have BDE”.

    The story cites Rihanna as an example of someone who is a “bastion of Big Dick Energy”. It goes on to describe what sort of underwear to wear.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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