The UK equivalent of the Girl Scouts recently decided to change their vow, replacing “love my God” with “be true to myself and develop my beliefs”. As the BBC explains this is not the first change for girls to that portion of the oath. In 1910 that portion of the oath was “do my duty to God”. This was changed in 1994 to the “love my God” wording, which has now been replaced with a promise to be true to themselves.
The Telegraph interviewed Gill Slocombe, the woman who heads the Girl Guides. When asked what being true to themselves really meant, Slocombe explained:
It’s a moral compass
When asked what this means in the absence of external morality, Slocombe rationalized:
There is a sense in which you could say, ‘Well, to be true to myself I’m going to go and rob a post office’, but it has to be read in conjunction with the context of what we’re doing: the rest of the Promise and the Guide laws, which clearly do not say it’s OK to rob a post office.
But when pressed for what the rest of the Promise and Guide laws say, Slocombe replied:
Please don’t ask me what they are, because I can’t recite them to you
But for their possession of nukes, I’d be willing to let the UK commit cultural suicide and collapse, just for the valuable lesson it would teach to the rest of the Anglosphere.
Fools.
I’d like to engage in a theological discussion about how this almost engages in a sense of natural law, or even some higher sense of the better side of hedonism. Maybe in a good day, a discussion of atheism’s sense of morals sans a diety.
I suspect, however, that what we have are B-students who never took a serious theology or philosophy course in their lives, who are simple trying to broaden their appeal and duck any controversy in matters of morality. And did so badly. And now will throw a hissy fit since you made them feel stupid.
Free pronunciation guide for Transatlanteans: the name “Slocombe” is pronounced “slow cum”, as any fan of “Are You Being Served?” will know.
See, the Bible alleviates the need for Game as it simply teaches women to honor God and serve their Husbands.
The central bankers wanted to end the family–the cornerstone of Western Civilization–so they told women to follow their “feelings”–aka their butt and gina tinzgzlzlzoozozozo–wherever they may lead.
Churchians, instead of restoring the Teachings of the Bible to their Churches and Courts, also sought to serve women’s butt and gina tinzgzlzlzllzlzozooz, calling this “Game.” And so the unmalny, ungodly Churchian PUAs played straight into the central-bankers hands, as they replaced their God with their women’s butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzolzoozo.
And so now women obey their feelings–their butt and gina tingzlzlzlzo–and unmanly churchian men define HEadship as serving their wives butt and ginatinzgzlzlzlzolzoo to get HEad, as they kick Christ out of their churchian church of sosodonmzyieizi.
you can’t make this stuff up folks. just read innocentbystanderboston et al.zlzlzlzolozoz
lzlzozoozolzozo
UK doesn’t really “possess” a nuclear ‘deterrent’. It services, houses, ships, guards and pays for some rather dangerous items which they can only fire with the express permission of some fellow up the Potomac, at targets designated by him and his crew.
I say take them away, please, and give them to a grown-up country. Like Germany.
mm. My internal Mr Picky-da-nitty says it’s “beliefs” that are the Invisible Hand invoked here.
The dozy mare in the beret and woggle may well conflate the two, but that ain’t necessarily the same as “feeewingzes”.
I may well feel the Earth is flat, but I don’t believe it. Yet.
Sounds like a perfect moment for da GBFM to be inspired to song.
Until then, lyrics from a current global radio top five song that fit the method of thought… performed by Zedd:
“If our love is tragedy,
Why are you my remedy?
Why are you clarity?”
“High dive into frozen waves where the past comes back to life
Fight fear for the selfish pain it was worth it every time
Hold still right before we crash, cause we both know how this ends
A clock ticks ’till it breaks your glass and I drown in you again
Cause you are the piece of me, I wish I didnt need
Chasing relentlessly, still fight and I dont know why
If our love is tragedy, why are you my remedy?
If our love’s insanity, why are you my clarity?
If our love is tragedy, why are you my remedy?
If our love’s insanity, why are you my clarity?
Walk on through a red parade, and refuse to make amends
It cuts deep through our ground and makes us forget all common sense
Don’t speak as I try to leave, cause we both know what we’ll choose
If you pull, then I’ll push too deep and Ill fall right back to you
Cause you are the piece of me, I wish I didnt need
Chasing relentlessly, still fight and I dont know why
If our love is tragedy, why are you my remedy?
If our love’s insanity, why are you my clarity?
Why are you my clarity?
Why are you my remedy?
Why are you my clarity?
Why are you my remedy?
If our love is tragedy, why are you my remedy?
If our love’s insanity, why are you my clarity?”
Please don’t ask me what they are because I can’t recite them to you is interpreted as “I haven’t really bought in to this crap and whatever mindless rubbish I come up with….well that will be the new law.”
People say I am too picky…I say you aint picky enough.
Feminism and religion are naturally complimentary belief systems. What is God if not the ultimate alpha male to worship or revile depending on their mood?
In a related announcement, the Girl Guides said they will no longer be selling cookies door to door. They will eat all the cookies themselves and accuse naysayers of misogyny.
Although the unfortunate little girls have to recite this navel-gazing, hedonistic-narcissism, agency-free drivel, they would of course repeat whatever is foisted upon them, such that these changes in the Oath merely reveal the solipsism that infests the minds of the likes of Miss Sloth-Bear. Happily, boys (of all ages) are excluded from the Girl Guides.
No female is ever responsible for her actions or for her feelings – it’s all the fault of the evil-patriarchal males (in the Boy Scouts).
I’ve typed this before, but it bears repeating, the Feminine Imperative is
the Holy Spirit,..ergh,..Moral Compass(?) now.This is not the least bit surprising. Women are not moral agents. So OF COURSE (if left to their own devices and their own accountability) there will be no moral agency. None.
Women are not accountable. This is not news.
OT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony.html
Alimony relief, someday.
if you don’t like the direction your moral compass points, degauss the needle.
TFH, I’m a slow reader and terrible typist.
Not even God was Alpha enough for Eve.
Women seek to undermine any and all guidance that doesn’t come from emotions and feelings. By doing this they gain all control of the narrative because, quite simply, they will be the narrative. Anything other than their narrative will be seen as evil because it hurts their emotions.
This is unfortunately old news. I had thought you had heard about it before. Scouting in general is in terminal decline. My girl is part of AHG since they are less scandalous. They do tend to be too “American Evangelical Borderline Gnostic”, but one rolls with the punches.
By having no outside morality. All acts become moral.
Religious solipsism = Churchianity = Personal Jesus = Cult of Jezebel.
Women really do need to think this through. Without any outside morality, murder, rape, theft, destruction, abuse; basically any crime is morally the same as feeding the poor. In the greater concept of life without God, that which allows you to survive is good and that which takes away from your ability to survive, i.e. giving food away, is bad. For you see, outside of God, there is no good and evil, merely survival or death. That’s it.
Your forget with women there is civilization which means police, with guns, and the power to use FORCE to take from men what women need to survive. No God needed here. Just civilization.
Women already commit theft, destruction, and abuse every day in America. It’s called the divorce grinder.
Obey God…..becomes….unrestrained sexuality.
“Women already commit theft, destruction, and abuse every day in America. It’s called the divorce grinder.”
Don’t forget murder as abortion…and rape as in if you are a boy in school and your teacher is a female who’s getting the tingles…you might be her next target.
“Not even God was Alpha enough for Eve.”
But he was for Mary.
Warren Farrell wasn’t kidding when he said that when a child only has a woman in authority over him, he’ll tend to be turned more inward and become more narcissistic. Women are great at nurturing the inner life of a child, men are great at nurturing an outward perspective (one could say men and women are complimentary).
This whole “be true to myself” crap is just repackaged narcissism. Hopefully these girls have fathers in their lives who can remind them that there’s a whole world of people out there who are just as (un)important as they are.
On a more meta note, this is why even if Christianity is false, it’s still better to believe it’s true than otherwise. Much like Capt. Adama in Battlestar Galactica “lying” and telling everyone he knows how to find Earth….Sometimes just believing something can be more important than whether or not that belief is true.
In this case, erasing God from the picture leaves these children without something “bigger” than themselves, which is fine if they’re decent people by nature but not so great otherwise.
Well IBB, that means force or coercion, it’s not based on morality. The funny thing is, that without any outside morality, women can merely use their emotion as morality; and thus anything they say or do will be good and anything that doesn’t advantage them will be bad. Thus women will have fulfilled one of their greatest objectives. They would have replaced God with themselves.
This dovetails with my last comment on Dalrock’s last blog post about Option A or Option B. Those 3 women justified their immoral behavior by their emotions. Their advantage was their living situation (it was a freebie.) Their alphamale just went along for the ride (and the joy.)
Heywood Jablome said: But for their possession of nukes, I’d be willing to let the UK commit cultural suicide and collapse, just for the valuable lesson it would teach to the rest of the Anglosphere.
They’ve been committing slow cultural suicide for the last few decades, their possession of nukes notwithstanding.
From a purely selfish Yank perspective, at this stage in human history I couldn’t care less – except for the fact that too many supposedly sentient life forms on this side of the Big Pond who have been allowed to assert socioeconomic and political power seem hell-bent on following the UK’s lead (who is really controlling whom, one can reasonably ask). This fuels the common refrain that what happens in the UK serves as a generally solid prediction of what ultimately happens here.
Fools.
The most ubiquitous species in existence, one most certainly not unique to the UK, although one might perhaps convincingly argue that the proportion of such relative to the whole population is larger there than in other larger, more densely populated parts of the planet.
But when pressed for what the rest of the Promise and Guide laws say, Slocombe replied:
Please don’t ask me what they are, because I can’t recite them to you.
If we’re supposed to be shocked or surprised at this, I’m afraid I can’t oblige. Leaving aside the fact that almost no one takes laws, rules, principles, guidelines, or any other codes regulating human behavior seriously anymore (especially not those entrusted with enforcing them), Slocombe’s statement begs the obvious question: how often does “leadership” of any body or organization ever exhibit any functional knowledge of said body’s governing principles or regulations (legislatures around the world come readily to mind as examples)?
An interesting example of solopsism in the Bible: Moses’s Song at the Sea (Exodus 15: 2-21) has no self reference. Deborah’s song (Judges 5:2-31) has three.
Discuss
Rarely ever. But her goal here was to CHANGE the governing principles and regulations because she did not like or respect them. She did so on her own authority. The hell with why those rules and principles were put there in the first place. Change is all that is important.
And since she didn’t have any kind of legislative body to run these changes by, she could just make it happen.
GKChesterton said Scouting in general is in terminal decline.
Indeed. Scouts have become the new Hitler Youth, centered on worship of the almighty, feminazi-fascist State. Having been a “Den Dad” to my then-six-year-old grandson’s Cub Scout troop, it was all I could do to keep myself from asking the pack leader why he didn’t have the boys shout “Heil Hitler!” at the beginning and end of each meeting. Fortunately, my grandson soon tired of the regimentation and dropped out.
Unless you want your child to become a brainwashed authoritah-worshiper, keep them away from anything having to do with organized scouting.
On the topic of emotions, which I think Feminist Hater sums it up well on women’s emotions, I have a question for anyone out there whom has the knowledge and wisdom to answer. Is it a legitimate argument that men “have a problem expressing emotion”, or is that a lie for the most part? I just dont know the history. I know back a 100 years or so men were described as stoic. Had something happened that had caused this lack of expressing emotions or is that the way God created us? In other words, is this just another FEMINIST lie, in attempts to make us males more equal with them? Seems to me that emotions and feeeeelings are ruling the world today.
A Mother’s Solution to Miley Cyrus Twerking on Robin Thicke? Violence Against Men!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/27/dear-daughter-let-miley-cyrus-be-a-lesson-to-you-the-amazing-open-letter-from-mom-set-to-go-viral/
Regarding Miley Cyrus Twerking on Robin Thicke at MTV’s VMAs, The Blaze reports that a mother writes to her daughter:
“Yes, this is what happens when you constantly hear everything you do is awesome. This is what happens when people fawn over your every Tweet and Instagram photo. This is what happens when no responsible adult has ever said the word “no,” made you change your clothes before leaving the house, or never spanked your butt for deliberate defiance.
If you ever even consider doing something like that, I promise you that I will run up and twerk so you will see how ridiculous twerking looks. I will duct tape your mouth shut so your tongue doesn’t hangout like an overheated hound dog. I will smack any male whom you decide to smash against his pelvis.”
— http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/27/dear-daughter-let-miley-cyrus-be-a-lesson-to-you-the-amazing-open-letter-from-mom-set-to-go-viral/
lzozozozozozozozozoozozozo
A Mother’s Solution to Miley Cyrus Twerking on Robin Thicke? Violence Against Men!
@GregC
As a woman, I can say that when women say that men have a problem expressing emotion, it usually means that she can’t get him to talk about how he feels. He’s not very detailed in his explanations. Perhaps he feels (haha!) that details are not needed. A lot of dating advice written for women advises them about different ways men and women’s brains are wired and that men don’t always know how they feel or may not have the word to express it. I believe, more often than not, men know exactly how they feel and what to spare a woman’s feelings. So maybe women should just take a hint. If he ain’t saying nothing, you don’t want to know.
Personally, I think men have plenty of emotions (maybe more than women). They just don’t talk about them all day or in the same ways.
Be true to yourself aka “don’t settle for just any dick make sure its the one you want and try out as many as you need to find the one. Also girls being true to yourself means you can change your mind at anytime to one that is better.”
@GregC —
A man typically cannot leverage his emotions into anything useful. (That’s a woman’s game.) A man can often hurt his position by revealing his emotions in the context of a relationship. For the typical beta married to a shrew, “please open up to me” too often means “show me where to put the dagger.” A man’s “lack of emotion” is sometimes just something to complain about when there’s nothing else particularly wrong with the guy except for the fact that he doesn’t quite bring the tingles anymore.
Non-alpha men are invisible. The emotions of non-alpha men are icky creepy gross as far as the average woman is concerned. (And alpha men are pretty well beyond needing to have any sort of emotion except satisfaction with the epic sweep of their dominion) This supposed yearning for a man to “open up” is usually a smoke screen for something else. In any case, empathy and sympathy is not something a man is going to be getting from women….
Miley was a cute girl. It really is too bad she’s become such trash. She’s made herself ugly. Some have described this as porn, I’d have to disagree. The whole display is a rather massive turn off.
GregC asked: I have a question for anyone out there whom has the knowledge and wisdom to answer. Is it a legitimate argument that men “have a problem expressing emotion”, or is that a lie for the most part?
Men don’t have a problem, per se, with expressing emotion (that is to say, they are perfectly capable of doing so). It’s just that most are smart enough not to even think of doing so, especially towards women. If (most) men have learned nothing else over the course of human history, it is that expressing emotion in the presence of women, especially women close to them who demand that they do so, is one of those “pay no attention to what she says; pay attention to what she does” truisms. IOW, the demand by a woman to a man to “let it all hang out” is one of womankind’s oldest fitness/shit tests. If he accedes to her demand, he has failed and she wants nothing to do with him. Remember: the female imperative places a premium on self-preservation about all else. Women look at men as their protectors and any man who exposes himself as emotionally vulnerable makes himself vulnerable as well, and is therefore of no value to the woman as a protective mechanism (another example of Briffault’s Law in action).
antidepressants mask the natural shame and depression eve felt when she sinned before god.
antidepressants make women more prone to follow their feelings and butttiinzgzllz instead of God and Man, as antidepressants mask the emotional ramifications from getting rammed in da bungholziozozzzllzoz
lzozozoz
BEfore Antidepressants: A woman get sbuttcokedz and gets tossed asidez. She gets depressedz. She feels shamez. She stops da butccokingz and looks for a good manz.
with Antidepressants (antibernakificationessants): A woman get sbuttcokedz and gets tossed asidez. She gets depressedz. She takesz antidepressantz. She goes YAYAY YAYAYAY YAYAYAYA YAYAYAYAYA!! and preads her butt cheeksz wide wide wide!!! she gets butcockedsz more. She gets depressedz. She takesz antidepressantz. She goes YAYAY YAYAYAY YAYAYAYA YAYAYAYAYA!! and preads her butt cheeksz wide wide wide!!! she gets butcockedsz more.
eventuallaully even the antidepressants don’t work anymore, and so she has to get maried and buttcock a man in divroce court to exact revnegez zlzlzlzoz
so u can see how antidepreesantsz caus ebutcocckig dievroceee rlzozlzlzlzolz
lzozozozozozo
A lot of dating advice written for women advises them about different ways men and women’s brains are wired and that men don’t always know how they feel or may not have the word to express it.
That is utter foolishness. When I turned 40, my husband wrote me the most beautiful letter. I didn’t know he could be so poetic. You know what he did? He framed it: “Cause it may be 10 years before you get that much out of me again. Unless you get a terminal diagnosis or something.”
I didn’t need that outpouring of emotion to know that he loved me. He’s given his life for me for nearly 20 years. I certainly appreciated it, immensely, but there was nothing left for him to prove.
The problem is that women want men to express their feelings the way we do, endlessly, repeated, and with great conviction because we honestly believe our emotions are objective truth. We’re mostly just the way Dalrock’s original post describes us. Solipsistic.
I see that in Harrogate, Yorkshire a group of Girl Guides have decided to put God back in and as such are running the risk of expulsion from the Guides. Naturally the Secular Humanists, (aka militant atheists) in the person of a post-punk feminist-poet, a Miss Henderson are outraged, and the National Secular Committee are on their side as they successfully challenged the use of prayers before local-council meetings a while back. Americans will of course be familiar with this when in your secular country attempts are made at Xmas for Councils to stage Nativity Scenes, but you may recall that Britain is a theocracy and out Head of State is appointed by God and is also head of the established Church.
I had wondered about the pledge of loyalty to The Queen and to the country – and apparently when the new rule come in on Sunday that too is to be replaced – by a pledge to the community (whatever that may be – we are always hearing about community leaders but I am sure I neither have one nor am one – at least I hope not). According to the previously mentioned Miss Slow-coach it enables the countries half million guides to be sincere. Sincerity, I have often observed, is not merely seriously over-rated, but is frequently the preserve of the self-opinionated – and anyway being sincerely true to ones beliefs rather begs the question as to what if anything one stands for – this is surely multi-culti liberal-fascist indoctrination masquerading as freedom and tolerance.
Whereas I might sympathise with the likes of Miss Henderson or any Girl Guide who is not of a religious disposition, what bothers me is that this is just the latest attempt (under the guise of inclusivity) to deep-throat the country with its self-loathing ideology – that is to say on this occasion Feminist Hedonism. This is thus just part of the takeover of the country by the secular elite. A backlash may eventually be expected.
@Dalrock
Dammit!……….you are on fire!………**handshakes**…..keep it coming!
[D: Thank you.]
“That is utter foolishness”
I was never sure how I felt about this advice. All the articles always said something along the lines of “wait for a commercial break during the big game to speak…don’t hit him with everything the minute he walks in the door…use short sentences with very specific tasks…men can’t multi-task…” etc. I was like, geez, what woman would want that? I’m glad to hear it is dumb advice.
“The problem is that women want men to express their feelings the way we do, endlessly, repeated, and with great conviction because we honestly believe our emotions are objective truth. We’re mostly just the way Dalrock’s original post describes us. Solipsistic.”
Agreed.
“Be true to yourself” is newspeak for “Be narcissistic as much as you like.” It crops up everywhere, but it has no meaning save, “We have replaced our normal motto with the motto to be as selfish as you like.”
The whole issue reminds me of the mottos on the currency in the movie Idiocracy:
Where “In god we trust” and “E Pluribus Unum” were replaced with “Haulin Ass, Gettin Paid” and “That’s what I’m talkin about!”. I find the replacement of old mottos with “Be True To Yourself” to be strikingly similar behavior to what was frighteningly predicted in idiocracy.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5
OR
Be true to yourself.
Spinster 1:1
All the articles always said something along the lines of “wait for a commercial break during the big game to speak…don’t hit him with everything the minute he walks in the door…use short sentences with very specific tasks…men can’t multi-task…” etc. I was like, geez, what woman would want that? I’m glad to hear it is dumb advice.
The first two items on that list aren’t necessarily bad advice. No man wants to be bombarded with minutiae and emotional venting the minute he walks in the door. He never wants it really, but at least feed him a home cooked meal first if you simply MUST unload your mental clutter on him
The last two pieces of advice? Kind of stupid. I can’t multi-task very well and I’m a woman. And believing your man can’t understand requests unless you lose short sentences? Rubbish, unless you’re married to an idiot. And why are you trying to boss him around with lists and crap anyway? See how awful that advice is?
It’s easy to point at the Miss Miley Cyrus presentation during the event as an example of a Bacchanalian orgy. And, so it was… replete with animal totems and simulated sex. At the same time though, it’s hard to resent the vigor and passion with which Miley burns through what’s left of American (corrupt, republicanist) pop-culture.
Meanwhile, there are others with plans of our own. The system has one or two brittle weaknesses that are only too open for a counter-offensive…
A.J.P.
I got into an argument with the Mrs. last night, watching a recorded Late Night with David Letterman.
Normally Letterman is safe TV for male & female……..but the guest in question was Oprah Winfrey.
Here’s a quote of what the Great & Powerful ‘O’ said near the end of her interview, discussing the girls she supports & brings to America to educate. A noble endeavor, but incredibly sexist of her to exclude the boys.
At least that’s what I was thinking……….and then Oprah started to speak. I couldn’t believe it.
“This is why you educate girls, because girls are different than boys. You know that.” (speaking to Letterman)
“When you educate girls and when you invest in girls, particularly in developing & third world countries, girls do the OPPOSITE of what boys do. First they buy a little pretty thing for themselves, like a hair ribbon or a bracelet or something…just to give themselves value.”
“Girls give back to their families; boys buy toys….they buy beer, they hang out, they celebrate….they really do.”
“So girls… investing in girls…….is like investing in a community. That’s the difference.”
“That’s the difference, really.”
UNBELIEVABLE !!
I could have vomited at Oprah’s demeaning, sexist, insulting comments.
Oprah categorically said boys are beer swilling narcissists who give nothing back to the community.
This is how confident women are in NOT being at risk of being challenged by uttering such nonsense. Of course, the audience applauded this dogma.
To say Oprah’s comments were insulting to men & boys worldwide is an understatement.
Oprah is a fan of meditation. It would appear her Mantra is “Anything boys can do, girls can do better!”
Elspeth said: [My husband has] given his life for me for nearly 20 years. I certainly appreciated it, immensely, but there was nothing left for him to prove.
Alas, you’re the exception that proves the rule. Your husband must know this, and probably knows that, as you said, he has nothing he needs to prove to you. This is probably why what he wrote came genuinely from the heart, motivated by nothing other than some inner need prompting him to say it.
As for the rest of us, the operative rule is “form over substance” (i.e., it doesn’t matter one iota what you’ve actually DONE for your wife, or do on a daily basis. She needs it to be sugarcoated, wrapped in gold paper, studded with diamonds, and delivered three times per week buried in flowers, no exceptions).
Hopeful said: All the articles always said something along the lines of “wait for a commercial break during the big game to speak…don’t hit him with everything the minute he walks in the door…use short sentences with very specific tasks…men can’t multi-task…” etc. I was like, geez, what woman would want that? I’m glad to hear it is dumb advice.
So, let me see if I understand correctly. What are considered “respectable” or “authoritative” sources of advice to women on dating prescribe a treatment of men as shallow, one-dimensional, simple oafs possessing fewer than a dozen brain cells which allow them only to fixate on trivia like sports and that they lack any multitasking ability around the house (even though, probably due to some miraculous female-conferred power, many of them do exactly that in their daily jobs).
And women actually wonder why, when they apply this “authoritative” advice, more than a few men tell them, often in not very nice ways, to F.O.A.D?
This tells me that maybe the genders need to be reversed in the article Hopeful cites – assuming that large numbers of women REALLY ARE following such obviously stupid and counterproductive advice. Even ever-cynical feeriker finds it a bit difficult to believe that very many women could really be THAT clueless.
Ah crap with da “Mary” chit again. Anyone who can confuse their God with a flying silver disc needs a new God.
@Casey:
Aw, c’mon now, brother. Whenever the word or image of “Oprah” appears anywhere, you KNOW that it’s time to walk away and turn off the TV, lest you succumb to the temptation to kick put your boot through the flatscreen. It’s just plain-ol’ common[?] sense.
I was going to ask rhetorically “what kind of civilization would make something like Oprah Winfrey one of the richest human beings in modern history?”, but I won’t, lest it cause anyone to sink into irreversible depression.
Interesting discussion regarding husbands talking about their emotions and feelings, but I have to agree with feeriker.
I’ve been married for over 30 years and have had many ups and downs in my marriage in that time. I was raised an evangelical Christian “blue pill” Beta kind of guy, although I did have a strong patriarchal father as a husband role model. Several years ago I had been reading some relationship books and decided to take their advice to be more open and to share my “feelings” with my wife when we had conflict situations. you know, to truthfully share with her how her behavior caused me to feel sometimes. This made sense to me because when we have conflict she often goes into great detail about how my behavior makes her feel and how this upsets her. My normal response, to explain why I am doing what I am doing generally doesn’t move the discussion forward. Well, I tried the feelings sharing approach one time. I remained calm and listened carefully to her for a (long) while just like the book said. Then I began to tell her how I felt about the issue we were discussing (fighting about). As I was speaking I could see that her eyes began to glaze over. A few minutes into my “sharing” she interrupted me to tell me I just didn’t understand how she felt. It became very clear to me that the one and only topic of our discussion was how SHE felt and what I should do about it. In her mind my feelings were not relevant to the discussion. She really didn’t care how I felt. Never did that again.
I’m new to this blog. Am learning a lot even at my age. I really appreciate the Christian context of the discussion here. Thank you Dalrock.
[D: Welcome Bradford.]
@ feeriker
Regarding your last paragraph……….yes, I feel a dark cloud coming over me.
The world is a basket-case………and false prophets like Oprah are out there ‘front & center’ helping it along to be a bigger basket-case.
During the 2008 election, someone asked Barack Obama for his definition of sin. His answer: “Being out of alignment with my values.” That and his other answers were familiar to anyone familiar with New Age (especially the Oprah version), in which they believe themselves to be fully divine — not just filled with the Holy Ghost, but a sort of chunk of God that that has access to all of God’s power if they just want it badly enough. So naturally, being God themselves, what “values” could be higher than the ones they choose for themselves?
And how do they access their inner divinity? By paying attention to their feelings, trusting their instincts (impulses), and using forms of meditation where they try to empty their minds and open them to whatever flows in (very different from Christian meditative prayer). They consider their feelings and impulses to be more trustworthy than reason, because they might be messages from their divine self.
This shows up all through modern society, in all the ways that people encourage each other and themselves to “follow your heart,” so it’s no surprise it’s showing up here.
Sorry to get off-topic, but did anyone else see this?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/did-bobby-riggs-throw-match-billie-jean-king-194857300.html?bcmt=1377605132433-463f1104-7ef8-47a5-b96c-63e3879fd857&bcmt_s=e#mediacommentsugc_container
I was never impressed that Billy Jean King (in her prime at 29) beat a 55-year old man in tennis. Now, to make matters worse for her, Riggs may have thrown the match. Watch him in the video–pretty funny guy.
So far I have heard about a Miley orgy and Oprah talking about the SUPPOSED superiority of girls. Why do you all still pay for this?
Mix this situation in with moral relativism and it gets even worse.
God’s laws never change.
But human standards about right vs. wrong ; good vs. evil have changed all throughout history. In ancient Rome adultery was punishable by death; but Pedophilia (as well as gay) was okay as long as the parent(s) approved.
It goes hand in hand with Polytheism and Humanism. Even now God’s laws concerning homosexuals and gay marriage are being compared to “mixing different fabrics”.
And of course, every Hedonist Agnostic and Atheist living in America today misconstrue Jesus words (using their own personal interpretation) ‘that thou shalt not judge others’. These people don’t know a single sentence in the entire Bible. But they all know not to judge others.
quote from Oprah: >>“So girls… investing in girls…….is like investing in a community. That’s the difference.”
Yep, she’s right. That’s why financial marketing figures in the US show that women spend all their own money, and a full 50% of all money earned by men. Even with the growing number of single MGTOW who spend all their money on themselves. End sarcasm.
They tried this crap in India, making business loans to dearies to women but not men. In the last year, they have admitted many of those loan programs are going broke because the dearies can’t pay them back.
Oh, and let’s not forget the evil commited in Haiti, where women were given food but men were not. Which basically left large numbers of children left motherless when their houses collapsed, while men and kids were off to work and school. And, to feed their kids men had to basically mug women who got food handed to them, to feed their kids. That is exactly what I would have done.
Some years ago, liberal magazine NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC wrote that giving money to women got it all to the family. But, men spent 85% of their money on themselves and only gave 15% to the family.
This is another case of the truth being a lie.
What they were talking about was the fact when men left home to work far away, as they often do in Third World countries, they only sent 15% of their earnings home to the family.
In the Third World village where I live, men go to the US to work. In California, a 2 bedroom apartment may cost $1000 a month, or so I am told.
It costs a lot to live and work in the US. It happens to come out to about, are you ready for this? 85% of what an average Mexican illegal commonly can earn to just live.
So, these fiends are suggesting the workers somehow find a place to live which will only cost 15% of their earnings and send back 85%? Yep. So, not only is this man expected to risk death in the desert or at the hands of the border cartels to get there, but also is expected to live in dire poverty and make his deary rich back home. This is just another permutation of telling unemployed men they must pay child support and alimony.
So, how do those poor, abused and neglected families live on that 15%? Actually, very well. I know a woman who paid money orders sent from the US by computer. She had one woman who got $50 USD a week, and lived on it, albeit very frugally.
Miley has effectively skipped her 20’s and 30’s and has achieved “post-Wall” skank status overnight. Way to grow up grrl.
@TFH
“”the rare few instances of women paying alimony to men (about 4% of all alimony payers are women)””
Yes it is rare.But,I have seen it in my own family.A cousin of mine married a “Christian Man”.They were married for 10 years…2 kids.For the first 2 years he worked part-time and for the remaining 8 years he did nothing.She was making $300k/yr in the banking industry he got up everyday at the “crack of noon”…had 4 cars…drank beer and snorted coke.When she got rid of him and they went to court she had to pay him alimony for 2 years about $50k….despite the fact, that he robbed her of over $200k for the 10 year period to feed his booze and coke habit.He did not have to pay child support either as he had no job and she makes good money.That was 7 years ago and he has not seen his kids since.(which is a blessing in disguise).This is a rare event….but,it does happen.Also,I have asked about 300 men at least…”what man do you know who has collected alimony from his ex-wife”…and the grand total is ONE!
“In California, a 2 bedroom apartment may cost $1000 a month, or so I am told.”
-In the ghettos and barrios. They sleep 4-6-8 people in these apartments. Very high crime. I never get out of the car. There are bars all over the windows. Very un-kept houses with old apartment complexes (with a fresh coat of cheap paint to keep the city inspectors at bay). Most of Los Angeles is just one big Lipstick job. I feel sorry for those migrant workers because they are just trying to survive and send money back to Mexico. If you want to live in a safe clean area in Los Angeles (or even San Diego) you have to pay big bucks. Most places are very racially mixed during the day but racially divided in terms of Real Estate at night. You can literally drive through different sections which change from 90%+ white to 90%+ Asian to 90%+ Mexican etc mile after mile (West Hollywood, Pacific Palisades, Cerritos, Arcadia, Baldwin Park etc). Then you have some which are sleezy disgusting patches within a nice community like East Hollywood or East Downtown Los Angeles. Or little oasis like Bixby Knolls or Belmonts Shores/Naples Island area in ghetto Long Beach. Beautiful little communities with shopping and eateries surrounded by barrio/ghetto trash. The real estate literally changes from $300k to 2.0+ million in a few blocks. I have no idea what makes these resident community’s hold out. Either private schools or having no kids.
@GBFM
This Thicke & Cyrus thing has been the brunt of jokes all day over the airwaves here. The Reason is that Robin Thicke is the son of Allan Thicke who is a Canadian.
@ Mark
“She was making $300k/yr in the banking industry”
-New York?
@xna232stang
“”when a child only has a woman in authority over him, he’ll tend to be turned more inward and become more narcissistic.””
Very true! My divorced sister has a 15 year old son.My father and I discussed his future before summer.We both agreed that he was hanging out with waaaayyyy too many women…his mother and her entitlement princess friends….UGH! So I had the solution and my father agreed….Get him a job in construction.Which is what I did.The first 2 weeks were pretty rough but,once he was “broken in” all has been going well.He is starting to see things around him a lot differently! His mother was against him working construction as “he might get hurt”….WTF? Typical fem-tard rationalization. He is now enjoying the company of men! ……and is learning a lot about women……and he does not like what he sees!
@Michael
Toronto.
Sounds an awful lot like the pagan beliefs of Aleister Crowley. “Do what thou wilt…” Why am I not surprised?
Things crumble all around.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/08/28 | Free Northerner
Bradford said: Then I began to tell her how I felt about the issue we were discussing (fighting about). As I was speaking I could see that her eyes began to glaze over. A few minutes into my “sharing” she interrupted me to tell me I just didn’t understand how she felt. It became very clear to me that the one and only topic of our discussion was how SHE felt and what I should do about it. In her mind my feelings were not relevant to the discussion. She really didn’t care how I felt. Never did that again.
As I mentioned earlier today over on Judgy Bitch’s blog in response to her latest post, I REALLY feel for men who decide to rely upon “Christian” (read: churchian) marriage counselors and/or their written or aural propaganda for guidance in situations like this. This assclown is a particularly egregious example, a best-selling “Christian marriage counselor” who, to judge from his work (this pile of pseudo-psychological, pseudo-biblical verbal vomitus being a prime example), is responsible for the destruction of more Christian marriages and the despair of more Christian men than any other source of “help” in the temporal world. (He’s affiliated with Dobson and the FotF crowd, so that shouldn’t come as any surprise.)
Before swallowing the red pill, I read the book described in the link above. Assuming that the majority of “Christian” marriage counselors take the same position that it’s huckster author takes (“As a Christian husband, you are charged by God with heading the household and are in complete control. Therefore, any problems your wife has are YOUR fault and it’s up to YOU to make her happy”), it was the first and will be the last “Christian” marriage book I will EVER read.
Opus :- “Whereas I might sympathise with the likes of Miss Henderson or any Girl Guide who is not of a religious disposition ..”
It’s unabashed entryism worthy of Derek Hatton’s mob. The anarchists have always had the ‘Woodcraft Folk’ as a paramilitary wing, none of yer God there. If Miz Henderson were sincere she’d be ignoring the Guides, and be joining them to carve wool-gathering implements from yogurt or whatever it is they do.
This is about decapitating and subsuming a contextually powerful (and crucially, relatively wealthy) national organisation (patron ‘Er Madge no less) and instituting purges in the usual manner. When the money’s gone it’ll be discarded like a wasp-infested caterpillar’s husk.
“This assclown is a particularly egregious example”
Smalley lives in Branson? Isn’t that some kind of Satanic transplant from Nashville, the Las Vegas of the East? I wonder if Smalley has all the pagan symbols all over his building there like Dobson had installed on the FoF buildings in Colorado Springs. We wouldn’t want anyone confused about who Babylon is.
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
(Rev 18:2-4)
A commenter writes:
So far I have heard about a Miley orgy and Oprah talking about the SUPPOSED superiority of girls. Why do you all still pay for this?
Just who are you grunting at El Numero? Are you against “teevee”?
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Why is this a bad thing, exactly?
Sure, a superficial look at “be true to yourself” could be interpreted as “do whatever you want” but a deeper look would mean “discover who your true self is” which means maintaining your humanity and own internal morality against the tide of society. Same as a narcissistic and superficial look at “do my duty to God” could mean hijack a bunch of airplanes to kill people, but a deeper look would lead to spiritual fulfilment.
As an agnostic and former Daisy/Brownie/Girl Scout, I don’t remember anything about it being religious, I had fun with friends and learned how to pack for camp and make kickass s’mores…but it was never a religious thing for me.
There are plenty of religious youth groups that could teach kids how to do their duty to God and love God but the fact that the Girl Scouts are secular really isn’t that big of a deal.
Is it a legitimate argument that men “have a problem expressing emotion”, or is that a lie for the most part? I just dont know the history. I know back a 100 years or so men were described as stoic. Had something happened that had caused this lack of expressing emotions or is that the way God created us? In other words, is this just another FEMINIST lie, in attempts to make us males more equal with them? Seems to me that emotions and feeeeelings are ruling the world today.
Men have no trouble at all expressing emotions. We just limit when we do so, and have the need far less. For men, a ventilation would be a list of legitimate tangible grievances, not a rambling meandering unintelligible description of how the grievances made us FEEL.
This is one of the failures of counseling. They seek equal opportunity emoting, while the man wants to offer actual lists
she does this
she does not do that
This is not to say a man never discusses feelings. But there has to be a purpose for it.
As to this endless display of prattling we get at home…sheesh, just last evening I came in, only had a few minutes as I was hosting a 20 person dinner last night for work….I had had a HORRIBLE day. I come in, stand drinking water, and my wife was breaking word per minutes records about her day. My 7 year old girl was literally quivering to get her shots at dad in too. I stood quietly and didnt make eye contact. After about 5 minutes my wife chuckled and said, “you want me to shut up dont you”. I smiled and walked to another room. These moments are good moments when you see her getting it, even after a few minutes of pouring forth. They are funny.
But be sure, she will do it again. And again.
Multitasking, and simple sentences? Keeping it simple means I do not need to know every single sidebar, just the salient facts. I work with a guy who is like a woman, he will need to tell me something was dropped at the warehouse, before its over he has backtracked the story and started over with more details, who said what, why they took route 5 instead of highway 100, maddening, never quite met a man that way. Yes, cut to chase.
No one can multitask. Its a myth about women and multitasking, and its a destructive one. Most women can take 2 hours of housework and efficiently get it down in 7 hours, expressly because they TRY to multitask and have the attention span of an ADHD 8 yr old boy. I mean, why clean a bathroom when that tube of caulk is yelling from the garage, come get me, re caulk all the baths and showers, clean out under all the sinks, take the covers off the couch cushions and wash them, multitasking means lack of focus.
“Ah crap with da “Mary” chit again. ”
Mention Mary to Protestants and it’s like shining a light on a vampire.
She was never rebellious though.
Empath…
I would have been happy to have seen some tasking, never mind multitasking from my ex.
Don’t get me started on housework.
The women paying alimony thing is rare, but it does happen. The typical scenario is a high powered career woman who, unlike most of her peers, marries a man who is less successful/ambitious than she is, but who has something else she likes (good looking, good sex, sometimes shared interest, sometimes the idea of him supporting her career and so on). These marriages quite often go south, because at the end of the day almost no women actually like supporting a househusband.
In 20+ years of being around professional woman like Mark’s cousin mentioned above, I’ve known about five who had househusbands, and three of those five had divorced them– typically saying “they were useless”. I don’t doubt that often the househusbands were something like that – it’s an odd man who wants to be supported by a woman financially while he takes care of the house and small kids. I’m sure that some of these guys became lazy, or found unproductive ways to spend their time (gaming or drinking or what have you) because they are not particularly naturally domestic. The other two situations I know of where they are still together are situations where the couple was married before the woman got involved in her career and things developed organically from there (that is, she wasn’t already a careerist marrying someone who was not).
Generally speaking , a high-powered career woman who wants to be married seems to find the most success doing so if she marries a man who is equally driven, ambitious and high-powered, and they use the combined stratospheric income to hire it out in terms of the child raising. There are also a very small number of truly dominant persona women who like being the dominant/provider/pants-wearer in the relationship, and some of these are high-powered execs as well, but they are extremely rare. Most of the time a woman tends to tire of being the bread-winner in the relationship with a SAHF as her husband.
I do expect that alimony will continue to be phased out as women begin to pay a bit more of it. But we should never expect that women will be paying much of it, simply because these kinds of marriages where it is very lopsided income wise in favor of the woman are not common. It’s true that there are more marriages now than before where the W earns more than the H does (although still a minority of marriages), there aren’t very many at all where the split is 100%-0% or even 80%-20% in favor of the W.
Speaking of irrational solipsism….
Funny how people’s “own internal morality” always somehow leads them to doing whatever the hell is in their own best selfish interests and fleshly passions. Every time.
Feminine morality: I really feel like doing this, so therefore it must not be wrong.
For that matter, computers don’t really multitask in the sense people think; they just switch between tasks so quickly that it seems like they’re doing multiple things at once. But down at the CPU level, they’re processing one task — one instruction — at a time. (Pedantic disclaimer: Yes, these days they may have several CPUs running concurrently, but they still switch between many more tasks than that, and there are other resources they take turns with.) The switching does use up some time and resources, but modern computers have resources to spare, so the convenience is worth the minimal overhead.
When people multitask, they’re doing the same thing, switching from thought to thought, but we’re not nearly as fast at it as computers, so there’s a lot more overhead. It takes us a lot longer to focus on each new task. If none of the tasks requires a lot of mental focus — say you’re doing the dishes, chatting with a friend, and keeping an eye on a pot of water you put on to boil — you can switch between them fairly quickly and get more done than if you focused entirely on one task at a time. But if one of them needs your full attention — say helping a kid with math homework — then trying to multitask through that will leave the kid frustrated and the pot boiling over.
Michael says:
August 27, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Thanks for details. My only time ever in California was one year my wife waited way late to agree to travel details to Mexico City for Christmas, and our return trip came through LA. The entire wait in the airport, then on to Denver. I have no desire to ever return to CA. None whatsoever.
So, your details were indeed interesting.
Ah, yes …”multitasking” — the ability to half-ass (or worse) several things simultaneously. Quite a useful “skill”.
@ Novaseeker
“Generally speaking , a high-powered career woman who wants to be married seems to find the most success doing so if she marries a man who is equally driven, ambitious and high-powered, and they use the combined stratospheric income to hire it out in terms of the child raising.”
-That’s IF she marries. Being a “high powered career women” leaves no time for marriage and sucks the twenties out of these women. My former office building is filled with women who (on the surface) achieved the the “high powered career women” stereotype. Most, if not all are in their 30’s and single. Some have rings, yes. But most do not. And assuming an equally successful guy marries her (a guy who has the option of dating younger) they would receive a dual income. But when you hire out your child spends their most emotionally bonding years with a Mexican nanny or a babysitter.
And considering most of the “men who are equally driven, ambitious and high-powered” are either already married, or dating someone who is not a white-collar professional. Also if he’s high-powered and ambitious, he may not be wanting a relationship and instead choose to focus on his career. So “high-powered career women” should probably look elsewhere. This is probably why they end up in the 30’s and single, looking for clones instead of someone who complements them.
“Sure, a superficial look at “be true to yourself” could be interpreted as “do whatever you want” but a deeper look would mean “discover who your true self is” which means maintaining your humanity and own internal morality against the tide of society.”
This sounds like plausible deniability at its root, to be honest.
A commenter writes:
So far I have heard about a Miley orgy and Oprah talking about the SUPPOSED superiority of girls. Why do you all still pay for this?
Just who are you grunting at El Numero? Are you against “teevee”?
Best regards,
A.J.P.
I am grunting at all in the manosphere who advocate that laws need to be change, but continue to support with their money those who advocate against them. Now if you are “enjoying the decline”, then watch away.
Abandoning the pledge is all very well, but what happens when it becomes necessary to either sing or stand to attention during the National Anthem? How are those little girls going to be sincere to themselves then? By my calculation the First, Sixth and Eleventh words thereof are God, the Fifth Tenth and Fourteenth being Queen [King].
Pity Americans who in their Anthem do not even reach a Noun until the Seventh word and again at the Ninth, and never get to God or A Head of State. Those Nouns, Dawn Light sound like a Porno actress in a Ron Jeremy flick and searching for a flag is hardly inspiring.
Opus I take it you prefer “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” to the US national anthem. If not the words, then the melody at least?
Boys need to be trained & socialised into a spineless, easily controlled & brainwashed, into an enslaved corporate worshipper consumer slave, like a woman ….
@Dalrock
As it happens I think your National Anthem has the better tune – not perhaps as good as the German or even – the best of the lot – the Russian, but still very nice, yet the melody is English.
The problem with chucking God out is that one ends up chucking the baby out as well as the bathwater, by replacing what is clear and precise with what is amorphous vaguity.
[D: I believe this is the topic of Zippy’s latest post.]
@Michael
“”My former office building is filled with women who (on the surface) achieved the the “high powered career women” stereotype””
I see this everyday………the “high powered wimminz”……I prefer to avoid these women like the plague.They are very miserable people.As well as being bossy and extremely manipulative.And you are correct…most of them are single and do not have many dating prospects.
@rmax
Thanks for the video.I believe this to be from Toronto.I have witnessed this “slutwalk” first hand.It was quite the pathetic scene I assure you.All the women dressed like sluts…most have tattoos….UGH! But,not as sick as the “gay” Pride Parade…..which is just plain revolting!.I know a gay attorney in our office tower and even he was repulsed by it!
Unfortunately, all the women that dressed like this, ALL missed the valid point the Toronto cop was making. He was trying to help, and they all got pissed off and made a mockery of his point.
IBB
Unfortunately, all the women that dressed like this, ALL missed the valid point the Toronto cop was making. He was trying to help, and they all got pissed off and made a mockery of his point.
Nope. They understood what he was saying. And the reply boils down to “Don’t tell me what to do!”, the over-18 version of “You’re not the boss of me!”
Female imperative at work…
The OP is also an example of the FI at work. Nothing can rank higher in the world than women’s feelings. Nothing…
@Mark
np, I really dont think men realise what a slut really is about …
Being a slut, is all about women exploiting men, while reframing it as a right to exploit men …
They did the same crap with marriage
In the 1900’s women changed women enslaving men into walking wallets, & reframed it into a husband & a provider
THAT’S how easy it is to brainwash a man into slaving away for a woman … change the words
Instead of women taking the opportunities to goto universities & contribute to society, in the 1900’s women CHOSE to stayathome & exploit men, instead of taking advantage of social advances in society …
Christian marriage is nothing but the enslavement of men to women & government …
Its a sin & unbiblical if you have a Christian marriage
Enslavemement of men is wrong,
It’s a sin if a man who only see’s his kids two hours a day, while his wife leeches & parasites off him for years, it’s unbiblical & a SIN
In the bible women have ALWAYS WORKED, & contributed financially
Christian marriage IS TRADITIONAL FEMINISM
Christian marriage IS FIRST WAVE FEMINISM
Christian marriage IS modern day slavery, instituted to ensure men remain enslaved to governments through women
Women like sunshine mary & the rest of the pro-marriage red pill wife bloggers, are a bunch of sinners & unbiblical, they have NO IDEA of real christianity …
Rmaxgen A PUA:
“Boys need to be trained & socialised into a spineless, easily controlled & brainwashed, into an enslaved corporate worshipper consumer slave, like a woman ….”
and like a consumer… instead of a scientist or mathematician or biologist… ‘talented’ – ‘brilliant’ – ‘successful’ –
here’s how it works otherwise: a boy and his mentor shoot a painted rock from a sling shot and go find the rock in the middle of the pasture near where they saw it land.
but before they set out to find the painted rock the mentor suggests they calculate the position where the rock is most likely to be found.
to start with the boy and his mentor measure the thickness and consistency of the rubber band which held the painted rock in the sling shot. then they calculate the angle at which they shot the rock using a clinometer measured above the flat plane of the horizon. 30º. then they accounted for sea level and atmospheric density or friction within the air = 3000 ft. elevation. how big was the rock? density, circumference, area… and with one final calculation of ‘how far back’ they pulled the rock before letting it fly (torque) they mathematically calculated (Rubber band 1ft.1/4inch x (rock 1″x1″x2″) / (30º @ 3000 ft. above sea level) x (45lbs per inch torque) = 300 yards! doesn’t matter if the calculations were correct or accurate. what mattered was the process…. and a love for learning within an acceptable degree of error – and you know what – they found that rock where they figured it would be when they watched it fall from the sky. the calculations helped.
not to let a good mathematical and scientific process go, the mentor suggests they use their pencil and note pad to note all the ‘life’ they see along the way towards finding the painted rock. it takes all day to find the rock… insects are the first to be noted. then plant life the mammalian life are then noted and finally the painted rock is found near a creek where aquatic life is noted. Many, if not all boys would grow up to be ‘smart’ – ‘talented’ – gifted’ – ‘brilliant’ – given such a school room – but that’s not how we do it any more.
AR,
That was my whole point. The Toronto cop was not telling them what to do. He simply suggested that if they dress like sluts, they increase their chances of getting raped. The slut-walk girls totally misunderstood what he was saying if they thought he was telling them what to do.
It all boils down to accountability. Women aren’t accountable. They aren’t. They are not moral agents. And what really pissed them off (and created the slut walk) was the entire CONCEPT of accountability of their part (don’t want to be raped, then don’t dress like a slut.)
@IBB
“”The Toronto cop was not telling them what to do. He simply suggested that if they dress like sluts, they increase their chances of getting raped. “”
I agree!….but,it is kinda of hard to tell a bunch of low morality skanks this when they profess to know everything…L*
@rmax
“”pro-marriage red pill wife bloggers, are a bunch of sinners & unbiblical, they have NO IDEA of real christianity””
Agreed my friend!……..I think I have a better idea of Christianity………and I am Orthodox Jewish!…..L*
@Earl
“”Mention Mary to Protestants and it’s like shining a light on a vampire.””
From what I perceive….no other “Christian denomination” worships the Virgin Mary…….am I correct?…….I believe that Mary is an important part of the New Testament…..but,not to be worshiped as the Roman Catholics do………Why do I say this?…I have respect for the Virgin Mary…after all, she is a fellow Jew……..as are ALL authors of the New Testament!
Catholics worship, and pray to a
woman
and elevate her above Christ
“Hail Mary Mother of God”
the irony of a red-pill catholic is distinct.
“Catholics worship, and pray to a
woman
and elevate her above Christ
“Hail Mary Mother of God”
the irony of a red-pill catholic is distinct.”
I don’t want to tease Catholics about what they believe but I have had these same thoughts. Earl coming and repeatedly pointing out Mary as the model for women to conform to has the worst appearance of pedestellzation that I regularly see here. He seems to be mourning the fact that women aren’t measuring up to the Catholic understanding of Mary. It is like the bizarre flip side of what women do to men when they say that we should act like Personal Jesus. The other thing I’ve noticed is how to Earl’s mind everything would be fine and women would start getting prepared for their Marian pedestals if only they were properly led as she was.
@Mark
I have respect for the Virgin Mary…after all, she is a fellow Jew……..as are ALL authors of the New Testament!
Out of curiosity is Mary a common Jewish name?
@I Art Laughing
fem. proper name, Old English Maria, Marie, “mother of Jesus,” from Latin Maria, from Greek Mariam, Maria, from Aramaic Maryam, from Hebrew Miryam, sister of Moses (Ex. xv.), of unknown origin, said to mean literally “rebellion.”
And yes, it is fairly popular amongst Jews (and Muslims, too).
Thanks MarcusD, ironic about the whole “rebellion” thing.
@Bradford please stop allowing the sick to advise great people like you. The audio file here is the high-speed train to destruction of marriage by the “man” that FOTF has put in charge of ‘marriage formation’ — be ready to vomit when you hear his voice.
@Ferriker it’s ‘the’ Greg Smalley in the clip – I’m looking for another clip I heard yesterday where he was begging his wife for input, and on live radio… she hurt his feelings. You’ll enjoy it.
Perhaps Amish is the way to have a Christian marriage. Eh, rmaxGenActivePUA says:
http://rmaxgenactivepua.wordpress.com/
I’m under the impression that the concern is about the Christian Marriage in a “Post Feminist World” with the Seculars winning.
@Solomon
“”Catholics worship, and pray to a woman and elevate her above Christ “Hail Mary Mother of God”””
Thank you……this what I meant by my comment.You just stated it so much more eloquently….l*
@I Art Laughing
“”Out of curiosity is Mary a common Jewish name?””
Yes common enough. I know a few Jewess’s named Mary. But,I do not think anymore than in Christianity………..Mary did come before Jesus……..Her husband “Joesph” would be more common name among men……and there also Mary Magdalene……My name “Mark” is my real name….not that many Jews have a first name like that…l*……but,I do know a Jewish friend named Luke….and a couple named John.
The Hail Mary is a challenging prayer, nobody ever said religion was easy.
The Hail Mary is a challenging prayer, nobody ever said religion was easy.
Prayers that include talking to a dead woman about her womb seem blue-pillish to me.
Pingback: Without God, All Ideas Are Equally Good: From God to Solipsism | newthink
I was a Catholic until I realized there was not room in the same church for my first wife and I at the same time.
While things aren’t as clear in Mexico, in the US, no one actually worshiped Mary. The famous Hail Mary prayer specifically asked Mary to pray for us. “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.” How could and why would a person placed above God, pray to God for us?
Among all the strange things found in various religions, the concept that the Mother of Jesus was taken intact at death into Heaven and can be asked to pray for us, does not set records for weirdness. My wife’s ancestors ripping hearts out of living people does, though.
“Speaking of irrational solipsism….
Funny how people’s “own internal morality” always somehow leads them to doing whatever the hell is in their own best selfish interests and fleshly passions. Every time.
Feminine morality: I really feel like doing this, so therefore it must not be wrong.”
Personally I feel there are very few things that are “wrong” in a general sense, and usually the things that are wrong are the things that end up hurting other people. On the topic of “fleshly passions,” I don’t think it’s wrong to have sex, but I do think that cheating and rape are wrong.
The key to being true to yourself though is to accept the consequences of your actions. If you want to have a bunch of casual sex, don’t get mad when someone else doesn’t want to date you because they think you’re a huge slut. If you want to spend high school playing video games and going to Ren Faire with your friends, don’t get mad when you aren’t elected prom queen. Et cetera.
I’m way too old to look at other people and tell them they’re doing it wrong, part of being true to yourself is choosing who you want to associate with rather than trying to fix everyone else to your standards. The problem is not with people doing what they want, but rather with their expectations that everyone else is obligated to approve. Some of the best, brightest, most successful people I know are the ones who stay true to themselves and genuinely enjoy their interests and hobbies, but more importantly don’t care when someone else criticizes those hobbies as “not cool enough.”
But yeah, I do think most people act selfishly, in general, and the point I was making was that you should actually discover who your self is and who you want your self to be, rather than superficially saying “I want this” on a whim.
If you want to have a bunch of casual sex, don’t get mad when someone else doesn’t want to date you because they think you’re a huge slut. If you want to spend high school playing video games and going to Ren Faire with your friends, don’t get mad when you aren’t elected prom queen. Et cetera.
I’m often amazed, stunned even, as to how people don’t make these connections between actions and consequences – especially the first one you listed. One particular pet peeve of mine is the conflation between forgiveness and acceptance, often used as an override.
Exactly. I think a lot of people have a fake, superficial idea of “self confidence” that shatters as soon as it’s challenged. They will claim they are proud to be a slut and they don’t care what anyone thinks…then they get offended and defensive when someone calls them a slut in a way they don’t like.
If that’s your self identity, fine, whatever, own it, don’t just claim it then decide anyone who doesn’t see it in a positive light is “judging you.”
IBB
The Toronto cop was not telling them what to do. He simply suggested that if they dress like sluts, they increase their chances of getting raped.
You appear to be assuming that the slutwalkers heard the Toronto cop as a man would hear .
He said
IF they dress like sluts
THEN they increase their probability of being attacked
ELSE they should dress differently or restrict their movements.
You hear some friendly advice. But you’re not living in girl-world.
The slut-walk girls totally misunderstood what he was saying if they thought he was telling them what to do.
The sluts heard “you should…”. They heard a man telling them what to do. Unacceptable. Doubly so for those with daddy issues, a large and growing number BTW.
IBB, you apparently still do not understand that men and women are different in ways that are not obvious, but very important.
I don’t suppose Dalrock wants us to rehash the Reformation here, so I’ll try to keep this brief: Catholics don’t worship Mary; we venerate her. There’s a clear and careful difference between the two, between dulia, the honor we give to humans worthy of respect, including hyperdulia, the honor we pay to Mary as the most worthy of those humans, versus latria, the honor due only to God. Do some Catholics cross that line sometimes? Probably so. If they do, they’re wrong, and Catholic doctrine has always made that clear.
I can’t say it nearly as well as Bishop Fulton Sheen: “It may be objected: ‘Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.’ But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men.”
By the way, for guys coming from a red-pill perspective and worried that we pedestalize Mary: It is precisely for her obedience that we venerate her. From her Fiat (Let it be done) at the words of the angel in the Annunciation, to her “Do whatever he tells you” at Cana, to Jesus’s “Woman, behold thy son” on the Cross, her life is a study in perfect obedience to God’s will. When feminist nuns started taking over the vocations offices, one type of man they started rejecting was anyone with “too strong a devotion to Mary.” They knew that devotion to Mary went hand-in-hand with obedience to proper authority, so those men would be the last ones who would push for women priests or other radical changes they wanted. The Catholic homes that are the most patriarchal, with the most attention to headship and submission (and the largest numbers of kids, by the way), are the ones with the most statues and pictures of Mary, and where the Rosary is said regularly. This is not a coincidence.
If that seems like a contradiction, here’s a statue some traditional Catholic women have in their homes. It’s called the “Kitchen Madonna.” Could there be a better model for a wife to follow?
http://goldscheiderofvienna.com/cart.php?target=image&action=product_image&id=325
Good stuff Cail, coming from a lifetime of Christ without Catholicism it does all seem pretty alien to me and I can be highly prone to ignorance. I’ve seen “goddess” cult crap from pagans all the way into Evangelicals and Pentecostals. I see it play out in the mystery religions dating back to Isis and Ishtar. I also have seen the Catholic predilection towards syncretism and incorporation that they seem to have borrowed from the Romans what seems at times a thinly disguised adoption of pagan gods as “saints”. Like you said no need to rehash the reformation.
I do find an interesting psychology here apparently present in Earl where he repeatedly trolls Mary as some kind of anodyne to the woes of feminine rebellion. Maybe someone should spell out a robust model for women based on the Marian model if they think it would be helpful and how a red-pill husband could help his wife make a practical application of it.
The gripe is that the overall message of the bible is sola deus Gloria. There no provision for veneration of anyone but god. Devotion to anyone but god sounds borderline idolatrous. The tension is always there.
after reading this blog for over a year, i finally digested the red pill. I can finally see it everywhere in the media and in my personal and professional relationships with women. everyday i go out and see the hamster wheel spinning and women finally make sense to me. I cant believe that women finally make sense to me. I finally have the right numbers to the equation to proof it.
@oblivion
Congrats!……..That is great to hear!
@I Art Laughing
One thing that I have noticed among RC’s versus Evangelical or Pentecostal etc. and that is the use of blasphemy.Not “F” shots but, “Jesus F****** Christ”,”Jesus H.Christ” “For Christ’s Sake”…etc.I do not appreciate that when it is around me.I have asked the RC’s more than once.”Why do you take God’s name in vain?”……”what did he do to you where you have to blasphemous his name?……they never have an answer. I usually tell them that “I do not appreciate you blaspheming a relative of mine”….They always have a shocked look! Now I have a “foul mouth”..”F-that….F-This”…etc..etc.But,I do not use blasphemy. I feel this to be very wrong.
@herbie
“‘Perhaps Amish is the way to have a Christian marriage””
About 1 1/2 hour drive from me there is a Mennonite Community(Amish). I admire the hell out of those people.They work hard…they ask no one for anything! I go to their community quite often on a weekend to visit their markets.The best pies I have ever eaten…par none!….Along with homemade Jams,licorice,breads etc.etc.When they see me coming they know I am going to drop some money to them and I load up on homemade foods till my trunk is full as well as the backseat…..drop some off to my parents as well….and they love the food! All grown by themselves..and baked by themselves.I try to eat Kosher and it does not get any more Kosher in the Christian world than this!Try finding that anywhere else in this country.I do not hear the “anti-male” garbage from the women’s mouths.They revere their men! I also asked out a Mennonite Woman about 2 years ago…she was a widow.I ended up staying in their community till about midnight.Everyone was really nice to me…But,her father was not to eager about the idea of his daughter going out with a Jew…Which would be chaperoned!……Oh Well!
@ Mark. Plain women are not completely insulated from the feminist influence. Lacking TV’s and radios help and the culture of respecting the men for their work helps. Whenever we’d build a house or raise a barn the men would always ALWAYS eat first, elderly men first. Children would eat with their mothers. It made boys of 8 or 9 try to find ways to be of help to the work effort to know that they would be honored at meal time and be allowed to eat with the men. Our society has broken down terribly in the past century.
@I Art Laughing
“”Plain women are not completely insulated from the feminist influence””
I agree….but ,they are one hell of alot more respectable than the modern day Fem-Nazi.Some do leave the community.I admire them for their work ethic and dedication to their way of living.It is like walking back to Civil War times.
@I Art Laughing
You want to see how sick our world is.I read this the morning in the Toronto Star and was almost sick to my stomach.I hope they catch the person and do the same to them….then put a bullet in their head!
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/08/28/mystery_swirls_around_reports_of_chinese_boy_6_whose_eyes_were_gouged_out.html
America is a secular country; pity America: When we acquire a new Monarch, God ordains him or her, through the person of the then Archbishop of Canterbury; you, merely have elections ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, whom God certainly did not appoint. When you enter a Court of Law in England you will see, centrally placed above where the Judges sit, a plaque. In Norman French (just so you know who really runs the place) and at the bottom of the plaque are the words ‘Dieu et mon Droit’ – clearly God is in charge here too, and just to emphasise the point, above those words are two animals standing on their hind-legs, and facing each other, one being a Unicorn and the other that mythical animal, The Lion – well I have never seen one, at least not in court. It is an offence to commit perjury when giving evidence (although every one does) but before so doing one takes a Testament in ones right hand (unless one is Jewish, Hindu, Moslem or Jedi) and recites the words on the card which are ‘I swear by Almighty God, to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth’; – and no, one does NOT add ‘so help me gawd’: non-believers merely affirm that they will be true to their feelings. Personally I always think that taking the Testament and in a clear but matter-of-fact voice intoning the Oath adds something to the quality of the Testimony. In practise, when examining a Member of the Cloth (provided they are C of E of course), the oath is dispensed with as being unnecessary. The evidence of a parson is regarded as beyond worthwhile contradiction; it is only us poor sinners whose evidence might be otherwise improved by an appeal to the deity.
One has to feel sorry for those aspiring guides who would like to affirm their fealty to the Almighty and to their Sovereign, who are now being deprived of the opportunity, so as to pander to the self-centeredness of a few or rather the Dyke lesbian-feminists now running the group.
@Cail Corishev August 28, 2013 at 8:14 pm
So there were two people in perfect obedience to God’s will, Mary and Jesus? Did Mary sometimes sin or did she remain sinless like Jesus?
There are two things I recommend to younger people. First, it is a bad idea to write or talk about things you know nothing about. Not applicable on this thread, at least not yet. I am not done reading the whole thread, heh, heh.
The second thing is do not assume what is true for you is true for everyone. People are different, and what is true for you may or may not be true for all.
This does apply to this thread, the part on multi-tasking.
I have encountered the same bad information on Cartalk forums, that no one can do more than one thing at a time and do them well.
I am now 71 years old, which makes a difference. When I was 25 or so, I would watch TV; read a book; and talk to someone; all at the same time and miss not a word. It used to really make my family angry with me. They assumed I was not paying attention. I was.
It matters not if my brain was switching very fast, as opposed to parallel processing. The switching was fast enough that I missed nothing.
Now, at 71, due to the controversy on Cartalk forums, I did some testing, and I would say I am down to about 1.5 things at the same time. That means to me when I am driving long distance (I have driven 250,000 miles since I retired) out in the country, I can listen to a talk show on the radio and still drive safely. When I get in a congested area, I need to turn off the radio. Or, tell my wife not to talk to me for a while. And, I do.
And, based on some comments here, most of you are in the same boat, whether you know it or not. Since your comments are based on your opinion of yourselves, this becomes obvious. If you don’t think anyone can multi-task, that tells me you cannot do so. It is good you know yourself. Just don’t assume others cannot do so.
This difference also may explain why so many people are absolutely dangerous talking on the phone while driving. Others are not so much, especially out in the country in sparse traffic.
“I do find an interesting psychology here apparently present in Earl where he repeatedly trolls Mary as some kind of anodyne to the woes of feminine rebellion.”
Because she is the example of the anti-Eve. If you want to give women an example of changing things around…there is one.
Opus, for years I was a Boy Scout leader. Not Scoutmaster, but often Assistant Scoutmaster.
I also taught Citizenship in the Nation. When I explained the Declaration of Independence to the boys, a key point was that the D of I for the first time stated that governments were created by men, and not by God. Thus, if a King did not treat people correctly, they had the moral and religous right to get rid of the King and make their own government. And, they were not thus going to Hell.
The traditional view that kings were ordained by God meant to disobey the king was a sin against God and you were going to Hell. Sort of like on a previous thread and I described the Destroyers, one of the posters, rather wrapped up in himself, said I had sinned against God when I dared to criticize him. Hee, hee.
I still can’t remember what they call that pyschological syndrome. The first thing that comes to mind is Delusions of Grandeur, but I don’t think that is right in his case. I just can’t remember the correct name.
@I R’t Laughing
How about the Angelus format in which the Hail Mary is said three times, in a call and response format?
L: The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
R: And she conceived of the Holy Ghost.
Hail Mary…
L: Behold the handmaid of the Lord.
R: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.
Hail Mary…
L: And the Word was made flesh.
R: And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary…
L: Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R: That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ
Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we to whom the
Incarnation of Christ, Thy Son, was made known by the message of an angel, may by His
Passion and Cross + be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ
our Lord. Amen.
——
If you look at it the right way, you can see that the Angelus is about the Incarnation of Our Lord, and that by Mother Mary obeying God and then praying for us as Christians, we eventually see God’s glory via the cross, suffering and resurrection. It’s like Mary gets out of the way for the Lord’s work. It seems that the Angelus is more popular for Anglicans than the rosary is… Virgin Mary isn’t just for Roman Catholics, she is also quite popular with Anglicans, as I’ve already alluded.
A.J.P.
Honestly, I prefer Ruth. There is also a lot more actually written in the Bible about her. Esther is also a really good example.
**Let us pray.
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ, Thy Son, was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross + be brought to the glory of His resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
FOrmatting COrrection
…+ means make the sign of the cross…
@I R’t Laughing
The problem, of course, with dwelling too much on the Old Testament is that it doesn’t advance the Cross as strongly. Europe wasn’t Christianized by scriptural exegesis but by the Mass and making Christ and the Eucharist central to worship. I know there are a lot of people, here, with serious “low church” convictions and want fire and brimstone rather than Holy Tradition… so I won’t push it, much. Just know that there are reasons for the “way things are”.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
@Anon 71
Your founding fathers were too enamoured of Locke – it is true we executed Charles in 1649 but quickly realised our mistake and took back his son – then we had another revolution in 1689 which we christened Glorious (as not a shot was fired and no one was executed) and invited the Germans to rule us. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all in his Leviathan and we have had to endure the Huns ever since.
I believe Dalrock is Catholic, and one must expect on his blog to be exposed to Catholic doctrine. And, expect to show some civility towards it. That doesn’t mean you have to become Catholic, though.
I was raised Catholic. I left when I realized any church which would welcome my first fiend with open arms was not a place I wanted to be.
Some years passed, and I worked at times with an outstanding Catholic intellectual, who tried to bring me back into the fold. When I told him what my ex-fiend was like, he told me it sounded like a good case for a church annulment.
When the new catechism came out, I bought a copy and looked it over. I realized then the Church and I were forever alienated.
Somewhere down in the 1800’s of doctrinal points (I am going by memory as far as numbers, they may be wrong) was the killer. It is stated that if your priest tells you something is a sin, and you do not agree, you are guilty of two sins. The sin is still a sin, even if you don’t think so, but your refusal to accept your priest’s determination it is a sin is your second sin.
Hohoho hahaha heeheehee. As Markymark says, you can’t make this stuff up.
And, this is allegedly true even if your priest is a boy-sticker or has some other horrid immorality. And, even if another priest tells you differently.
Yep, no free will at all. Shut your stupid mouth and obey like a robot whichever ****head priest is assigned to your church at the moment.
No, thanks.
The old Baltimore Catechism which was taught me as a child said to be a sin you had to know it was a sin, and choose to do it anyway. I am most definitely not going to enter any exotic doctrinal debates on this, but that makes sense Like a crime under law, it requires criminal intent, so to speak.
This sort of blind, stupid obedience might have made sense when most people were totally ignorant and illiterate, but not when everyone can read the Bible for themselves. In less time, than it takes to be a medical doctor, men of every moral code are converted into God? No, I don’t think so.
We don’t need Martin Luther with his hammer and nails. We need Machine Gun Kelly this time to write the letter in the wood of the cathedral door, heh, heh.
And we need the church to come up with a model which makes it clear that indeed the parish priest is not always or maybe even often providing true divine leadership, and teach people how to make their own moral decisions when the priests are screwed up in the head.
Somewhere when I still attended the RC church, a priest told us that. That we all needed to learn how to make all our own moral decisions.
Part of the problem is the priests taking ownership of all the sacraments. They have Holy Orders. Married people own matrimony. The priests tell us they control matrimony. How do we know this is true? Well, they tell us so.
At one time, matrimony was controlled by the family. If your bride’s father sent her into your bedroom, you were married in the eyes of God and man. The penalty for adultery was death.
The clergy later insisted they decide who could marry and who was married, and who could divorce. Later, the governments realized there was control involved, and money. So, they took it over from the clergy. This has worked out really well, hasn’t it?
@Earl
“”Because she is the example of the anti-Eve””
Good point.I never thought about it like that.
As a Catholic I do find is suspicious that the popularizing of the rapture, the immaculate conception and the Book of Mormon (published) all occurred in 1830. Some demonic spirit giving visions to people perhaps? Of course these doctrines existed prior to 1830, but that was the year they gained widespread attention. It is eerily similar to the political trifecta of 1913, income tax, direct election of senators, and the establishment of the federal reserve.
I’ll just leave this right here…
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23972785/mormon-women-push-attend-priesthood-meeting
[D: Thanks.]
About Solipsism – I’d like to share an very amusing story related to Solipsism (I think).
My former client dumped me because his wife didn’t feel right about me. I met him and his wife for about 20 minutes as they were leaving for a vacation.
I had this client for 3 years. I serviced this client flawlessly for three years. I never over-billed this client for his work or the personal conversations he kept inducing over the phone which are nice but ultimately eat up my time. I went above and beyond for this client in every possible way for three years.
Then, in a matter of 20 minutes or less his wife convinces him that I didn’t “feel right” and that something “just wasn’t right”. I have NO idea where she gets off saying that. He tells me he “doesn’t see it that way” but has to respect his wife’s decision.
If I lose an account I want it to be because of ME. Something I DID WRONG. Not the clients wife’s “feelings” after meeting me the first time for 20 minutes! And most of that conversation was not even with her. It was with her Husband!
Well. What’ happened? Who knows. But five years later they are out of business. Perhaps he came to rely on his wife’s fickle feelings and judgemental opinions as a matter of company policy!
And then – off to Bankruptcy court!
Opus:
Allah runs your country now.
Nice link Soloman. And to think Romney was the great republican hope.
@The One
“”the Book of Mormon””
I have read the Book of Mormon……the one thing that I found very interesting,and that I believe to be correct is that the “the Native Americans(Indians) are descendants of the Jews”…..Now the humanist or secular version states that “they descended via the land bridge”…which is Alaska region.Being a Jew,I do not believe very much that the secular humanists have to say.I do believe that section of the Book of Mormon concerning the Indians to be viable.
He was. There was NO other GOP candidate who was as well spoken nor as intelligent as Mitt Romney. He was clearly the best in a mediocre field. It wasn’t even close. Santorum may have been a nice guy but his thinking behind so many of the things he said made me want to support Obama!
Forget the religious aspect (I did) Romney was clearly the best GOP candidate for President that there has been since Ronnie. I say that because both on national security and the economy, he had a clue. He was the only GOP candidate that did. He knew what he was talking about, particularly about health insurance. He understood what free riders were, what made insurance so expensive, what dangers Islam posed this nation, and what we needed to do about the debt and illegal immigration. His reasoning about stapling a Green Card to every PhD in Computer science earned by a foreign student in an American University was spot on, a pure wealth creator/tax generator for the United States. He had a firm and complete understanding of ALL OF IT….
…and we were too stupid to elect him. I blame single women for this one. Were it not for single women voting ONLY the interest of their own womb, he would be President.
@IBB
“”There was NO other GOP candidate who was as well spoken nor as intelligent as Mitt Romney. He was clearly the best in a mediocre field.””
I agree.If I could have voted in your country it would be Romney hands down.
“”both on national security and the economy, he had a clue.””
Agreed!…..but,rest assured…he would still be under the control of “The Eastern Establishment”
Again,from my point of view,he was by far the best.Obama could not even stand in the same room as Romney!
Romney lost.
If the best candidate is the one that loses, then maybe we need a new definition of “best.”
I no longer vote in federal elections, but IMO it depends on your perspective. Romney might have been the better candidate for the country, but Obama is the better President for Christianity. Electing Romney would have legitimized a false religion while electing Obama is now leading to separating the wheat from the chaff via obamacare. Let us see who will burn incense on the altar of death.
No, we just need to repeal the 19th Amendment. Women don’t vote, we have Romney.
Opus, I suspect the attraction you have to that grand Stalinist hymn that has recently (in my sort of dog-years, i.e, probably decades ago) been reinstated as the official Russian anthem (and call-sign of Radio Moscow, as it always used to be) ..
.. is that it is cribbed almost directly from some long-forgotten light opera of the Risorgimento.
I can’t lay my hand on it right now, but I dare say the Interweb Device has it secreted somewhere about its vestments. Think of, for example, the intermezzo from Cavalleria rusticana. That sort of thing.
In much the same way that “O Tannenbaum” was suborned by the IIIrd or IVth International, don’t recall.
Is this what the mystical types mean by “cultural marxism”?
@Tam the Bam
Rustic Chivalry (or anything like it) it is not. Neither is it DSCH but one of his colleagues whose name escapes me.
Ugh. Dementia beckons. I meant the Preludio. And only select passages of that. It’s more about the key and chord sequences than anything specific. The “flava”, as the young people have it. Eventually the relevant work will pop up in my rapidly failing hindbrain, like marsh-gas. But too late, I fear.
To revert to the OP, the chief executive of Girlguiding UK came from the Family Planning Association, a non-profit organisation which amongst other things advises women where to get an abortion. If my daughters were young enough, I would ban them from the Guides because the fish rots from the head, as a certain leftist used to tell us.
@Mark said: “I have read the Book of Mormon……the one thing that I found very interesting,and that I believe to be correct is that the “the Native Americans(Indians) are descendants of the Jews”
This has been proven 100% by DNA testing. Graves of people buried prior to the discovery of the New World and their DNA was tested. There wasn’t any evidence of Middle Eastern DNA. In every instance the DNA tracked back to East Asia.
There is a documentary about the project, but I can’t remember the name at the moment (look, you’ll find it). It was not a small project. They examined a huge number or corpses in North, Central, and South American and the result was always the same. No Middle Eastern DNA.
Native Americans are biologically descended from East Asians–primarily upper East Asians.
I meant “This has been proven 100% FALSE by DNA testing.”
The traditional view that kings were ordained by God meant to disobey the king was a sin against God and you were going to Hell.
You got that precisely backwards, Anon71. The traditional view that kings were ordained by God meant that if the king disobeyed divine and/or natural law he was no longer the king. It was a limitation on the power of kings. Much like the U.S. Constitution, in fact: what was originally planned to be a limitation on the sovereign’s power was debased and, with much creative “interpretation” and “liveliness”, ended up being used to promote the very power it was intended to limit.
@8to12:
Romney lost.
If the best candidate is the one that loses, then maybe we need a new definition of “best.”
Easy: The definition of “best” candidate for political office (i.e., sociopolitically-sanctioned organized crime) is no candidate at all.
Quoted:
@ innocentbystanderboston
I liked Paul Ryan but Mitt Romney was an establishment party candidate i.e. and would’ve economically destroyed this entry in the same way Bush did. The lesser of two evils is not a choice.
I think almost everyone loved Paul Ryan.
Mitt went against the “establishment” by doing as well as he did to thwart Senator McCain back in 2008. Winning all the GOP debates and showing the world that McCain was like your old simpleton grandfather, that was “cutting in line” so to speak. So I’m going to have to disagree that he was the establishment candidate. In 2012, Governor Rick Perry was the establishment candidate (whom Romney also dismantled in the debates, thus disqualifying him as a serious Presidential candidate.) I actually believe that Mitt Romney was running for President for all the right reasons, the primary being to leave this country a better place than he found it. Unfortunately, women vote, so…..
I am not sure if this meets the literal definition of solipsism, but the video below does concern religion and womankind’s complete self-absorption. Pay special attention beginning at the 2:17 mark where we learn that women and God are equals.
@8to12
“This has been proven 100% FALSE by DNA testing.”
This makes sense.If you look at Asians they do resemble the Native Americans.
“innocentbystanderboston”
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are scum. Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar are the viable candidates which will never be elected. I don’t vote for puppet candidates the establishment puts in front of me.
Michael,
IMHO, Ron Paul would be an AWESOME candidate for President if (and only if) National Security and Foreign affairs weren’t part of the President’s job. But it is. So he isn’t qualified.
Principles are wonderful provided you can have them and still do your job. Such is not the case for a few of the principles held by a very smart Ron Paul if the job is POTUS. I admire Dr Paul a great deal, but my admiration does not mean that I can look past all his leadership faults (and they are legion.) Ron Paul has never read the Koran, nor does he know ANYTHING about Islam (fundamental or otherwise.) If you want to be President of the United States in the post 9-11 world and if you want to run as a Republican, you need to at least acknowledge the danger that is posed by Fundamental Islam. Ron Paul refuses to even have that conversation.
Therefore, he can not be President.
IBB, Romney/Ryan received fewer votes than McCain/Palin why do you suppose that is?
Has Barack Obama ever “acknowledged” the danger of “fundamental” Islam?
For my part, I assume Obama was raised, through some stretch of his boyhood, as a Muslim, or at least was formally schooled in Islam.
Rev. Wright claims Obama came to him more conversant with Islam than with Christianity. Obama appears partial to every Middle Eastern manifestation of more hardcore Islam against less fervent governments.
But we continue to patrol Kandahar, it must be granted.
I-A-L,
I have my theory that it has to do with a candidate running against a incumbant President. (If history serves me correctly, the only Democrat President not to win re-election was Jimmy Carter.) But I believe Romney won more electoral votes than McCain. I am curious as to why you suppose Romney got less votes?
The Democrat doesn’t have to acknowledge it. The Republican does.
We expect MORE of the GOP candidate than we do the Democrat. It is what it is.
Rev. Wright claims Obama came to him more conversant with Islam than with Christianity.
A claim that means exactly zero (or less). Just what the heck does “Reverend” Wright know about Christianity?
IBB, because he wasn’t as “viable” of a candidate as McCain? Would you suggest another metric besides popular vote?
@Tam the Bam
I have, to my chagrin, been known to be mistaken about certain matters, so perhaps I am here, but I think I can truly say that no one has previously mistaken the beginning of Cav and Pag for the Russian National Anthem. As for chord sequence, ‘that don’t impress me much’ – all of Vivaldi has the same (Street of London) chord sequence, and thus I am sure an analysis of the anthem will reveal it to be identical to almost any tune you care to mention (I’m guessing I, VI, IV, V).
I once had a conversation with a non-musician who asserted to me that all of the great Abba tunes were built on a (doubtless secret) sequence of harmonies – come to think of it Under Attack is I (V) VI (III) IV V. Funny no one has been able these past thirty years to reproduce their greatness (they are all basically Protestant hymn tunes I’d say).
Outright plagiarism (yes I am referring to you Andrew Lloyd Webber – endorse that royalty check to Mendelsohn!) is another matter, although My Sweet Lord is somehow different from He’s so Fine – pity George Harrison.
Look I like Senator McCain, but he was never a viable candidate. We expect our GOP candidates to have a clue about economics and McCain didn’t. He even admitted that. Moreover, I don’t think McCain got a single state in the 2008 election that Romney didn’t get in 2012. Yeah, Romney got less popular votes but the electoral college (which is all that matters) was closer for Romney than it was for McCain. And that was with the trailer-trash ignorance vote that McCain secured with his completely unviable running mate.
> And that was with the trailer-trash ignorance vote that
> McCain secured with his completely unviable running mate.
Raises hand.
I voted based strictly on entertainment value, and you couldn’t beat that Geezer-MILF ticket for that.
Yeah, I think you just described right there why McCain got more votes than Romney. The comprehensive bashing of anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter by establishment Republicans. Keep running to the center and mocking anyone who supports smaller government and they will surely keep losing.
Sarah Palin supporters are “trailer-trash” ignorance voters? I can tell where you get your information from.
Anyone that will sit here and complain about what McCain doesn’t know about the economy and calls Palin “unviable” in light of what resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t have a whole lot of credibility in my book.
I voted for McCain in 2008. That said, please tell me that you don’t for one second believe that Governor Sarah Palin was the least bit Presidential. Please tell me you don’t believe that.
Excuse me, I never said President Obama was a viable candidate. He most certainly isn’t. I have agreed with exactly two things he has done in his entire Presidency: Drone Strikes in the Middle East are good, and shooting those Somali Pirates on Easter Sunday in 2009 was good. That’s it. His executing UBL, McCain would have given that order. Everyone would have given that order, Obama gets no props from me for that. The economy has sucked and will continue to suck so long as Obama is our President. If Romney were President, I guarantee you, our unemployment rate in these United States would be at 3% or lower as of right now.
But the fact that President Obama is a basketcase does not excuse the fact that Senator John McCain picked an empty headed bimbo to be his damn running mate. Two wrongs most certainly do not make a right I-A-L.
Sarah Palin may be a lovely lady and by all accounts, a very good mother to her children and her grand-child. But a Vice President or (gasp) a President? No. NFW. That doesn’t mean I like President Obama more, but I don’t expect the Democratic Party to nominate a viable candidate. I expect more of the GOP. I hold them to a higher standard and in 2008, they let us down…
Romney’s running mate was excellent. Romney was an outstanding candidate. But if your moral imperative is to stop (at all costs) the legitimization of a false religion that is Latter Day Saints (even if it means re-electing Barack Obama) then we are all collectively weaker and poorer for it. It isn’t Romney’s fault he was born into an LDS family. He may have an IQ of 140, but he was brainwashed (spiritually) at birth.
Romney did better than McCain in nearly all demographics. But still lost the election due to the overwhelming crush of single women who voted for Obama over Romney. Tells you all you need to know.
Right.
Tells me repeal the 19th (and also the 26th) Amendments.
I would pick Palin over either Bush and twice on Sunday. If you want to talk about ignorance IBB, one needs to look no farther than what you are “sourcing” your opinion of her on. In our current “wag the dog” media circus they make Obama look Presidential and everyone else look like an absolute kook, just like they successfully did to Romney. If you want to turn to Fey, Stewart and Couric for your idea of what makes a viable POTUS then you get exactly what you deserve.
Find me a women that the left hasn’t spattered as a “bimbo” or a “nutcase” that isn’t also a lefty. Quit drinking from the toilet IBB, it’s unsanitary.
No they didn’t. The media could NEVER make Romney look like a kook. Ron Paul looks like a kook because he IS a kook.
They made Romney look HEARTLESS. Remember that whole “vulture capitalism” crap? Oh no, of course not, I keep forgetting you were absent for the two years 2011-2012 when the media campaign did all that they could to secure President Obama’s re-election. Well let me clue you in on something, they attacked Romney on vulture capitalism (without actually SAYING what vulture capitalism IS.) It was brilliant. They said so much without actually saying ANYTHING that way they weren’t accountable for anything and could not be called wrong. Brilliant. They had to do that because Romney had ZERO skeletons in th ecloset, had a perfect marriage, a perfect family, no black marks. Nothing to attack.
Romney a Kook? No. Palin is a kook.
I love Sarah Palin as a person. She is by all accounts a great wife and mother. I would have married her. That said, she was not Presidential. Stop saying she was. Her ideas on this country and how it relates to Alaksa were batshit crazy. She is not that bright and knows exactly ZERO about foreign affairs (and not that much more about economics.)
The media did everything it could to make President Obama look Presidential (they still do, they have to) but you and I both know he isn’t. We can see the man for what he is, a very good husband and (by all accounts) a great dad to his two daughters. But beyond that, meh. We’ve had much-MUCH better Presidents. Clinton was filandering scumbag and even HE was a better President. That isn’t saying much now is it?
So Romney likes to strap dogs to his roof and doom cancer ridden wives to shortened lives, he thinks that 47% of the population is basically lost. How about I start spewing the MSM party line about Romney at you? Would you think that was ignorant of me? When people such as yourself buy that believing in smaller government equates to kookdom it leaves me thinking that you are ignorant. Could you maybe describe what ideas in particular were “batshit crazy”? Funny thing is that I voted for her 3 times and was never very hot on her becoming the VP nominee as I had a pretty good idea what was in store for her.
Romney will never win. Nobody LIKE Romney will ever win because what Romney and Christie and his ilk are is just a Democrat-light. They will lose to Democrats and NEVER get the support they need from people who believe in less gubmint. Making fun of Palin and Paul (and their ideas) are just symptoms of the disease that will see the disappearance of the Republicans as a national party.
IBB: “But the fact that President Obama is a basketcase does not excuse the fact that Senator John McCain picked an empty headed bimbo to be his damn running mate.”
So IBB, you’re apparently all about marrying “bimbos”:
“I love Sarah Palin as a person. She is by all accounts a great wife and mother. I would have married her”
-15 for consistency
Have any thoughts on Bachmann? Is she a “bimbo” too or just a “kook”?
I-A-L,
Don’t you think you might have a problem with your argument condeming Mitt Romney if you have to throw in an event that happened in his family life involving a cross-country road trip in 1982? Forget it, don’t answer that question since I know you wont anyway.
If she was the only cancer patient in the world who lost a job (or had a spouse that lost a job) then your argument might have merit. And the 47% argument Romney made is an accurate one. Go back just one thread on Dalrock’s blog, check my comment about 40% of the voters of this country. These people have never paid a bill in their life. And they are never going to, they are not credit worthy. In fact, they are not really worthy or responsible of managing or paying anything. These people were (largely) not going to vote for Willard Mitt Romney no matter what he said or did…
….which was his point, and he’s right. He was wrong to say it, but what he said was right.
There was nothing that Romney did that could have helped his campaign more, nor hurt it less. He lost that election because single women vote. And since women are not moral agents, if they aren’t married (and told by their husbands who to vote for) they will continue down the path of the Life of Julia. They will continue voting for entitlement and their wombs to be nothing but death chambers. I don’t see anything that will change that, anything that could help Christie in 2016. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear we will have eight more years of a Clinton Presidency.
So what you are saying is that we are all doomed?
That’s usually my line.
Since 1920 (since the moment women could vote nationally) coupled with no-fault-divorce.
I’ll close with this…
The majority voting largess, single women.
I’ve not yet meet the Protestant that recoils from the Virgin Mary like a vampire. Earl are you a grown ass man or a 9 year old? My money is one 9
The difference between Romney and Obama is worth almost as much as a bucket of piss. That’s why romney lost. He was/ is weak and useless offering the same horseshoe Obama did, but with a slightly different spin.
Well ending with de Tocqueville was classy at least.
Pingback: Without God, All Ideas Are Equally Good: From God to Solipsism | theprogressiveworldview
@James B. Oakes
>>You got that precisely backwards, Anon71. The traditional view that kings were ordained by God meant that if the king disobeyed divine and/or natural law he was no longer the king.
Normally when someone disagrees with me I like to check it out. In this case, I have read a variety of history books all my life, and have no idea where to start. This is the first time ever anyone ever told me the divine ordination actually made it easy to get rid of evil kings, as opposed to impossible.
The people were not told this. They were told it was a sin not to obey their king.
So, frankly, I am not buying it.
the trailer-trash ignorance vote
Lets lump in the apathetic vote and call that combo a demographic. Its a HUGE one. The left has done a brilliant job of somehow painting themselves as highly intelligent, and the opposition as dumb rednecks. When leftists speak, they say very little, which is what IBB has done, tossing the “everybody knows she was a clueless woman” stuff. Its the “in” thing to say. Its not unlike the guy who famously said of Nixons election “How did he win? No one I know voted for him. ”
Ask yourself why the left is ape shit pissed about voter IDs. Ask yourself , if there was ever (there wont be, its a thought experiment) a poll test….say just 3 or 4 questions like, Name the sitting Pres and VP, name your senators from your state, name your HOR representative, and your governor. If that test was in place, which party would suffer most? Consider that women and minorities are vast left constituencies, and they both groups happen to occupy in large numbers the ignorant and apathetic demographic. Apathetic is proven by the outrage that someone has to go get and ID. Ignorance, anecdotal…..women’s polling shot way up in 2000, for Gore, after the convention. Why? Women liked how he kissed Tipper onstage.
Trailer trash indeed.
the fact that President Obama is a basketcase does not excuse the fact that Senator John McCain picked an empty headed bimbo to be his damn running mate.”
Hmm, must have heard that somewhere eh? Matt Damon maybe? This is not analysis, its not a critique, and its not intelligent commentary. Its the very thinnest veneer of political discourse
If she was the only cancer patient in the world who lost a job (or had a spouse that lost a job) then your argument might have merit. And the 47% argument Romney made is an accurate one. Go back just one thread on Dalrock’s blog, check my comment about 40% of the voters of this country.
Dude, IAL agrees with all that. he was using that to illustrate something about points you were making, by raising those silly talking points
She is not that bright and knows exactly ZERO about foreign affairs
First, any discourse on palin is a Kafka trap, expressly because you are many others, “just know” things like this…..”she knows nothing”. You cannot see how that sounds? Anyone can repeat broad hyperbole. Then the Kafka trap, now that i am rebutting these points, i must be an ignorant hill jack Palin supporter right? Because we cannot just talk about it, we have to be all in. Well, i was fine with her, Im not one who would promote her again, but she was fine. That asswipe , crap whats his name that did the big foreign policy interview, Charley Gibson??? was it ABC, and he asked “What is the Bush Doctrine?” She stammered and blew that answer, hence, she was said to know nothing.
Turns out Charley didnt have an answer either because there was no answer. It was a trap. Bush couldn’t answer it and its was allegedly HIS doctrine.
You dont seem too far off center IBB, but its gonna take you a bit deeper thinking to get on track completely. Petty insults and proclamations are sadly what drives the ignorant and apathetic vote. Done be in that demographic
All of that is true. President Obama largely secured the brain-dead vote. We are in agreement.
But that doesn’t excuse what McCain did in picking Palin. She is lovely, but IMHO she is not qualified to be President.
She signed my paychecks while she was Governor and I would argue that her political appointments were some of the best men available. Rooting out the mess that was Murkowski was no small feat. She was probably the best Governor that we had besides Hickel that I have worked under. As far as “not knowing anything” about foreign affairs or economics I would chalk that statement up to ignorance of Alaska as a State. Our import/export trade is off the charts and dealing with the oil companies where the bulk of our revenue is generated is a big step past what many Governors are faced with. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but she is forthright, and that goes farther (IMHO) than being a Rhodes scholar that want’s to quibble about what the meaning of “is” is.
Oh yeah, she took on corrupt Republicans, took on the party leadership. Primaried Murkowski and beat him by double digits. She then started getting rid of the corruption that riddled our government. I don’t care if she IS a bimbo. if she could do that in Washington things might actually change. Of course the liberals gutted her when she came back home after 2008 with ethics investigations like for wearing an “Arctic Cat” jacket (her husbands sponsor) at the finish of the Iron Dog.
@Anon 71
<i.The people were not told this. They were told it was a sin not to obey their king.
I didn’t say they weren’t told that. I said that it wasn’t the original meaning of the doctrine of the divine right of kings, but a late deturpation which only appeared in the late sixteenth century, when the “liberal intellectuals” of the time, working for the rising absolutist states, tried, and in time succeeded, to read “penumbras” into the old doctrine and twist it to the advantage of their masters. As I said, just like what happened with the US Constitution. But the original meaning was the one I gave: the king’s power comes from God, if the king does not walk in the ways of God, he isn’t the king and the people should get a new one. Power flows from God through the people to the king. And this doctrine took quite a while to fall.
If you have “no idea where to start”, I suggest Bertrand de Jouvenel’s “On Power”. Jouvenel points to all the primary sources you may wish to consult, is a gifted writer, and his book deals with much more than the point in question. For quick googling, you may want to read about Juan de Mariana and Robert Bellarmine (who were living well into the absolutist age), or just search for “Jesuit regicide” or the Catholic Encyclopedia’s old article on “tyrannicide”. For examples of the original doctrine, look for John of Salisbury and Thomas Aquinas for the theory, and there are many cases for the practice, for it surfaced in just about every political conflict in the medieval world. That is, how do you, a loyal vassal, justify your rebellion to your God-appointed superiors? Why, easy, the superiors, up to and including the king, did not do their duty. It now becomes a test of force, which the kings sometimes lost (John Lackland), sometimes won (Charles V of Spain), and sometimes fought to a draw (the Holy Roman Emperors vs. the Church).
Best regards, and good reading.
Pingback: the Revision Division
Pingback: Understanding the foundation of modern western women's power - "Moral Dominance"
My observation has been that solipsism is not confined to the females of Western civilization. It is an epidemic that has spread to males, females, whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. And why not? It is a common theme among the special interest movements such as feminism (which has become almost exclusively about abortion rights), gay rights, civil rights, blah, blah, blah…. If you are here discussing it, you are part of the real, shrinking minority – reasonably intelligent humans with some remaining critical thinking skills.
I observe that some in the target audience for such advice take it as a diagnosis that men are broken and that the female may take it upon herself to fix him.
So true. There are examples of this in the pop psychology and relationship advice literature. Here’s one of the first I took notice of:
Men are often accused of having a callused heart. For the purpose of discussion, let’s grant that this is so. And let us consider the analogy. Calluses grow to protect sensitive tissue subjected to irritation and friction. The more sensitive and abused the tissue, the thicker the callus.
[D]espite women’s stated desire for men to reveal their feelings, we tend to react in a way that insures that men will continue to play out the old male role of keeping the world together and holding feelings in. We don’t know what to do with the man is weak, who cries, who has emotional needs. …
Women come in with their partners, begging them to “get in touch with their feelings”. When men begin to, they freak out.
this. This. THIS.
Ladies, you may not realize it, but we men are well aware of the limitations most of you suffer when it comes to dealing with adversity. I dare say that if you were able to deal with such adversity on your own, you would not need the protection and succor of men and there would be no biological hard-wiring leading you to seek us out specifically for that trait.
Without getting long-winded, let me just say what you should have figured out eons ago:
If we are not “opening up” to you, it is for a very good reason. To quote Jack Nicholson from “A Few Good Men,” YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”
James, I am reminded of the time a woman wrote an op-ed to our local newspaper, referring to Christians who believed the Bible spoke against homosexual behavior as extremely ignorant. I think the reference was Romans 1:28-32.
Curious, I wrote to her and asked her to explain it. She wrote back and told me of a book I was supposed to buy, some hundreds of pages, by a college professor. It would take hundreds of pages to explain away 4 verses of the Bible that are very clear? I realized she was blowing smoke and actually could not explain it.
After some thought, no, I am not going to dig for your hand-picked books, which attempt to contradict millenia of history. As I said, earlier, I am not buying it. If you want to believe it,that is your prerogative.
Religions have always taught one must obey the king or dictator. They still do.
And on the theme: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawyer-george-zimmermans-wife-filing-for-divorce-a-week-after-pleading-guilty-to-perjury/2013/09/05/98215fb4-1673-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_story.html
Pingback: The sin of lacking moxie. | Dalrock
Pingback: 100th Post Blogapalooza | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: the Revision Division
Pingback: Who loves best? | Dalrock
Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock
Pingback: I think he has earned a puppy party. | Dalrock
Pingback: Selfishness as wisdom and virtue. | Dalrock
Pingback: Missing the point is hard work. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women’s self-esteem: boosted to their self-destruction - Fabius Maximus website