Yesterday Instapundit linked to a piece by Mark Judge titled
How Feminism Created the Manic Pixie Dream Boy. Refreshingly, Judge isn’t jumping in with the standard Traditional Conservative complaint that weak men are screwing feminism up:
You can thank political correctness and feminism for this; both seek to tame male passion and aggression by declaring it brute and dangerous. These cultural forces are abetted by writers like Breslaw who insist that men should be more passive and feminine but then turn around and mock them as manic pixies when they do just that.
Feminists have long argued that women should pursue careers just like men do. Now that many women have successfully done so, however, they are beginning to resent the fact that while they are toiling away at the office, there are free-spirited dudes watching Bravo TV while eating artisanal snacks back at their apartments.
The lure to blame weak men for the failures of feminism is enormous, so seeing writers resist this temptation is a very positive sign. However, even better than the post itself is the comment left by Eric Johnson, at least when it comes to comedic value (intentional or otherwise):
Women! Stop this delusion and marry the The Dork!
The Dork will actually put up with your mother!
The Dork will go to the PTA Meetings!
The Dork is willing to put up with your bullshit!
Don’t worry dorks of the world, sooner or later your future wife will tire of having sex with men like the Manic Pixie Dream Boy and will suddenly realize that you have a duty to marry her. There is no point in trying to rush the process, as she needs to tire of sex with other men before she can recognize that you need to support her and put up with her bullshit. Have patience dorks, assured in the knowledge that while she is giving herself sexually to every man who draws her fancy, she is saving something special for you.
Pingback: He’s begging you; don’t forget the beta bucks! | Manosphere.com
Pingback: He’s begging you; don’t forget the beta bucks! | Neoreactive
She’s got something even more special than before now that the clap is resistant to antibiotics. Burnin’ love indeed.
I would argue that too many dorks got married. they married and didn’t know what to do with wives and daughters. So in short I’m back to blaming week men who didn’t know not to feed the hypergamy after midnight, nor to expose it to water…
Baby boom, free-love, sixties, boomer feminists…..here we are.
Weak even.
I’m currently trying to figure out how to get a Traditional Conservative to understand RP concepts. One of my best friends whom I’ve known for almost 20 years is someone who believes it’s always a man’s fault if his wife cheats, and he also thinks it doesn’t mean anything if a woman’s had sex before marriage. He and I are the only ones in that group of friends who isn’t married, and I’d like to help him understand certain truths before he finally does get married, but he’s the kind of person to whom you can’t tell anything.
Though history clearly shows reality can be a cruel teacher, your friend will be schooled by reality nonetheless.
I knew someone like that Hank. He eeks his life away in rented room in someone else’s house, year after year, working full time to keep his ex-wife and their two adolescents (who have been trained by the ex to despise him) in the home they bought but which she now owns and the car he bought but which she now drives (when her boyfriend who sleeps in the bed he bought banging his ex) isn’t driving it around town blasting the stereo that is.
Some people have to learn the hard way and reality is just the teacher to instruct them.
That’s the kind of dork I’m talking about.
That is if you won’t acknowledge hypergamy how in the world will you ever keep it in check? First in the home, but then your community and nation?
@Hank:
If Christian, pop out a Bible and read Genesis 1-5. Then point out “he’s not listening to God”.
If not Christian, press the hard logic: if Men are responsible, then why should Women be able to Vote? Hammer home the logical fallacy: either Women are responsible for themselves or they should be treated as second-class Citizens. There is no other options.
I’m so glad that women are free to pursue that career! I hope they are so successful, no man will ever be good enough.
NRFS
Hank Flanders:
There is no way to win over a white knight without emasculating him. Which is what you must do.
I, personally, have strong-armed my entire family with red pill. They cannot escape it. Slowly, they have relented to acknowledging the truths that red pill knowledge gives. Truth always wins, but it must be presented relentlessly.
Also, you need to use rhetoric to beat his opinions. When he says it is always a man’s fault if the wife cheats, then say “then I guess it’s God’s fault when men choose idols”. If God loved me enough, I would not stray. It is God’s poor headship that causes idolatrous behavior.
The other thing you have to do is punch straight through the pussy pedestal. Laugh at him and tell him about all the young women who read articles about how to give bl0wj0bs. Tell him about all the women have divorced good men so they can fornicate freely. Tell him his ideas were once true, and that the facts have changed and he has not.
Give no room to listen to his rebuttals. “Sorry, you’re wrong”. Nope. You’re wrong. Wrong again. Call him BetaBoy, and laugh. Use feminist shaming tactics, which are a proven method with betatwatboys.
Offer to help sharpen his sword and ask him how often he polishes his armor. And then ask him why, when there are so many good men, the women choose a-holes over and over. Of their own free will.
Above all, disqualify his views immediately. Put him on the defensive. Make him the explainer. Reject, and disqualify everything he says that is blue pill, and paint him into a corner.
Masculine aggression is the only tool that works. You will not reason him into the truth, only defeat can do that. If he still rejects, just laugh and show him that his side is losing control of the narrative. “Hey man, live in the past if you must, but every day my side gains converts. From your side. Don’t be the old crank who hangs on to the past. Even then, old cranks are useful to show others how outmoded their thinking is.”
You have to play hardball. Use takeaway, and reframing. And just like a real alpha, assume the sale. “I can see you are almost getting it. You’re so close”.
I loooooveee railroading stubborn betas. I just keep saying red pill truth and they get madder and madder. I “impugn” the honor of modern winnenz and watch him try to white knight. I laugh.
Trolling betas is funner than slut shaming, so make a game of it!
I have to disagree with jack’s advice: “Give no room to listen to his rebuttals. … Masculine aggression is the only tool that works. You will not reason him into the truth… ”
If someone can’t use reason to explain their argument, instead only using intimidation, and refusing to even respond or counter an opposing argument you can safely dismiss their point. Anyone whose point is correct won’t have to resort to these tactics to put it forth.
““Hey man, live in the past if you must, but every day my side gains converts. From your side. Don’t be the old crank who hangs on to the past. Even then, old cranks are useful to show others how outmoded their thinking is”
This is another logical fallacy – appeal to popularity. This is commonly used against most of Dalrock’s material “You guys just want women chained to the kitchen, these aren’t the 1950s gender roles anymore!” but I’m sure you can see why logically it doesn’t hold water. If we are to hold what is popular is right then there is no counter argument against homosexuality: “Stop being so close-minded like people in the past! Our world is way more progressive now! Love is love between any 2 consenting adults! Don’t be the old crank that thinks marriage should only be between 1 man and 1 woman!”
Mr. Beta is not holding his present position due to logic. All blue pill is emotionally arrived at and ego-held. Logic does not undo these. Using logic will fail.
As a person with substantial experience converting blue pillers, I can tell you my methods work. What needs to be attacked is the person’s sense of self assuredness about his blue pill position. The sad reality is that when a person attempts to use logic, you automatically place yourself in the “pleading to be heard” paradigm. People respond to strength. People respond to assumed authority.
So how well did your logical appeals against same sex marriage do in the recent cultural battle. Yep – checkmate, brutha…
In our culture, people are conditioned to respond to authority and cultural momentum first. If you want to whine and beg and make appeals to “logic” (which they will reject out-of-hand), please, be my guest. I’ll watch you run yourself ragged.
Go find a modern day communist who still thinks it is the best system. Show him thousands of data points that show that communism fails. He will be as stubborn as ever.
Logic is only for people who are interested in truth. Mr. Blue Pill beta is not. Yet.
“. Anyone whose point is correct won’t have to resort to these tactics to put it forth.”
Yeah, no. Go watch the most persuasive people in the world and you will see that they don’t use methods anything like this. I used to think logic would always win, back when I was young and watched too much Star Trek. Humans hate logic. Because it takes their ideological toys away from them.
Now, you can go ahead and try to be “noble” and use only the purest of debate methods, and I will watch you lose every time. Do you want to prevail, or do you want to stick to your hidebound blue pill notions of “proper methods”.
We have gone too far down the slippery slope of leftism and lies to insist on playing entirely by prep-school rules. Especially when the enemy is using guerrilla warfare. Yeah, I know you want to be “honorable”, insofar as you perceive honor to be defined.
Churchill realized that toward the end of WWII.
Pingback: He’s begging you; don’t forget the beta bucks! | Reaction Times
“So in short I’m back to blaming week men who didn’t know not to feed the hypergamy after midnight”
That’s the most important time to feed it!
“I’m currently trying to figure out how to get a Traditional Conservative to understand RP concepts. One of my best friends whom I’ve known for almost 20 years is someone who believes it’s always a man’s fault if his wife cheats”
He’s already RP, Hank, more than you. Women don’t cheat on alphas. So become the alpha.
She is saving menopause for her beta. Can you feel the lurve?
@jack:
Easiest way to never lose an argument again: figure out the stupid assumption someone is making, then roast them over the fire of Logic & Shame with it. No one is ever ready for it. But you have to give up ever having an “open debate” with anyone. It’s only a trusted male-friend that you can *ever* have those discussions with.
LG-
No holds barred for me, family, friends, acquaintances. Only in the professional environment do I play neutral.
The funny thing is, that when I am speaking boldly and daringly, it makes other people more courageous to slide slightly out of the PC comfort zone.
It will not be polite logical debate that is going to shift the landscape.
“It will not be polite logical debate that is going to shift the landscape.”
It is important to maintain a manly control of one’s emotions. One can see how that could be mistaken for politely logical, but that’s not what it’s about.
On unplugging SoCons from the matrix:
It is truly dirty work but the best argument for married guys is simply to ask him if having sex twice a month is good or if he would prefer my 3-4 times a week. For unmarried guys who have not been broken forget it. They will give you one NAWALT and raise you a “Men do that too” every chance they get and they will be completely self righteous about it. I wouldn’t even try.
@Gemini: “You will find that blue-pill is not “ego held”
Your example is an amazing example of solipsism. Better check your gender identify because I would flag you as a suspected fem troll. We are not talking about you! Sure, there are exceptions but MOST Blue Pill guys hold onto their blue pill ideology as a pure ego investment. They have been taught that not placing women on a pedestal means you hate women. They have been taught to worship at the alter of the golden uterus and worship the most coveted vaginal orifice as pure ego investment so that any threat to the blue pill lie is met with resistance. They will see anything less than acknowledging the sacred feminine as an immoral affront to their reality. We use the Matrix and “Unplugging” analogy for a reason.
“She is saving menopause for her beta. Can you feel the lurve?”
FYI: Betas are menopause lurvers.
Jack’s comments feel like a death punch to betatude, but they are the truth, and what is now necessary. Only among gentlemen, keeping in mind the millennia of civilization and cultural norms necessary to spawn this expiring breed, is logic cultivated and appreciated. I am compelled, and with a hint of apology, to mention Donald Trump. He’s unpleasant, boorish, juvenile, the current front runner, and I’m finding it hard to deny that he could be effective.
In general practice, logic is form, and force is function.
Pingback: Men adapting | Julian O'Dea
“Sure, there are exceptions but MOST Blue Pill guys hold onto their blue pill ideology as a pure ego investment.”
There is always a broad spectrum of buy-in to dominant paradigms, with different rationales across that spectrum.
My guess is that the blue-pill strategy is already well past its peak, so there will naturally be many men open to alternatives, and fewer all the time convinced that it gives them an edge. Those whose identity/ego is centered on their relationship to women, whatever the pill color, have problems that go beyond being slow on the uptake re: the latest social trends.
To whomever said it;
Yeah, of course it is not needed to deliver the hard stuff to people who are open to logic.
But for most, blue pill is ego held, since all it takes is a pair of eyeballs to see blue pill is false.
Reasons someone should stay single…at least for now (“I’m a single (never married) mom”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=979084
Off topic: Horrible story of divorce and frozen embryos at stake:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-embryo-20150920-story.html
You can’t be married and completely red pill. Marriage is purple pill, a mix of red and blue, but not completely red. Red means rejecting marriage altogether.
Red pill is knowledge and understanding of the truth. What you do with it does not determine knowledge
Slightly off-topic:
http://takimag.com/article/a_no_jerk_reaction_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3mGuRg0Ya
Admittedly it’s a column by a marginal pundit on a marginal news site, but I think it perfectly illustrates how the media is prone to create a supposedly huge social ill out of thin air and then spin it as a result of male dysfunction. We’ll surely see more of this in the future, and such complaints will undoubtedly grow more shrill and delusional.
This guy is a pal of Roosh, which probably surprises no one. His argument, if we can call it that, which is that millennial men are having less sex, starting fewer businesses and see their marriages get ruined solely because they are addicted to online porn, is not a bit more surprising either. I’m not even sure how to call this attitude. A reverse cargo cult, perhaps? Pundits like him actually believe that almost all social problems would magically solve themselves if only “addictive” online porn ceased to exist. The idea that maybe women also affect the mating market with their own behavior is not even mentioned.
He specifically shames his producer, a 23-year-old beta virgin, for not making efforts to form a sexual relationship with a porn actress. I’m not even making this up. Read the article.
I am compelled, and with a hint of apology, to mention Donald Trump. He’s unpleasant, boorish, juvenile, the current front runner, and I’m finding it hard to deny that he could be effective.
I am inclined to say that in spite of being accused to be disrespectful to women, Trump will handily win the women’s votes, not necessarily by pandering to them, but by being the most Alpha in the pack. In this case, an Alpha with the bucks. Because of his smart deal making experience also, he will win the Hispanic votes as well. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, he will very likely be the next POTUS. I expect that, with his nomination win, he will be “trained” to be a bit more polished, less juvenile and more presidential by the Republican apparatus, and he will therefore appeal to a broader audience.
Off topic: Horrible story of divorce and frozen embryos at stake:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-embryo-20150920-story.html
Why do I keep thinking that the judge(s) will rule in favor of the woman….?
Lee should be laughed out of court. The papers she signed before having her eggs frozen guaranteed the embryos would be destroyed upon divorce. She has no case but will probably win due to being a woman. Such is life.
My favourite tidbit in the article.
These woman are jokes, get involved with a career woman at your own risk.
Doom Arigato Mr Roboto
He’s already RP, Hank, more than you. Women don’t cheat on alphas. So become the alpha.
Try maintaining Alpha when you get cancer, have a motorcycle accident, lose your job, your business goes under, etc. I’m sure some may claim you can maintain Alpha in spite of adversity, and I certainly agree that how a man handles himself in a crisis is going to test how much of a man he is, but there are still circumstances beyond our control.
A friend of mine who was in the Air Force once told me about how common it is for guys’ wives and girlfriends to cheat on them when those men deploy. Going off to war is supposed to be extremely Alpha, but going off to war (i.e. being Alpha) doesn’t stop men from being cheated on. In fact, it just makes it more likely.
Sometimes women just get…I think the polite term is “lonely.” Whether or not they act on that loneliness is going to depend on factors besides just the Alphaness of their husbands.
jack
Also, you need to use rhetoric to beat his opinions. When he says it is always a man’s fault if the wife cheats, then say “then I guess it’s God’s fault when men choose idols”. If God loved me enough, I would not stray. It is God’s poor headship that causes idolatrous behavior.
This is a good point. I’ll have to keep this is in mind.
@Siobhan, Dave, Feminist Hater,
“Off topic: Horrible story of divorce and frozen embryos at stake:”
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-embryo-20150920-story.html
“My favourite tidbit in the article.
Findley’s lawyers have blamed Lee for her predicament. They argued in court papers that she sacrificed motherhood for the sake of her career and had four abortions before she married Findley. They also have challenged her credibility.
These woman are jokes, get involved with a career woman at your own risk.”
As a cautionary tale, here are the red flags the guy, Findley, ignored:
married a 40 year old career girl
a girl with 4 prior abortions
a girl who was the product of an Asian Tiger Mom (I am not against race mixing but to ignore that the Asian American and Anglo subcultures have significant differences is naive)
a girl who was a Julliard trained pianist and a MD who went for further training as an Anesthesiologist – that says perfectionist
After three years of marriage Findley said he felt, “stepped on”! Duhhh
I have been saying for some time now that we need a way to present the Red Pill in a way that goes from easiest-to-accept concepts to gradually more throat-sticking concepts.
Which concepts are easiest to accept?
Maybe Dalrock will post about this as a starting point for discussion.
Also, you need to use rhetoric to beat his opinions. When he says it is always a man’s fault if the wife cheats, then say “then I guess it’s God’s fault when men choose idols”. If God loved me enough, I would not stray. It is God’s poor headship that causes idolatrous behavior.
Argumentum ad absurdum. Very persuasive because it flips the script.
theasdgamer
“She is saving menopause for her beta. Can you feel the lurve?”
Heh.
Is MrsGamer giving you a hard time again?
As an aside, did I correctly read recently that you had a couple of almost-20 daughters? Mr asdgamer, I would like to get in contact with you.
GamerXcX
No, I’m giving Mrs. Gamer something hard. Heh.
My daughters have hit the Wall hard.
@ Hank
I worked with an Air Force nurse who said they saw a lot of STDs on guys coming home, pretty much sounded like everyone was whoring around everywhere.
STD’s on guys coming home? Married guys? Seems like you left out some vital information in your second hand anecdote. (Although, I would be inclined to believe it. Especially of high-T alphas deployed for chunks of time.)
“I worked with an Air Force nurse who said they saw a lot of STDs on guys coming home, pretty much sounded like everyone was whoring around everywhere.”
I once had a chat with a Catholic MD who was in the military. She said pretty much what is written above: everybody gets it on with everybody among the soldiers, including the married ones. No shame at all. She felt disgusted.
So when soldier boy comes home does he bring another woman’s kid with him, kick the divorced wife out of the house and force her to pay for him? Seems equal to me…
“I worked with an Air Force nurse who said they saw a lot of STDs on guys coming home, pretty much sounded like everyone was whoring around everywhere.”
No STDs on women soldiers? STDs are far more prevalent among women than among men.
This sort of thing sounds like white-knighting by omission and shaming.
“No STDs on women soldiers? STDs are far more prevalent among women than among men.”
STDs may not be symptomatic or only vaguely symptomatic among women. That is why women often end up with chronic PIDs and infertilities, because they often carry untreated STDs.
theasegamer:
“Which concepts are easiest to accept?”
I’ve always found “Family Law” as a good starting point, because almost every man (or teen male) by now, knows someone in his family or close circle who has been caught up in the fraud that child support and alimony are.
Always distribute red pill advice, particularly in FRONT of women, to any guy, that indeed “you, you! can and will lose your children, home, retirement and income if she decides she wants a divorce…don’t let them kid you that it’s “only half” or “what’s fair”…
For men to STALL or FAIL TO ACT, by getting married, is in itself, an easy leverage point…you aren’t asking them (or telling them) to DO something, you are telling them to simply sit back and NOT do something, and to research other failed men who tried it before and got smoked.
EVERYTHING in this system is based upon Dalrock’s threatpoint, and when you remove the ability to do that, or the incentive, as much as you can as a man–you win.
But why can’t men fight back? I mean, seriously, why not?
If men–even a small group of men–took it up as a political issue, the same way that weed smoking and homosexual marriage were, it will gain traction, because no politician can look at the current family laws in public and not flinch.
Men don’t have to start big; they can begin with a few basic issues:
1. Mandatory default 50-50 joint custody of kids in the event of a divorce
2. No mandated child support payments: each parent support the kids financially when they have the kids. Or a bank account be opened in the kids’ names and each parent pays into it.
3. Abolition of all types of alimonies
Let the politicians be put on the spot in their respective town hall meetings, so they can publicly pledge to pursue those reforms once elected. Norquist did something similar with the federal tax.
Good thing is, this is an election period; it could be a great opportunity to start dismantling feminism’s refuge of lies.
Hank Flanders says:
September 19, 2015 at 3:02 pm
I’m currently trying to figure out how to get a Traditional Conservative to understand RP concepts. One of my best friends whom I’ve known for almost 20 years is someone who believes it’s always a man’s fault if his wife cheats, and he also thinks it doesn’t mean anything if a woman’s had sex before marriage.
Have a woman tell him. He’ll believe a woman. Now if you could just find a woman who gets it.
You can’t be married and completely red pill.
Completely false.
@ GIL
The nurse I spoke with was a bit older so thinking possibly a lower female deployment rate/plus the lower detection might have skewed things toward the deployed guys. She had plenty of scorn to direct at base wifes though too. As I said, she made it sound like everybody was whoring around everywhere.
Good article. Short & to the point.
Dave: Men don’t have to start big; they can begin with a few basic issues:
1. Mandatory default 50-50 joint custody of kids in the event of a divorce
Were anyone to suggest this, the media overflow with cherry-picked horror stores about evil ex-husbands who abandoned their kids, abused their kids, didn’t want their kids. “Hey, joint custody would be great if men even wanted their own kids! Trouble is, men don’t even want to visit their own kids!
I remember a radio PSA about a child asking when she could see her father. The mother woefully promised, soon, soon! The message was that the divorced deadbeat dad didn’t care about his own kid. The PSA was about shaming deadbeat dads who refuse to see their own kids.
TV movies and talk shows already paint the norm as “men don’t want their own kids,” that men refuse to visit their kids, that men have run off with a young hussy after abandoning faithful, hard-working, older wives.
The Deadbeat Dad is a TV staple. As is the Strong, Smart, Independent, Hard-Working, Single Mom.
Dalrock, I really enjoyed this one..I went to the NYmag article and left a comment that will surely ruffle a few feathers..here is what I left..yall enjoy
“This statement “In your early 20s, they’re the opposite of the boring lawyer you “should” be dating.” is incredibly offensive to men with a work ethic and would have happily dated and built a life with women in their early twenties. Instead these “boring guys”, who actually contribute to society are supposed to be there to pick up the pieces and start a “mature relationship”
with you after you’ve wasted all of your youth and beauty on these idiots. The problem feminism faces is that your alienation of these “boring professional men” is starting to backfire. First, men want physical intimacy with women..men aren’t stupid..we adapt..the more we see physical intimacy being freely given to these manic pixie boys, the larger in number these manic pixie boys will continue to grow. Second, as you mature and have finished “finding yourselves in your twenties” with these so called pixie boys..real men with work ethics and good jobs “boring lawyers, doctors, engineers” will refuse to “man up” and marry/start a mature life with you simply because we don’t feel like playing second best to the manic pixie boys. We have run the gauntlet of building careers and working hard in our twenties without the love and support of women while we do it. So when you all start looking for a “real man” in your very late twenties to early thirties you will start to wonder why all the “boring” non pixie men your age that you turned down, friendzoned, etc, will not “man up” now that you are finally ready and gotten all the pixie boys out of your system. You see, us boring men who stayed in good shape and have a successful career in our early thirties will now just go and date younger women in the 23-26 range that aren’t jaded with so many ghosts of pixie boyfriends past and settle down with them. This is the cold reality for so many women who decide to pass over all the “boring guys” for pixie boys in your early to mid twenties. This comment will surely start a fire storm, but it is the cold hard truth.”
Fuck mandatory default 50-50 custody it is default DNA tested fathers custody period. Also any social changes in the law cannot be seen or viewed as fairness or redress of any kind. Those changes need to be seen as a way for relief for the “suffering” of women. Anything less is dead in the water. Abortion is legal never forget it. Women do nothing for kindness or benefit for any body but themselves. The wicked selfish clock can be on time when the selfish desire is to be seen as kind and the only way to achieve it is to do a kind act. If you want to change law, game women or survive a marriage, raise a daughter you better understand that.
BTW I’m not talking about bad women I’m talking about normal women. Normal women that want to be seen as Christian or at least modern and enlightened. Even the so called conservative women with traditional values that is just who they are.
Begging for mercy and fairness from a women is irresponsible and stupid.
Outstanding comment Red Pill Latecomer
Dr Skin Good for you.
Dear Grey Ghost:
That worked well enough in the past, when people could just disappear and never be found again. We can do better today, though. How about erasing the concept of divorce, at least when young kids are in the picture. “Divorce? What do you mean? What’s that? You want to leave your husband? Where would you go? You can’t get far…”
No, you can’t leave your spouse if you have kids at home. If you want to throw a fit about it, society will throw you in jail until you calm down. How’s that? Your parents and inlaws can be embarrassed of you, and you’ll be demoted at your job when you get out.
The standards of decent behavior have slipped so far that this probably sounds extreme, but I think it’d work well, and really, it’s all about the children. Don’t any of you people care about the children? It’s what’s best for the children, so we can’t do otherwise. There, that’s settled.
Boxer
Boxer
What selfish reason would a woman have allowing no divorce for parents . Why would any woman sign on to any culture, law or policy that didn’t include divorce.
For a drill on what we know of female nature maybe we can advance the discussion of ideas to what can be done to change this society. (I already know nothing short of a civil war will deaths in the millions is what it will take) But let’s pretend it can be bloodless. At least until Obama gets those 100k ISIS refugees from Syria into the country.
Dear Fellas:
Happy Sunday evening to you.
Who needs women to sign on? Anyway, I hear that much more restrictive attitudes are the case in the Philippine Islands and a few other places (Chile?).
I’m not advocating anything as extreme as the Philippine model, anyway. Childless people who both agree ought to be able to split, and divorce ought to be mandatory/automatic with a long prison sentence (say, 5 years) — demonstrating that marriage is for responsible grownups, and not irresponsible losers.
I think we ought to practice saying “no” to the frivolous requests (by people with young kids especially) that are currently clogging up our welfare rolls and our courthouses just on principle.
Bitches like being told “no” anyway. You know that as well as I do.
Best,
Boxer
Giving out red pills to married men is from my perspective, as a single man, better left to married men who have red pill truth. I try to share a few red pills but I tread carefully now having had numerous bad experiences. Blue pillers do in most cases have their egos tangled up in the value their roles in the female imperative bestow on them. Disposable appliances do after all have some value, at least for awhile. Honestly I take satisfaction in seeing the truly egotistical and especially the arrogant blue pill men having their asses nailed to the barn door by the ex wife and her shyster lawyer. But the poor fools who don’t know any better and won’t hear better either, eeh gags..
The guys who might hear an obviously sarcastic “she needs to tire of sex with other men before she can recognize that you need to support her and put up with her bullshit.” And then think “yeah, thats right!” and then see opportunity for themselves to clean up the mess. Sad, sickening but some of these these hapless fools won’t even learn the hard way. Just let them crash and burn, over and over. Save your breath, shake your head, walk away.
@greyghost:
Two factors are needed. 1) Someone with money to grease the wheels within a State Government. (Just accept everyone is corrupt, but they’re pretty cheap.) 2) One really bad case where a High-Earner Woman gets taken to the cleaners in court.
You really need all of 1 case to tie it to, then what you push is really, really easy. When a Woman makes more than the Man, then it’s obviously a violation of the 13th Amendment. (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”) The angle writes itself, “How can you possibly believe in Equality if you support the slavery of Women.” (Most Progressives wouldn’t know what would hit them with that attack.)
The switch isn’t in the divorce laws. It’s in replacing them with “estate” contracts. Or whatever you want to call them. It would take some legitimately solid legal planning, but that’s the entire vector of attack. Alabama actually floated the idea of contracts just a few months ago, so it’s not even that new.
Women vote they can’t be told no. And besides that what advantage does she get giving away her gains of equality for men.
@GeminiXcX:
From what I know of the period when “His Fault” divorce went through (which took most of the Western World by storm), you have to be mindful of the Elite/Non-Elite split. To those that operated at the top end of the Society, marriage was always a contract, divorce was always something that was prepared for as a down-side risk potential and they always had the money to get divorced. Thus the Elites simply couldn’t see the value of very limited Divorce, as they were always susceptible to it, whereas those not in the “1%” really didn’t have the option.
It’s a bit like abortion. It has been, for the last 150 years, the arena of rich White Women. Making it legal across the country allowed the murder of more Blacks than Whites in the womb. Those that follow their emotions are churned under and destroyed in a society that willingly sells them their own death.
One other bit about any Divorce/Marriage law reform: it came up during the early stages of the Gay Marriage push that, in effect, the country can only have 1 form of Marriage law. So a single State can, by proxy, enforce its views on Marriage on the rest. (This is also going to be the game for Polygamy.) But it works both ways.
At my wit’s end…need help
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=979134
Marriage, children, and age
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=979192
—
A Brilliant Plan or a Piece of Crap: You Decide
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/09/13/a-brilliant-plan-or-a-piece-of-crap-you-decide/
Fuck mandatory default 50-50 custody it is default DNA tested fathers custody period.
That would be a mistake. You don’t have to ask for everything that you want at once. Start small; then build momentum. Mandatory default 50-50 custody sounds “fair” and “innocent enough”, and is much less likely to garner too much opposition.
The standards of decent behavior have slipped so far that this probably sounds extreme, but I think it’d work well, and really, it’s all about the children. Don’t any of you people care about the children? It’s what’s best for the children, so we can’t do otherwise. There, that’s settled.
Settled? Methinks it is far from settled. You know exactly what will happen? Studies will be published that show that “The kids of divorce are just as great as kids in intact families”. Or, better still, “Kids of divorce fare better”. Or even better: “studies” will show that kids are actually harmed when an otherwise “bad” marriage is maintained because of them. Remember “The kids are alright” study that came out to push homosexual marriage and adoption? Look, we have liars at the helm of affairs. What do you expect. Every fabric of feminism is built on lies and exaggeration.
What you are proposing won’t happen, as the Western nations are determined to destroy the family unit. And the powers behind them are entities that no earthly force can stand up against.
Agreed that feminism is, fist of all, a spiritual force, and it needs a counter-spiritual foce to stop or reverse it. Even if a war were to occur, without a corrective spiritual force in operation, feminism will only hide until things settle down for a while before coming out again. By that time, those who experienced the evils of the movement would have died off.
But why can’t men fight back? I mean, seriously, why not?
Do you actually interact with average men? If you’re an average man yourself, most of them behave like scumbags towards you whenever they believe that throwing you under the bus will make them more acceptable in women’s eyes. They’re just trash. It’s in their genes to see you as a rival to be stomped upon in order to pander to women. Hell, I wouldn’t lift a finger to save any of these fuckers from anything, much less form some political action group with them.
Alright, I’m pretty sure you know many average guys, and some of those have girlfriends. Do you remember the time when they entered relationships? Did their behavior change? Of course it did, didn’t it? They instantly turned into pussy-whipped losers that act like scumbags towards single men. They brag about fucking those frumpy, nasty broads that decided to put up with them, as if that was some fantastic turn of events. And they’ll call you a pathetic loser if you aren’t doing the same. Those broads controls their lives from then on, and they’ll push them to severely limit or completely cut contact with their bros.
This is the reality on the ground. If you’re a Red Pill beta, the majority of women and men will treat you as an enemy or a nuisance, and there’s no advantage for you to be gained by interacting with them.
You don’t just put up with a woman’s bullshit after “tired of Pixie Dream Boyfriend” girl decides to marry you.
Women who have been in the feminist matrix have absorbed feminist indoctrination, have been embittered by ex-Pixies as well as ex Harley McBad and ex – Chad Thundercock. They will also be carrying the residual stress of managing career betas who entertain her authority publicly while chafing at that authority privately.
You don’t just put up with her bullshit. You have to wade through a massive pile of semi solid toxic shit to get to her. When you do, you find she can’t let it go.
Is it worth it?
You don’t just put up with her bullshit. You have to wade through a massive pile of semi solid toxic shit to get to her. When you do, you find she can’t let it go.
Is it worth it?
In other words, most American women have become disqualified for marriage even before they began to think seriously about getting married at all, since their .
In other words, most American women have become disqualified for marriage even before they began to think seriously about getting married …
This should be common knowledge by now around these parts.
@Dave
“But why can’t men fight back? I mean, seriously, why not”
Because fighting means you are arguing and when you argue you are acting in dishonour.
Luke 12:57“And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? 58As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. 59I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.”
If one acts as the Bible instructs us, then you have no need to “fight” because you will remain in honour.
Hosea 4:”6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”
I told you before Dave, the Bible contains laws and The Law. If you understand what law is then you will never need to fight and get your
“1. Mandatory default 50-50 joint custody of kids in the event of a divorce
2. No mandated child support payments: each parent support the kids financially when they have the kids. Or a bank account be opened in the kids’ names and each parent pays into it.
3. Abolition of all types of alimonies”
and more… if you want.
“Let the politicians be put on the spot in their respective town hall meetings, so they can publicly pledge to pursue those reforms once elected.”
Unfortunately Christians put their trust and faith in politicians and not in God to give them what they need. [I should know, I use to think the same way]
@ no9
Yeah, Jesus never contended with the Pharisees, good point.
This should be common knowledge by now around these parts.
Common knowledge –and what used to be known as common sense— which must demonized, denied, and buried at all costs.
“Unfortunately Churchians put their trust and faith in politicians and not in God to give them what they need. [I should know, I use to think the same way]”
Fixed.
@feeriker
What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
Men can’t fight back because it is beyond some social interaction of some pussy whipped man taking crap from his pedistalized pussy. It is in the law and men that “fight back” are killed and or imprisoned by the government the women voted in. Explains MGTOW for you doesn’t it? Make sure you own a rifle and learn how to hide from thermal imaging or get used to living as a slave until the government at her whim decides you need to be imprisoned for abuse. The Christian church got the message a long time ago and chose supplication of the pussy divine so they could maintain funding and do “gods” work. Some churches now have female and gay clergy and the pope said they will fast track annulments and cutting women slack on abortions. Nothing like the power that comes from the barrel of a gun
@no9
If one acts as the Bible instructs us, then you have no need to “fight” because you will remain in honour.
You really believe that? So are you trying to suggest that Christians should not fight back against injustices? Maybe no need for Christian lawyers? Or political movements? Public officials too, eh? Of course, we all want to “remain in honor”. And once this is done, everything will just become hunky-dory. What an interesting thought!
I bet Jesus was kidding His disciples when He told them:
“… now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Luke 22:36.
Saying Christians shouldn’t get involved in certain aspects of civil resistance is utterly foolish, and unsupported in Scripture. Jesus said not to defend yourself if you are being persecuted FOR HIS SAKE, not if your civil rights are being trampled under foot by some barbarians.
I don’t know from which part of the world you are writing from, but you may need to pause for a moment and say “Thank you for the Crusaders”, because, without their sacrifices, you’d probably be saying “Alahu Akbar” right now.
You aren’t making sense, no9. The Bible records Abraham, Jacob, Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hezekiah, Peter and even Christ in Gethsemane arguing with God Himself. Jacob got the name Israel by actually picking a fight with God. Peter got rebuked twice for opposing the Crucifixion. God counted neither man as an enemy.
…
Hells Hound @ 2:20 am:
“This is the reality on the ground. If you’re a Red Pill beta, the majority of women and men will treat you as an enemy or a nuisance, and there’s no advantage for you to be gained by interacting with them.”
That’s too harsh. The average Blue Piller is much more aware of female misbehavior than he used to be. Mostly they have a mental fantasy that culture has encouraged them to indulge, and they simply don’t want to give that up in favor of harsh reality.
I was a devout Bible-thumper and the deception created by feminists and Churchians almost had me fooled, too.
…
greyghost @ 1:01 am:
“Men can’t fight back because it is beyond some social interaction of some pussy whipped man taking crap from his pedistalized pussy. It is in the law and men that “fight back” are killed and or imprisoned by the government the women voted in. ”
Gamergate did it. We Constitution Party aren’t being rounded up. There remain non-violent opportunities. I share Dave’s frustration that too many Manospherians are giving up until the shooting starts.
“Nothing like the power that comes from the barrel of a gun.”
While true, remember Christianity has never had much success as a paramilitary movement. There’s too much cognitive dissonance between turning the other cheek and switching magazines.
@greyghost,
Women vote they can’t be told no. And besides that what advantage does she get giving away her gains of equality for men.
[Isa 4:1 NKJV] 1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach.”
Times change and things that were impossible become quite possible.
Some churches now have female and gay clergy and the pope said they will fast track annulments and cutting women slack on abortions.
In spite of the above stinking decay, you’d be surprised that there are many people who are tired of it all, and want something different—like the strict standard of Scriptural holiness and chastity. Women inclusive. Of course, those women will readily pass for “reformed sluts”, a well deserved description, though it does not tell the whole story.
My idea for fair default custody is simple:
Per the tender years doctrine, custody is presumed with the women with children ages 0-9.
Custody shall be presumed with the man with children ages 10-18.
What could be more fair and reasonable than that? All the women cashing out for prizes when the kids are 3-4 years old would have to think, wait, you mean I only get child support for 4-5 years and after that I have to pay support? Maybe we can work on this marriage after all?
Dave
Looks like Islam doesn’t have any problem with kicking ass. Even the nice ones
@Dave
Matthew 26;52 “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
“You really believe that?”
Do you believe that God [as set out in Scripture] has given you the remedies needed to overcome all law/legal issues without fighting or ‘taking up the sword’?
Looking Glass
If Christian, pop out a Bible and read Genesis 1-5. Then point out “he’s not listening to God”.
If not Christian, press the hard logic: if Men are responsible, then why should Women be able to Vote? Hammer home the logical fallacy: either Women are responsible for themselves or they should be treated as second-class Citizens. There is no other options.
He is a Christian, but trying to discuss scripture with him is even more futile than trying to discuss women with him. Besides, he thinks the Old Testament is only of use as a historical document and has little value for believers beyond that. Unfortunately, I think American is right. My friend will just have to learn the hard way, and even then, he still won’t admit to having been wrong. However, I hope I can share RP truth with some people who are more open to hearing ideas besides their own.
@GG
Looks like Islam doesn’t have any problem with kicking ass. Even the nice ones
Absolutely. no9 will fit in perfectly though, because he won’t even be involved in civil protests at all. Honorable Christian, you see.
@BradA
[Isa 4:1 NKJV] 1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach.”
It is getting close to happening right now in South Africa. Women are accepting that “there are not enough men to go around”, and are not loathe to share their husbands with other women. Even in Nigeria and presumably much the rest of Africa, the story is the same. The women would still expect the man to take care of her though (“As long as he takes care of me and the kids, I am OK with him having other women”).
I guess the next step will be that “OK, even if he doesn’t give me anything, I just want to know that I have a husband”. Apocalypse is coming.
feeriker
What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
A non-sequitir to anything that I said above, but assuming that you mean that as a generic statement, try this: Keep every penny that you earn for a few years, sharing none of it with state, local, or federal/national government in the form of taxes, and see how well that statement holds up to legions of armed government agents, then get back to me.
My friend will just have to learn the hard way, and even then, he still won’t admit to having been wrong.
As long as he continues to deny being wrong, he hasn’t learned the lesson. Life, unfortunately, is an unforgiving, and extremely patient tutor. It always makes sure we all learn our lessons, and won’t mind repeating the same lessons a hundred times—no matter how painful they may be—until we learn. Some of us will live and die in elementary classes of Life, because we simply won’t learn the prescribed lessons.
@Dave
“Absolutely. no9 will fit in perfectly though, because he won’t even be involved in civil protests at all. Honorable Christian, you see.”
Oh my……. ad hominem.
We were talking about your “But why can’t men fight back? I mean, seriously, why not” Which was based on politics and politicians. You are using a red herring [Islam and the Crusades] to side step the issue at hand.
I will rephrase because you seem to be missing the point.
Do you believe that God [as set out in Scripture] has given you the remedies needed to overcome all *your* law/legal issues without fighting or ‘taking up the sword’?
@ feeriker
“A non-sequitir to anything that I said above, but assuming that you mean that as a generic statement, try this: Keep every penny that you earn for a few years, sharing none of it with state, local, or federal/national government in the form of taxes, and see how well that statement holds up to legions of armed government agents, then get back to me.”
If your intentions were to disagree with my wording then you should have made your claim as such and not unilaterally changed my words.
However I will be more than willing accept your claim of non- sequitir upon the condition that you show me where I gave you permission to change/deconstruct what *I* wrote to suit *your* views.
If you do then I will be happy to discuss the merits and solutions to your financial views and issues.
If however you cannot then you admit that you had fraudulent intentions.
Okay, as I live in South Africa, there is a slight issue with your statement. It has always been a black African culture to have more than one wife. To note once again, most men do not get to do this, only high end, mostly African royalty or the President, get to do this.
If you take up the sword you will probably die by the sword, then again we all die. Sometimes it is necessary and an honour to die for what is right.
no9
Maybe God should just step in and make it all better. Just pray and stay righteous and sinful men going to hell will stand up and fight evil for you so you won’t dirty your soul up and miss out on God’s grace.
While this comment thread is alive I am going to propose a root cause analysis of the marriage market problem as we do in Medicine. This is more like a blog post, so I apologize for its length. Also, feel free to repost it as you wish.
The unraveling of the normal social order that sustained and nourished western civilization is being caused by a combination of two factors. The first point being the greatest, the second being a minor but important contributor (although the cause of the second point is a result of the creation and social acceptance of the first).
1. All forms of birth control – (the pill, condoms, abortion, IUD’s, etc) in a sense any form of birth control beside the withdrawal method (male is in complete control of this one) is the greatest social experiment ever performed in the history of mankind. I could write and entire thesis on this, but I will try to unravel it in a few key points.
– The alpha fux/beta bucks paradigm could not exist without birth control. I will catch heat for this because yes some men are cuckold (but definitely not an overwhelming majority in the grand scheme of things), but this is an evolutionary adaption and the manosphere isn’t going to somehow change the female Id. The larger point is young women want to have sex just like men do..however, in this brave new world the risk of pregnancy and stigma of unwanted pregnancies has been removed allowing the female Id (“you go girl”) to run wild with little input from the inherent forces of the superego (this guy is Hawt and all “tingle”, but if he knocks me up I could be screwed..ie shamed by family and tribe, no resources for me and my child in the early stages, death from starvation in a long cold winter). In the latter situation the female hypergamy we are all so disturbed by has a serious check and balance mechanism that has been lost with the widespread availability of birth control and the sexual revolution. In a world without female birth control assortative pairing among young people occurs as it should..there can be no female “finding yourself” years..female hormones function normally..there superego functions properly and even though the beta may not generate the same “tingles” she is a whole lot more likely to pair up with one when she is young and fertile with a low N count and also to demand commitment before sex.
– Another medical point I don’t normally see brought up is the false sense of pregnancy oral contraceptives cause in the female brain. This is a powerful force that leads to all kinds of female behavioral aberrations, which the psychology community and medical community are largely ignoring. (perhaps OCPs even causing women to behave in a more masculine way) A comparison is men taking anabolic steroids to gain muscle..the behavioral consequences of this are well documented. Both OCP’s and anabolic steroids are both steroids that can and do alter normal mating behavioral patterns in humans. Its just that according to the mainstream, the OCP’s can “never” cause any harm to the females psyche and women as an entire group, because it allows for our current cultural obsession with “feminist female empowerment” and cannot be questioned to any degree (more “you go girl” mentality).
– I will catch heat for this as well, but I believe in concept of monogamous pair bonding and emotional love. There is nothing that instills more passion and a burning desire to succeed in a man than the promise of female intimacy and offspring from women in exchange for providing for them. I will be called “beta” for this, but in an evolutionary sense this is how inter-sexual relations evolved between the sexes. In a world without birth control most people end up mated at a young age when the bonds formed are the strongest (before high N counts for BOTH sexes). It is in the best interest of humanity for these bonded individuals to remain together to ensure offspring success, thus the evolution of a cross cultural marriage concept. Couples can and do fall in and out of love..but what kept the system functioning properly was the strict rigidity society put on not breaking this commitment. Hence, why most couples that stick out a troubling time of there marriage and remain together generally end up happy with each other again as time passes. Without female birth control this brave new world of the “you go girl” attitude could never have evolved and divorce culture would have failed to ever flourish.
2. The second minor point is the social acceptance and government assistance of single motherhood..however, as I noted above this social acceptance and single motherhood problem would have never flourished without widespread female contraception availability, so it is really a symptom of the root cause.
In closing, I don’t really know how this social experiment will pan out..but female contraception is, in my opinion, the root cause of all the current inter sexual problems. Without it none of these current social problems would even exist. Whether you believe in Religious teachings or Darwin’s origin of species, human female contraception is in a sense “Playing God” and will eventual lead humanity down a very destructive path. Until this root cause is recognized by the mainstream (which is a pipe dream) no amount of social interventions in the cultures embracing it can stop the destruction of stable family units within there societies.
-DrSkin
You won’t catch hell from me Dr skin
@ Hells Hound
If you’re an average man yourself, most of them behave like scumbags towards you whenever they believe that throwing you under the bus will make them more acceptable in women’s eyes.
It’s no secret that some of the most brutal enforcers of FI are married dudes, particularly those with daughters. Part of this is because men with families instinctively view single men as a turf threat, likely due biological hardwiring based on the realities of pre-civilized times (roaming single men were frequently quite dangerous).
Another piece of this is ego-investment; a man that is already paying the FI “tax” doesn’t tend to look fondly on those he considers to be FI “cheats”. In the case of fathers with daughters, we already know how they frequently collude with feminists to warp the entire SMP in their daughters’ favor at the expense of single men.
The one group that consistently has ZERO use for FI is single men. If support for FI could be measured on a spectrum, the group consistently scoring the lowest without fail would be single men, perhaps followed only by fathers with only sons. Unsurprisingly, these are also the groups most likely to lean libertarian, perhaps because they instinctively understand that most government re-distribution and laws will always be against them.
@ Dr. Skin
You have the importance of (1) and (2) in exactly the wrong order.
The AF-BB paradigm existed way, way before the advent of birth control, as evidenced by the relatively small % of men that were able to pass on their genes as compared to women.
Single motherhood exploded because family law was restructured (child support and custody, no-fault divorce, etc) to shift the costs of women’s immoral behavior onto men. Birth control was a contributor, but not the main cause of this phenomenon.
If a single law could be reversed to land the most devastating blow to feminism possible, easily that law would have to be child support, followed by no-fault divorce with cash and prizes.
@ Puffyjackey
I’m sorry but this alpha fux/beta bucks paradigm is overblown..especially in the people of european ancestry. Follow the link for a better explanation.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/puzzle-of-european-hair-and-eye-color.html
In most other cultures, I will admit polygamy was more widespread and it was rough being a beta. However, this idea that hunter gatherer tribes we evolved from had ~1/20 males sleeping with 20 women while the other 19 men got nothing seems like a stretch. We are not a wolf pack, if beta men had no sexual access then there genes wouldn’t have kept on being passed down and humans would just be a bunch of CADS that possess the dark triad. This is clearly is not the case.
@ Dr Skin
*Studies of our gene pool reveal only 40% of men were able to pass on their genes, which means that 60% had no mating prospects at all. This is by no means “overblown”. Even a distribution along this line has massive implications on the SMP.
With traditional constraints removed, mating patterns have returned back to pre-civilized norms, which explains the vast majority of the problems we encounter today.
*I don’t have the link in front of me, but you can google it rather easily
Don’t forget DR Skin we have civil society. Left alone 1/.20 males do fuck 20 women with 19 men jacking off in the corner after a days work keeping the lights on. Women were always as we see them today what is different is society has incorporated their way into the law, culture and church.
As you can see it was not always like that
DrSkin, it’s trolling to show up, change the topic and tell us everything we’ve worked out over many years is wrong and there’s a simple solution to it all. We already have a Messiah, thank you.
Also anchoring things on the 1:20 ratio is a bit ridiculous. The standard operating assumption in the Manosphere is that 20% of men sleep with 80% of the women, which would imply a 1:4 ratio.
Whether the ratio is in fact 1:4 or 1:2 isn’t relevant. What’s important is the principle that women do revert to this behavior when the traditional constraints of civilization have been removed.
I am not refuting that alpha fux/beta bux exists, I just don’t think it is as successful of mating strategy as the manosphere makes it out to be particulary in harsh climates. I agree that is something at the core of the female Id that makes men uncomfortable. I agree civilized society has figured out how to reign this in with religion, culture norms, etc. All I’m saying is female birth control unleashes the beast within so to speak. And I’m not some troll trying to become the new messiah..but look at the start of all this madness..I don’t think it’s coincidence it coincides with freely available hormonal contraception for all western women on demand for no reason.
The studies on the College Scene SMP put it at 15% of Men got 60% of the Women. (Or 8% got 45% of the Women) If I’m remembering those numbers right. But don’t think 1 in 20 lasts very long. Islam exists because limiting the powerful Men to 4 wives was a brilliant selling point in Dark Ages Arabia. (Which really was elites fighting elites, but that’s another topic)
I think it’s good to keep in mind a point about true anarchy: it lasts only for a few days. Once the “old order” is destroyed, a “new order” will be established with Force very quickly. It’s really a matter of who establishes and what they believe.
@DrSkin:
Don’t confuse “success” with “sin-fueled natural desire”. What Women are doing is absolutely nothing new. It’s just not been generally viable before this time period.
Dr Skin are you playing dumb. It is not a good mating strategy but is a female tendancy the comes from unrestrained hypergamy. It is the toasted ice women love and crave. It is completely normal and natural for women to behave like that. Civilized men incorporate that into civil society. A society where female behavior expressed with complete wicked selfishness is externally seen as kind and virtuous regardless of the motivation.
God instructs men to love their wives. God knew that men that actually saw women as they were would need something more than pussy goggles. I love you because I’m following instruction from God. Not because you are so wonderful.
@looking Glass
Don’t confuse “success” with “sin-fueled natural desire”. What Women are doing is absolutely nothing new. It’s just not been generally viable before this time period.
I have a theory. Since it is generally agreed that wealth and comfort soften people, especially men, it stands to reason that the wealthier a society becomes, the more indulgent it becomes, and the less it is able to fight for its ideals. The forces of good (Patriarchy) and evil (Feminism) have always been at loggerheads. But throughout history, the former has always kept the latter down, for societal good. With unprecedented wealth however, men became too weak and too unconcerned to keep the evil forces at bay, and that was how the evil forces arose, and began to eat away at every pillar of society. The destruction can only be stopped when the whole structure comes crashing down, and a massive reset takes place. Unfortunately, the people who will experience the upheaval will soon die off, leaving the new generation of men to go through the same cycle all over again.
This happened in Chaldees during the time of Abraham. The country was so bad God had to tell Abraham to migrate to a foreign country before He could do anything with him.
It also happened several years later in Sodom and Gomorrah, but those folks were not so lucky.
It happened in Rome. Everybody knew the outcome
And at various times during the dark ages.
And it is happening now. The speed of moral deterioration of America in the last 15 years is astounding, and most likely has a spiritual aspect to it. Atheism, devil worship, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, and feminism all seem to envelope the country from all angles and there is no breathing space. Could anyone have predicted during the Clinton years that, within a mere 14 years, American citizens would be jailed or bankrupted for not supporting homosexual marriages in their businesses or offices? Or that mainstream media would shamelessly tout the “benefits of weed” to the American public?
greyghost,
I agree. If you have fallen men and fallen women and the spectrum that puts them on. As they come to the center to become one flesh is as God intended. When women are allowed to, and encouraged to go towards the end of their respective spectrum you have what we are getting.
What we RP (once BP) men know is that men can and do for the most part stay closer to the center of that spectrum (it’s pure BS to imply men don’t, I’m talking about hard working, productive and Godly men). The reason why christian men live with their wives with understanding is because wives are the weaker vessel and will tend to move toward their end of the spectrum. As men and as christian men with authority and leadership we can and should lead them back toward the center of the spectrum toward God and in turn toward us (their husband). What FI and the government and churchianity has done is tied men’s hands behind their back. They have taken the individual man’s leadership/authority away from him and let women run wild and toward their respective spectrum end.
We get told that men and women are pretty much the same, however I’m not even stretching the truth when I say most men can and do use logic and reason and therefore even the most beta of men are able to lead an un-hypergamous woman. In the modern setting we have, we were brainwashed to think women (our wives in the church world) can lead us in a right direction and are more spiritual etc. Once you realize it’s a sham, all of a sudden you realize what your wife/mom/daughter/church are doing and you go through stages of RP.
Just as men are stronger physically, we are stronger emotionally, and we can lead spiritually from that strength if we are given our authority back by our wives submitting. Churches and pastors do not give this support and many men do not how to jump out of hamster wheel.
King Solomon wrote there is nothing new under the sun and I truly believe that is true in the spiritual sense, however we see what modern medicine and psychology has done with modern government and it is 10 fold worse. I believe it will swing back when every thing collapses.
I have a question: what was the post where the topic was the one commenter that pretended to be a marriage minded successful man to nevermarrieds in their 30s and then, after banging them for a few weeks, discarded them.
Rejoice my brethren! You no longer have to wait until menopause to be treated this way! There is hope! You have now been granted access once monthly to your wife’s breasts by our favorite marriage blogger!
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/09/i-hate-my-breasts-being-touched/#comments
I think it is rather apparent that feminism is far more concerned with humiliating men and stripping them of even modest degrees of power and prestige than it ever has been with delivering unto women the conditions of their own happiness. This is done, paradoxically, by convincing women that not being a man is itself a humiliation. Women toil in the vain attempt to be men, and realizing they can never be, demand that men not be either.
It sounds like we are progressing from “Man up and marry those sluts” to “Man up and go back to work.” I wonder what’s next, apart from more manning up, of course. Man up and pay your bachelor tax? Man up and donate more sperm? Man up and come back to the country?
@Dr. Skin: This is a good hypothesis but BC Pills are clearly not the only thing that happened in the 1960’s. The REAL root cause of all of this is Feminism and the fact that Beta men let them get away with each step. Now the Betas are rushing into the abyss at breakneck speed.
Remember the old poem: For want of a nail…
Because of the Bitches and Betas, suffrage was granted,
because of the suffragettes, equality was granted,
because of equality no fault divorce was granted,
because of no fault divorce, cash and prizes were granted,
because of cash and prizes, marriage was destroyed,
because marriage was destroyed, the culture was destroyed.
So a culture was lost- all for want of good women and alphas.
I am not playing dumb per se..I will agree that hypergamy unchained is the not most becoming trait of our female counterparts. However, without female contraception as a viable option these pillars of civilization that have been constructed to combat it for the good of women and men would not be crumbling at the rate we are seeing without it. It is really astonishing how fast things can unravel when you mess with mother nature this way.
I in no way disagree that 80% of women would like to sleep with the top 20% of men. However, this is not a sustainable option for them in the long run. This behavior had to be checked..especially in the harsh climates of Europe. Even if all women could cuckold her primary mate with alpha seed (which does happen but usually about 1 per 10 children from women in monogamous relationships), usually that is only one child..women would typically have several in her fertile years environmental conditions permitting. So that still leaves offspring for her beta provider. This is why these beta genes have not died out. However, the feral female desire for alpha is an uncomfortable truth the red pill exposes.
I will strongly agree with another posters comments. If men started behaving like actual men again and stopped supplicating to women as the current social environment advocates even beta men can inspire respect and dare I say generate tingles in a woman.
I will state it again..western civilization was functioning properly with stable families until the 1960’s with the rise of feminism, sexual revolution, and widespread access/acceptance of female contraception. Take away the risk of unwanted pregnancies by any means necessary and female hypergamy is completely unchained which has grave consequences for men and women. Abortion, IUDs, OCP’s, Morning after pills, RU-486, even condoms in a biblical sense are the devils tools to rot a civilization from within. Promiscuity, a loss of morality, and a Sodom and Gomorrah type of society is sure to follow. The fact that women support and also often terminate unwanted pregnancies says a lot about their feral nature which in my opinion is much more unsettling than the alpha fux/beta bux paradigm. Unfortunately, when women are left to behave however they wish without checks from men and Religious tenants we are left with the current state of affairs and its very messy indeed.
I agree..feminism and what it promotes is downright despicable, but the movement just could never have gained as much traction as it has without widespread acceptance of female contraception by any means necessary. That to me is the lynch pin that allows all of this insanity and immorality to flourish.
Which poses the question: if female contraception was such an immense cultural influence, will the new male contraceptive technologies prove to be equally seminal?
Birth control alone doesn’t do it. It was child support ,welfare and glorification of the single mom. As soon as a child for a woman became a meal ticket and a claim to fame rather than shame it was lost. The church is done also. Focus on the family refered to single moms as heroic.
Feminism is just a removal of any and all checks on hypergamy including reality.
Yes it kills feminism only claim to power child birth.
@greyhost
I agree wholeheartedly that child support, no fault divorce, welfare, single mom glorification, and welfare are horrendous for society and allow for female hypergamy to run wild. It is feminism that lead to these principles and they are atrocious. However, it is my opinion this movement could not have gained traction without female contraception. You take away the risk of unwanted pregnancies by any mean necessary, the worst being abortion (hamster rationalized murder) and females are then allowed to create there own utopia because the balance of mother nature has been disrupted. Men went along with it because we thought with our little heads and said to ourselves..wow this is great I can have all this sex now and don’t have to worry about kids. Now we reap what we sow. The balance of power was handed over to women and civilizations with women in charge don’t last long.
@greyghost and @Tom C
I am not sure the consequences of male contraception. The balance of power could be shifted back to men, but it still will not fix the problem with feminism. Feminism is a cancer that has spread throughout our society in the west and I am worried we have reached a point of no return. The fact that men are mobilizing and trying to get out the message to the younger generations is promising. In all honesty, the manosphere needs to focus its energy on young women and men. We need to mobilize the women who support us and get those women to expose to the younger generations of women how feminism and its tenants are a shame and will lead them into a life of unhappy childless spinsterhood. My generation is what I would refer to as a lost generation. I only hope that through all we have worked out in the manosphere the younger generation can be helped before it is to late for them as well.
Even if all women could cuckold her primary mate with alpha seed (which does happen but usually about 1 per 10 children from women in monogamous relationships),
How do you know “1 per 10” to be true? What evidence do you have for that?
@Dr Skin
Why start your analysis in the 1960s? A “root cause” analysis would reveal the true source of feminism is female suffrage, because women overwhelmingly vote to skew the SMP in predictable ways. Child support, no-fault divorce, subsidization of single motherhood, abortion, etc. are all the inevitable result of female voting patterns over time. How feminist a given country is depends entirely on how far that country is into the process.
Birth control is a red herring for a few reasons:
1) The rate at which women divorce or raise children out of wedlock depends almost entirely on whether the laws of that country impoverish the mother as a result of divorce or enriches her, not on the rate of birth control usage.
2) Several countries have roughly similar access to birth control as in the US, but nowhere near the same degree of feminism (Eastern Europe, parts of Asia and South America).
3) Key changes in Family Law also occurred around the time birth control appeared on the scene, hence the emphasis on birth control to the exclusion of everything else is inappropriate.
The Japanese birthrate plummeted years before hormonal birth control was allowed in Japan. (Which I believe was actually only in 2000.)
And the thug-spawn problem isn’t new in the least. Read up on what the Protestant Reformers were up to in Switzerland in the 1500s. It’s a bad idea to think that most of previous Western History was much more “moral” than our time period. They just had a significantly lower opportunity to flex their immorality. (There’s also that little issue of God wiping out 1/3rd of them via the Plagues. We like to forget that.) [Though they didn’t start killing their own people, or children, with industrial efficiency until beyond 1880.]
The USA’s problem is down to the laws and that our lower classes aren’t homogeneous with the upper classes. It’s one thing for those lacking self-control to spiral into self-destruction. It’s utterly something else to subsidize it. But it buys votes for Democrats, so they’ll keep doing it.
It’s also probably a good idea to keep in mind two other details. 1) Europe spent the better part of 300 years shipping out all of their “undesirables” to other parts of the world. Or killing them off in wars. 2) The USA’s experience was at such a lower population density that quite a lot of human stupidity simply got you killed in the wilderness & no one cared. The larger the cities, the more room for the consequences of the immorality being pushed onto others.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3lsk3a/im_a_single_woman_in_the_early_thirties_who/
http://imgur.com/gallery/jz9wwiB
@ greyghost
“Maybe God should just step in and make it all better.”
Well do you trust that God will make it better or do you trust men to make it better?
“Just pray and stay righteous and sinful men going to hell will stand up and fight evil for you so you won’t dirty your soul up and miss out on God’s grace.”
Seems you fell for Dave’s red herring. Where did I ask or imply for anyone to fight for me? God’s grace cannot be earned, it is given and He has already given it to this dirty soul.
@Dave
You said
“But why can’t men fight back? I mean, seriously, why not”
I said “Because fighting means you are arguing and when you argue you are acting in dishonour.”
You said you wanted.
“1. Mandatory default 50-50 joint custody of kids in the event of a divorce
2. No mandated child support payments: each parent support the kids financially when they have the kids. Or a bank account be opened in the kids’ names and each parent pays into it.
3. Abolition of all types of alimonies”
I said “If one acts as the Bible instructs us, then you have no need to “fight” because you will remain in honour.” Also, that you will get your list of requests and more if you want.
You said “You really believe that?”
Now I ask again.
Do you believe that God [as set out in Scripture] has given you the remedies needed to overcome all *your* law/legal issues without fighting or ‘taking up the sword’?
If you do not answer Dave then by your silence you will then admit that you do not believe that God has given you the remedies and you choose to rather have trust and faith in men/women.
Please describe what you mean by claiming that Pope Francis is “cutting women slack on abortions”.
Procuring an abortion remains a mortal sin. That hasn’t changed. Procuring an abortion can also be cause for automatic excommunication. That too hasn’t changed. Through repentance, Jesus forgives sin–even the sin of abortion–and His Church can welcome back the lost to full communion. That too hasn’t changed.
So please describe your beef with Jesus, His Church, and His Church’s current successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ.
You too, Dave.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/europe/pope-francis-abortion/
This was big news everywhere for a while
@DrSkin
I agree..feminism and what it promotes is downright despicable, but the movement just could never have gained as much traction as it has without widespread acceptance of female contraception by any means necessary. That to me is the lynch pin that allows all of this insanity and immorality to flourish.
Isn’t it more logical to blame the ready availability of abortions for this than contraception? At least, contraception still has “failure rates”, and even with the most touted contraceptive pill, a typical woman would still approach irresponsible sex with some trepidation. Abortion is the nuclear option—the 100% effective alternative—that took all consequences of thoughtless and meaningless sex away from women.
So please describe your beef with Jesus, His Church, and His Church’s current successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ.
I have no beef with Jesus and I have written in the forum countless times that indeed God forgives the repentant sinner. Fornication, abortion and many other sins that we traditionally so designate are not unpardonable. One of the most damning sins which many folks in this forum are guilty of, is the sin of hypocrisy. They make it look like the sins of men are not as consequential as the sins of women, especially sexual sins. They forgot that hypocrisy is just as damning as fornication.
That said, I do not accept the claim that the pope is a successor of Apostle Peter. The man (Pope Francis—and pretty much all other popes in history) is an unregenerated religious leader who does not even begin to understand the first elements of salvation. He needs to repent and get born again, or he will spend his eternity where all sinners go. The Pope certainly has no power to forgive anyone’s sins, as he is a sinner himself and in need of forgiveness. He is actually an impostor who deceives everyone who follows him.
Apostle Peter has no successor, so let’s not create one for him.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/europe/pope-francis-abortion/
This was big news everywhere for a while
What prevents the “faithful” from whoring around during this “year of mercy”, knowing fully well that the Pope and his hoards of Priests—all sinners by the way—will readily pardon them? As if the pope or his deluded followers had any power to pardon anyone’s sins. I have more power to control the rising of the sun than the pope has to pardon sins. Blind leaders of the blind.
@Dave
Agreed on abortion..it is so vile of a practice it boggles my mind how anyone with any sense of morality can be ok with it..the fact that as a group so many women support it so militantly says a lot about there character..after Roe vs Wade the acceleration into the abyss remarkable.
@Dave
Did you not advocate fighting as a means to get what you want? How come you capitulate so easily when merely questioned? Is it not the correct way of doing things? Have you perhaps run out of steam? Arguing and fighting does take a lot out of a man.
Matthew 11: 25At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26″Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27″All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28″Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29″Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30″For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
Outward acts evince the inward purpose and it seems your stomach for your purpose is fickle at best. Dave you might want the yoke of men on you, I prefer to learn from Jesus and carry His easy yoke and light burden. Like I said, unfortunately Christians put their trust and faith in politicians and not in God to give them what they need.
Now seeing as there is no disputing against a man denying principles [even if those principles are God given Scriptural ones] it would seem my business here is done. Unless of course you still think that arguing will get you anywhere constructive?
@greyghost
Your silence on my questions to you is interesting. So did you actually see Dave’s red herring in my September 22, 2015 at 4:52 am post to him? There is a difference between fighting and using force. Because it is lawful to repel force by force, provided it be done with the moderation of blameless defence, not for revenge, but to ward off injury. My discussion with him had nothing to do with the use of force, it was with regard to his use of fighting in politics as a means to an end. Resisting fighting does not nullify the use of force.
n09,
Did you forget that we walk in this world among men?
Well do you trust that God will make it better or do you trust men to make it better?
Where does God promise to “make it better”? We can stand on God doing it if we have a firm promise of such, but otherwise we have to go out and work “among men” as you deride.
How did you earn your money last week? Did you sit at home waiting for God to supply it? Did you use your own effort to do something useful and get paid for it? (Many choose a third route of mooching off others by taking money forcibly taken from others for support, but that falls back to using men.)
We have to work with men in this world, so your charges are without merit. You can only stand in faith and receive from God what He has promised. I do not see the ones that apply in this situation, but perhaps you can enlighten us.
Please don’t bring the RCC arguments up. Many here do not buy the basic arguments claiming the RCC as the One True Church. I was raised RCC, but saw too much divergence from the Scriptures to stay. Sola Scriptura (did I spell that right?) would be more applicable. That said, this is not the place to argue RCC vs. Protestantism.
BradA you and I are in agreement. God doesn’t do parlor tricks. A man must work in this world and have faith.
@Dave
Did you not advocate fighting as a means to get what you want? How come you capitulate so easily when merely questioned? Is it not the correct way of doing things? Have you perhaps run out of steam? Arguing and fighting does take a lot out of a man.
Is it ever OK for a Christian to join the military, or fight for his country?
@no9,
Like I said, unfortunately Christians put their trust and faith in politicians and not in God to give them what they need.
Looks like you got it backwards. Standing for your civil rights, as a Christian, is not contrary to Scriptures at all, and neither does it mean you are not trusting God. One of the most fundamental misunderstandings among Christians is this belief that they are not to play any active roles in the running of the world in which they live. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Kind of reminds me of a conversation I had with a Christian brother many years ago. He had invited me to his church, and during a light conversation, he wanted to know what I was studying in school. I told him I was in medical school, studying to become a doctor. Noticing a sign of disapproval on his face, I asked him if it was wrong for a Christian to study medicine? He hemmed and hummed, and in effect said Christians should believe in “Divine healing”, and therefore might not need to become doctors.
Really? I’m glad I did not try to “remain in honor”, and listen to his faulty reasoning. I cannot count how many lives I have saved over the last 25 years I have been in practice.
Fast forward a few decades. I was dating this young woman a few years ago. The very day I met her parents, I learned that her mother had been diagnosed with colon cancer……a year earlier…and she had not gone to see the doctor…yet. She was trying out some “holistic diet” to beat her cancer, and “trusting God to take her home some time”. I went ballistic. By the time I finished with her, she was on her way to the oncologist. Unfortunately, the cancer had spread by that time, and she died a year or so later.
I wish I could shout this from the mountaintop: Christians are to be actively involved in the running of their countries. let them get into politics, education, business and banking. let them be police officers and pilots and everything else under the sun. Shying away from political offices is a humongous mistake that will slow down the progress of God’s works, and make the lives of the Christians much more difficult.
Imagine if we had had a few godly judges, congressmen and governors. Do you think our country will continue to make ungodly and life ruining laws as they do now? Will our kids be sacrificed en masse the way they are now through thoughtless and needless abortions? Will our law courts be as corrupt as they are at present?
And how about a godly president? Obama is doing everything possible to stamp homosexuality on the face of America wherever he goes. The man seems to have lost every sense of shame he does not even realize that small, third world countries in Africa no longer respect him when he pushed his disgusting and repulsive homosexuality on them. He was rebuffed in Kenya. He went to Senegal and repeated the same nonsense and he got rebuffed. Still he had not learned his lessons. When Nigeria’s leader visited here, he pushed for his perverted sense of “equality” of homosexuals once more, before that one told him in no uncertain terms that he won’t get anywhere with his perversion. He recently appointed a homosexual to head the army.
Now, imagine that Obama were a godly man. Do you think our country would have been better respected than it is now? Righteousness exalts a nation. Sin is a reproach to any people, no matter how many nuclear warheads they have or how big their annual budget is.
Wonder when the Liberation Theology is going to finally dawn on the followers of the Jesuit? Seems antithetical to the reestablishment of masculine authority to follow a Marxist to me.
How did is come to be that this Anne Breslaw gets paid to write?
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/my-week-as-a-gentleman-random-acts-of-girl-on-guy-chivalry
There cannot be editors monitoring such work, can there? What an embarrassment.
Homonym-ish prescience?
@BradA
Did you forget that we walk in this world among men?
Well are we in this world or are we of this world?
Well do you trust that God will make it better or do you trust men to make it better?
Where does God promise to “make it better”?
Where did I use the word promise?
“We can stand on God doing it if we have a firm promise of such, but otherwise we have to go out and work “among men” as you deride.”
Where did I deride? On the contrary I am highlighting what the Bible shows on how to better work with other men in honour (aka Brotherly love). Did I not quote Luke 12:57“And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? 58As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. 59I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.” We are instructed to settle things with our brother not fight them.
“How did you earn your money last week? Did you sit at home waiting for God to supply it? Did you use your own effort to do something useful and get paid for it? (Many choose a third route of mooching off others by taking money forcibly taken from others for support, but that falls back to using men.)”
What does this have to do with the points I raised regarding Dave’s political views and list of political demands?
“We have to work with men in this world, so your charges are without merit. You can only stand in faith and receive from God what He has promised. I do not see the ones that apply in this situation, but perhaps you can enlighten us.”
You seem to have misunderstood what I was conveying. Where did I say that one should not work to bring about changes? My view was with regard to how Dave goes about doing his.
“Please don’t bring the RCC arguments up. Many here do not buy the basic arguments claiming the RCC as the One True Church. I was raised RCC, but saw too much divergence from the Scriptures to stay. Sola Scriptura (did I spell that right?) would be more applicable. That said, this is not the place to argue RCC vs. Protestantism.”
I am not a Roman Catholic. So it seems that when you read my points you did so from an incorrect point of view to begin with. And I have been advocating Sola Scriptura this whole time. Why the others are “fighting” me on the points of honour and dishonour is because they think I am talking about some or other code of Chivalry and not its actual meaning within the context of the discussion. Their pride is blinding them to God’s truth.
@greyghost
“BradA you and I are in agreement. God doesn’t do parlor tricks. A man must work in this world and have faith.”
What happened to that bravado you showed when you disagreed with my points? Now you just wait for others to type what you want to say and second their opinions of mine points.
@Dave
Why are you still arguing Dave. You already admitted to putting your trust and faith in men/women and not in God to give you what you need. “Legality is not reality” [maxim of law]. And as politicians can do noting more than make legislation, that can only make things legally binding, means that it is not reality to begin with. Seems you are claiming and advocating fiction as reality. So am I under any obligation to entertain your delusions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3244385/Shout-Abortion-hashtag-trends-women-share-experiences-end-shame-stigma.html
Love it when they show us what they really think. Sorry ladies, it ain’t ending the shame. You are still murderers.
no9 you are the man. You have added so much to the conversation. I feel I just have nothing else to offer
no9
“Why are you still arguing Dave. <b<You already admitted to putting your trust and faith in men/women and not in God to give you what you need.”
You have to show me exactly where I did this.
And, I noticed that you conveniently ignored my question. Let me ask again:
Is it ever OK for a Christian to join the military, or fight for his country?
That luscious feminist (of divinely robust girth) Lindy West is the originator of this nonsense.
We can take some comfort in that, coupled with her marriage to a flaming homosexual, her predilection for infanticide will keep society from having to support another generation bearing her defective genes.
n09, you need to format your posts better. It is really hard to tell the points others made and your own words.
We have to fight with our own resources for many things, including politics. A fair bit of the modern problems are because Christian men either sat back and didn’t fight or they got swayed by those pushing a very heretical message.
You are the one who claims that Peter was the Vicar of Christ when nothing in the Scriptures state that. Note the difference between what Jesus called Peter (little rock) and what He said He would build His Church on (big rock). Saying that is the revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ is much more accurate than claiming some apostolic succession that is not noted anyplace else.
Do you like flip-flopping a lot? Are you a fish?
Dave,
We are very similar to Ancient Israel (the northern kingdom) now. We have a great outward prosperity, with huge amounts of sin and idolatry. We are likely headed for a judgement similar to what they faced, even though it will clearly differ in some way.
Sowing to the wind eventually brings the whirlwind! I pray I find a safe place to stand from the latter when it hits. Many do not realize how bad that will be, as they are drunk with worldly success. Even those like n09 are colored by the very things they decry, or don’t decry as the case may be. Some of them are like the old profit in Israel who intentionally misled the prophet God sent from the southern kingdom. He wanted fellowship so much he was willing to lie about hearing from God and caused the other prophet to get killed later heading home since he disobeyed God’s commands to not tarry in the northern kingdom.
We must focus on what is right and only that. Stop shooting at allies and aim at those who are the enemy.
Greyghost,
We agree on more than may always be evident, as we have both noted before.
@GeminiXcX:
Proverbs 24:1-7 (ESV)
1 Be not envious of evil men,
nor desire to be with them,
2 for their hearts devise violence,
and their lips talk of trouble.
3 By wisdom a house is built,
and by understanding it is established;
4 by knowledge the rooms are filled
with all precious and pleasant riches.
5 A wise man is full of strength,
and a man of knowledge enhances his might,
6 for by wise guidance you can wage your war,
and in abundance of counselors there is victory.
7 Wisdom is too high for a fool;
in the gate he does not open his mouth.
To save a long discussion, Imperialism in the name of Christ is out. But War is a tool of the Lord, and Christians will be called to fight. There’s a reason the Law includes commands for killing evildoers, as evil begets more evil. And the only way to deal with a lot of it is to kill it. That most definitely hasn’t changed. (And Revelation quite clears points out that is how it will be dealt with at the end of Times.)
Is it ever OK for a Christian to join the military, or fight for his country?
I have read the scriptures cover to cover many times, and find no support in the NT that would indicate a “yes” answer.
Actually, there is a lot of indirect support for it in the NT.
Neither Jesus nor the Apostles advised any of the soldiers who converted to Christianity to abandon their profession as soldiers. Neither preached against soldiering. Even John the Baptist who directly addressed soldiers only told them to be good, righteous soldiers, not to abandon their profession. The OT is full of several examples of godly soldiers (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, David, etc readily come to mind).
John the Baptist did not preach against soldiering:
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.” Luke 3:14
Jesus never preached against it either:
But the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9″For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel
Matthew 8:8-10
The Apostles never denounced being a soldier.
I have read through the NT countless times and I never came across even a hint of disapproval of soldiering from the Apostolic writings.
Common sense dictates that Christians can be soldiers, and they should be.
Imagine a highly successful Christian ministry which has preached to, and converted most of the citizens of the country. How will such a country defend itself against aggressors if Christians cannot be soldiers? Why, ISIS will have their heads for lunch, rape their women and forcefully convert the rest to Islam.
Yeah, I understand that NT Scripture never directly said to become a soldier—same way it never say directly to worship on Sundays, or to have only one wife (except those aspiring to be church leaders). But we can easily know where it stands on the issue.
The topic has also been discussed here
@greyghost
“no9 you are the man. You have added so much to the conversation. I feel I just have nothing else to offer”
Well your feelings are all good and well but do you really *think* that you have nothing else to offer?
@Dave
“You have to show me exactly where I did this.”
As you wish -September 22, 2015 at 4:52 am – *Do you believe that God [as set out in Scripture] has given you the remedies needed to overcome all *your* law/legal issues without fighting or ‘taking up the sword’?
If you do not answer Dave then by your silence you will then admit that you do not believe that God has given you the remedies and you choose to rather have trust and faith in men/women.*
“And, I noticed that you conveniently ignored my question. Let me ask again: Is it ever OK for a Christian to join the military, or fight for his country?”
Nothing convenient about it. I told you *Now seeing as there is no disputing against a man denying principles [even if those principles are God given Scriptural ones] it would seem my business here is done. Unless of course you still think that arguing will get you anywhere constructive?*
You still deny the principles of God as set out in scripture to give you you remedies. So what business do I have with someone who advocates fictions created by men as the solution to his problems… and views the remedies given by God as fiction?
@BradA
“n09, you need to format your posts better. It is really hard to tell the points others made and your own words.
We have to fight with our own resources for many things, including politics. A fair bit of the modern problems are because Christian men either sat back and didn’t fight or they got swayed by those pushing a very heretical message.
You are the one who claims that Peter was the Vicar of Christ when nothing in the Scriptures state that. Note the difference between what Jesus called Peter (little rock) and what He said He would build His Church on (big rock). Saying that is the revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ is much more accurate than claiming some apostolic succession that is not noted anyplace else.
Do you like flip-flopping a lot? Are you a fish?”
Okay BradA… tell you what. You show me where I said that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and I will format my post better for you. If you do not then you admit that you associating me with a low life animal is a intentional mischaracterisation. Or do you like to belittle your fellow brethren in Christ?
Rejoice my brethren! You no longer have to wait until menopause to be treated this way! There is hope! You have now been granted access once monthly to your wife’s breasts by our favorite marriage blogger!
That skank would do much better financially to just go ahead and write for The Onion….reads the same either way.
That luscious feminist (of divinely robust girth) Lindy West is the originator of this nonsense.
We can take some comfort in that, coupled with her marriage to a flaming homosexual, her predilection for infanticide will keep society from having to support another generation bearing her defective genes.
Lindy West celebrates infanticide? Not shocking.
Lindy West managed to get impregnated? Shocking.
@Dave
“You have to show me exactly where I did this.”
As you wish -September 22, 2015 at 4:52 am – *Do you believe that God [as set out in Scripture] has given you the remedies needed to overcome all *your* law/legal issues without fighting or ‘taking up the sword’?
If you do not answer Dave then by your silence you will then admit that you do not believe that God has given you the remedies and you choose to rather have trust and faith in men/women.*
So, you get to make the rules and you get to enforce them? Ever heard of Montesquieu and his concept of the Division of Powers”?
n09,
You are correct, I wrongly attributed
So please describe your beef with Jesus, His Church, and His Church’s current successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ.
to you when Micha was the one who stated it. I am not sure how I got mixed up, but I retract that conversation thread.
Those points would of course apply to Micha.
BTW, note how I used a blank line between my quoted content to break it off. Adding a italic or bold tag helps. That is very easy to do. Just add and before and after the quoted material. Remove the spaces from my example if it comes through OK.
OK, the way to add tags got eaten, but the idea is to put “i” between the less than and greater than symbol just before the quoted content and “/i” between those symbols just after the quote. Adding a single blank line also sets off your reply better.
Look into a very basic HTML site for details on how to use italics or bold in your replies and you would do much better than the wall of text we have now.
@Dave
“So, you get to make the rules and you get to enforce them?”
Did I not tell you that if you act in honour you can get what you want? And it’s not my rules Dave, its law. I got to hold on to my claim … you just wanted to argue and fight.
“Ever heard of Montesquieu and his concept of the Division of Powers”?”
Ever heard of the God given remedies found in the Scripture you can use to settle your law/legal issues?
@BradA
*You show me where I said that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and I will format my post better for you.*
Our agreement was that I will change my post to suit you if you did. You did not so why are you still making a claim that I should change it?
*If you do not then you admit that you associating me with a low life animal is an intentional mischaracterisation.*
You also admit that your claims were intentional and a mischaracterisation.
So do you like to belittle your fellow brethren in Christ?
A really old reply:
“root cause” analysis would reveal the true source of feminism is female suffrage, because women overwhelmingly vote to skew the SMP in predictable ways.
Nope. A true investigation would find it was the Fall.
[Gen 3:16 KJV] 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
This is not a new problem. It is just enabled in ways that can seem unique today. Nothing new under the sun as Solomon noted.
You also admit that your claims were intentional and a mischaracterisation.
You are an idiot sir. I admit no such intent. I already noted what happened. Grow up a bit and maybe you can sit on this ride.
@no9
Are you trying to suggest that a Christian is forbidden from seeking legal redress to settle a dispute with an unsaved person? Care to quote the relevant Bible passage(s), or you simply made it up?
“And it’s not my rules Dave, its law…”
I was referring to your conclusion that my silence meant an admission of your position, which isn’t necessarily true. Then you went ahead to ascribe your conclusion to me. Sounds like straw man to me.
no9 @ 7:30 am:
“If you do not answer Dave then by your silence you will then admit…”
This is out of line, no9. When your debating partner goes silent, it means he has nothing to say that he didn’t already say. I notice this isn’t the first time you attempted this tactic in this thread.
…
GeminiXcX @ September 22, 2015 at 9:32 pm:
“Is it ever OK for a Christian to join the military, or fight for his country?
I have read the scriptures cover to cover many times, and find no support in the NT that would indicate a “yes” answer.”
The first Gentile Christian of any importance was Cornelius, a Roman Centurion, enforcer of a cruel empire whose leader was worshiped as a god, and Acts contains not a hint that his career was even slightly unacceptable to God.
no9 is a feminist shamer…
She is goading you guys into arguments that she can pin you on or paint you into a corner by being on the offense. Christian SJW with enough knowledge of the scripture and a whole lot of self confidence in what she says…. solipsism.
It’s like talking to a nurse at a dinner table full of strangers. She doesn’t realize there are others seated that have as much or more knowledge and just she has $h!+ coming out of mouth and doesn’t know when to be silent and wiped the crap off her chin.
You will never win an argument with her/ him(SJW).
In the infamous words of Squints: “You are killing me Smalls”
@BradA
“You are an idiot sir. I admit no such intent. I already noted what happened. Grow up a bit and maybe you can sit on this ride.”
What?… and grow up into someone like you like who refers to my fellow Christians as some or other animal? Well then it seems you do like to belittle your brethren in Christ.
@Dave
“I was referring to your conclusion that my silence meant an admission of your position, which isn’t necessarily true. Then you went ahead to ascribe your conclusion to me. Sounds like straw man to me.”
“He who is silent appears to consent” [another maxim of law] I made my claim and you went silent. Do you have any lawful authority to support your claim that we did not have a lawful agreement?
GunnerQ
“This is out of line, no9. When your debating partner goes silent, it means he has nothing to say that he didn’t already say.”
True… however, when a claim is made and you go silent it means you consents to the terms. I asked him the same question 2 before times. I only made my claim the 3rd time. He tried to act in dishonour (going silent) because he thought incorrectly that it is the correct way to handle his affairs.
“I notice this isn’t the first time you attempted this tactic in this thread.”
Only attempted? The problem is you don’t see what it is that was done for them. I love my brothers in Christ and feel the pain and the frustration they are going through. However I cannot give them something that is between God and them as well as what He has already given them. All I can do is try and show them that their game is rigged and requires them to argue/fight and be silent to function and that they cannot win. God in is His wisdom and grace has given them the remedy but they don’t want it. And until they truly believe in what was given they will remain stuck in the situation they find themselves in.
I have worked for the State Attorney and have been in cases from the lowest to the highest court. I know what the game is and it’s rigged. Even when you think you win you still loose.
However seems that what I have to offer regarding legal and lawful advice is of no use here so to prevent dishonour for all involved I will take my leave. All the best to you all.
No.
Dear Gunner:
I just spent an hour learning about Cornelius in the context of history.
As an aside, I really enjoy your replies here. They’re very fruitful sources. The only other person who taught me as much about the bible was Lyn87 (may he soon return).
Regards,
Boxer
Gemini,
Such a country better have an army or it would soon be owned by another country.
It would not happen, for many in it would be Christian in name only, but it would still need to defend itself. Even ancient Israel had to defend themselves under God’s direction.
@Boker,
“As an aside, I really enjoy your replies here. They’re very fruitful sources.”
Thank you! High praise.
…
GeminiXcX @ September 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm:
“If Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, then his will is not represented by the interests of secular governments.”
Secular government has God-given duties that require the use of deadly force. This is God’s will per Romans. Gov’t often assumes duties that God didn’t give it and that’s a problem, but not one that makes soldiering a crime against God.
“As for the point I addressed about even same-denomination “Christians” murdering each other through secular militaries, it’s interesting how the ‘pro-soldier’ crowd was strangely silent.”
The fratricidal periods of Christian history were not motivated by religious doctrine. The wars following the Reformation were a corrupt Vatican’s desperate attempt at maintaining an unBiblical monopoly on salvation, said monopoly being partly why the Reformation happened in the first place. More recently, the Troubles in Ireland were religious only in the sense that Cat vs. Prot helped distinguish the two sides of a political conflict.
We are all brothers in Christ. It’s explicit in the Bible. Therefore, whenever you see Christians killing each other it’s a safe bet there’s more going on than you see.
Pingback: Why he won’t hear it. | Dalrock
Anonymous Reader says:
September 21, 2015 at 11:54 pm
“Even if all women could cuckold her primary mate with alpha seed (which does happen but usually about 1 per 10 children from women in monogamous relationships)”,
How do you know “1 per 10” to be true? What evidence do you have for that?
The rate of cuckoldry in the U.S. is actually considerably higher than 10%.
From https://web.archive.org/web/20050203215419/http://nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml
From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.
From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”
From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.