With the full court press by the left condemning figures on the right for offering “thoughts and prayers” for the victims of the Florida mass shooting, it is worth noting that at other times the left feels the only appropriate response to mass murder is thoughts and prayers.
Just hours after ISIS terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 and injured another 434 in Nice on Bastille Day, the Guardian ran an opinion piece titled Sympathy should be our only response to the Nice terror attack:
We should not pretend that any state can stop one madman in a truck. Most official responses are likely only to make things worse
Eighty-four people died late on Thursday night as a lorry drove for more than a mile through the Bastille Day crowds in the southern French city of Nice. The driver eventually died in a hail of police bullets. The incident, on a day when the French celebrate equality, liberty and fraternity, could hardly be more horrific.
The victims are beyond help, but the French people should have whatever sympathy the world can usefully offer. The danger is that ritualised global responses to these incidents become their megaphone. They raise the multiplier impact of the terror – and also raise public expectation that “something can be done”.
The Guardian preemptively warned that there was no such thing as sensible terrorist control:
The French president, François Hollande, has extended for three months the state of emergency resulting from the Charlie Hebdo killings and the events in Paris last November. He has announced, yet again, that France is “at war” with the threat of Islamist terrorism.
…
Such responses may comfort the citizens of Nice in their state of shock. But there is no defence force on Earth that can defend a crowd from a madman in a truck.
Since their invention at the end of the 19th century, motor vehicles have been agencies of terror and death. The first car bomb was “Buda’s wagon”, which blasted Wall Street in 1920. Cars and trucks are not going to be banned, any more than America is going to ban guns. The only sensible response is to accept the degree of risk that they will always pose, and not pretend it can be made to disappear.
Note that the Guardian implicitly coopted the argument of second amendment supporters when responding to the Nice attack.
The same day, the Independent ran a positive story about President Obama’s response to the terror attack:
On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and other loved ones of those killed, and we wish a full recovery for the many wounded.
Likewise, after the terrorist attack in Manhattan in November of last year, the NY Times ran an opinion piece titled After the Terror decrying the “tiresome” calls for sensible border control:
But the hard fact is that it is not possible, and never will be, to anticipate every attack, to make cities teeming with life immune to the desperate acts of men seething with resentments, especially when final preparations are as banal as renting a truck.
And as for the tiresome calls for draconian border controls, could immigration authorities really have foreseen in 2010 that a 22-year-old arrival from Uzbekistan — which is not on the list of countries on the Trump administration’s travel ban — would be radicalized and evolve into a killer? Mr. Saipov’s cries of “Allahu akbar” and other evidence speak to an affinity for the Islamic State, but it does not require a long apprenticeship in a terrorist network to rent a Home Depot truck and drive onto a bicycle path.
Compare the above with the obviously coordinated effort on the left to condemn leaders on the right for expressing thoughts and prayers for the victims of mass shootings. After the Florida shooting the Guardian ran an opinion piece titled Heartbreak isn’t enough. Shootings will continue until laws are changed:
We deserve to have lawmakers who understand that prioritizing public safety is not a political issue – it is a matter of common sense
…
But being heartbroken over these tragedies isn’t enough. We must act. We must demand that our lawmakers do more to end the crisis of gun violence in our schools, in our homes and in public places. Gun violence will continue to happen in every American community, until we finally change our gun laws. What happened in Florida was preventable – gun violence is preventable.
After the Vegas shooting the Guardian went so far as to imply that after Muslim terror attacks everyone agrees that we should demand action, not offer thoughts and prayers. From Mourn the Las Vegas shooting, we’re told. But don’t ask why it happened
We don’t stop talking about terrorism after another Isis attack. But many want the gun control debate to be a taboo after a mass shooting.
After the Las Vegas massacre, we’re told we cannot talk about politics. At times of public mourning, we must maintain some dignity that is otherwise entirely absent from our politics: we must pray, reflect on the nature of evil, but never debate what to do next.
Because what we’ll do next is mourn the next mass murder in the United States.
There is a strange exclusion zone around white gun violence by second amendment fanatics. Mass murder by Muslims (or foreigners who may have come from majority Muslim countries) is not subject to the same kind of hushed grieving. Gang warfare in Chicago receives no such respect.
Note: This post started as a comment at Instapundit. See also this related post at Instapundit.
As Rollo Tomassi likes to say about hypergamy,leftists don’t care about logic or consistency. It only cares about fulfilling its vision. It will say one thing one day and contradict it the next, because nothing is absolute, nothing is objective. What is true one day may not be true the next. Whatever the vision requires is the truth.
Pingback: The changing “thoughts and prayers” narrative from the left. | @the_arv
Ordo ab Chao {Latin; problem reaction solution}
Oldest trick in the book.
@The Question
I see it differently. If one’s goal is to weaken or destroy white straight Christian men, then the logic and consistency is not only solid, but seamless. A few years ago I wouldn’t have believed that was actually The Program. I stared at the pile of leftist complaints and thought they were simply stupid. But if you take each complaint in the pile and allow yourself to entertain the silly conspiracy notion (you know, for mere amusement) that, “This complaint is designed to weaken white straight Christian men.”, you will find that it fits every time.
At some point a man is forced to formally recognize the pattern. Then he must either get with The Program, bow out (A popular option, but really the same thing as getting with The Program), or fight back.
Pingback: The hypocrisy poisoning America
Best counter to a jihad is a crusade. Best counter to leftism is “toxic” masculinity.
“We deserve to have lawmakers who understand that prioritizing public safety is not a political issue – it is a matter of common sense”
A perfectly female sentiment. Men don’t want to be sheltered from violent baddies, we want to do the hangin’ ourselves.
The left has a strange bedfellow in Muhammadanism.
@ Cane Caldo
It’s another way of making the same point. Their vision is as you described; that means that thoughts and prayers are the only appropriate thing to do when it helps their goal, but it is wholly inadequate when it does not help fulfill the goal.
We see this in the same way they speak of gender and race being social constructs, but then assign moral obligations and duties to people according to race and gender. You can’t assume someone’s gender, unless of course it means assigning them blame for something purely on the basis of gender. Race isn’t real, but “your people” did this to “those people” and that’s why “they” get to say and do things that “you and yours” can’t.
Indeed…the left loves approved group think. ‘Toxic’ men are those who contradict the approved group think.
‘The left has a strange bedfellow in Muhammadanism.’
A group of people living in an overly oppressive state that goes unhinged at the sight of anyone who disapproves of the ethos…to the point that disrupting and killing the contradictors is seen as virtuous.
Tell me, which group do you think I’m describing there?
The left is crazy, and the right seems to be too. I couldn’t believe this from a NR article about the Chris Rock special. Virtually endorsing the idea of men as disposable. Ouch.
>>>
Repackaged, Rock’s set could actually make for a Peterson-style self help guide — Rock’s Rules for Life. The world is harsh, so expect no favors from it. Be faithful and committed in your marriage. Reject porn. And if you’re a man, be one. Take responsibility. “I brought this s*** on myself,” Rock says. “You gotta learn some lessons, some man lessons.#…#There’s a coldness you have to accept when you’re a man, especially a black man.” Rock thinks “only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally,” whereas “a man is only loved under the condition that he provide something. I’ve never heard a woman in my life say, ‘You know, after he got laid off, we got so much closer.’” After all, when a man meets someone new, his friends ask, “What does she look like?” When a woman meets someone new, her friends ask, “What does he do?”
The value of a man is tied up in his work, Rock says: “What the f*** does that n****r do that can help you out? Can this m**********r facilitate a dream or not?” The advice to men is sound: Think less about your grievances, think more about providing for others
<<<
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/chris-rock-tamborine-we-need-bullies-marital-fidelity-no-pornography/
Paul @ 1:25 pm:
“The left has a strange bedfellow in Muhammadanism.”
For your consideration:
http://gunnerq.com/2017/12/12/islam-is-matriarchy/
@earl: that would fit most totalitarian states.
I think Rock was more complaining about/observing that sad state of affairs than advocating it. Only the cucks at NR could take those conditions as a goal, not a problem.
Speaking of the narratives the left shoves down our throats:
“Why gay Olympians Adam Rippon and Gus Kenworthy are marketing gold”
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/20/news/companies/gay-olympians-rippon-kenworthy/index.html
The following made me wretch:
We’re now supposed to fawn over sodomites and say “Awwww! Aren’t they adorable? The wife and I should engage in anal sodomy, so we can be just like them”
I can only imagine how soon we will have pedophiles shoved down our throats.
I do admit, I am taking great pleasure in Team USA’s poor showing at the games, as they are a lowly sixth place in the medal count.
About Muhammadanism leading to matriarchy; I disagree. Women have almost nothing to say, their witness is worth half that of a man, a man can marry may women, and can divorce them at will, next to that he can keep sex-slaves when conquered in war, there’s temporary marriage (similar to prostitution), women need to obey men, women need to be sexually available to men, men can punish women with physical violence. This was even clear to the women in the time of Mohammed:
Sahih al-Bukhari 5825:
“Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!”
As always, David Wood is excellent in exposing the nasty details in Muhammadanism:
Exactly, PokeSalad. Chris Rock can be pretty insightful. NR’s logical conclusion for women would be, “The value of a woman is tied up in her looks. The advice to women is sound: Think less about your rights, think more about looking attractive for your husband.” Think we’ll ever see that?
Pingback: The changing “thoughts and prayers” narrative from the left. | Reaction Times
Paul @ 3:36 pm:
“Women have almost nothing to say, their witness is worth half that of a man, a man can marry may women, and can divorce them at will, next to that he can keep sex-slaves when conquered in war, there’s temporary marriage (similar to prostitution), women need to obey men, women need to be sexually available to men, men can punish women with physical violence.”
Huh. My points almost exactly. Matriarchy isn’t rule by women. It’s rule by petty warlords. Yes, women have a brutal life under Islam but they prefer brutality to a safe and prosperous life under Christian kindness and self-restraint. I had trouble believing it, too, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Do you have an alternative explanation for the coziness between feral women and Islam?
You should not take The Manchester Guardian seriously; no one else does. I never purchased a copy and doubt that I have even picked one up; the circulation is not very high – “read by people who think they ought to run the country”. Were I American I would feel incensed that a British newspaper were trying to tell me how America should be run – newspaper colonialism – moral grandstanding without responsibility. As I seem to recall, the first thing that happened after the Manchester Bombing was a candle-lit Kumbaya Vigil – surely Guardian approved – nothing else happened.
The perpetrators of the atrocities are always males from homes lacking a Father or natural Father and usually as with the Manchester Terrorist are virgins desperate to get laid; thus Feminism leads to School-Shootings. As you may recall I knew the Westminster Bridge Terrorist who frequently threatened me; his favoured weapon (other than a truck) was a knife. He was of African descent (pretty rare round here – then) and had been adopted by a white couple. Said I wrecked his marriage. Hmmm.
The definiton of matriarchy is a government ruled by women.
I’m sure there’s probably a better term for rule by petty warlords out there .
Paul quotes
It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!”
Confirmation of female in-group preference (measured at 4:1 in a single experiment) from an unexpected source.
“Matriarchy : a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women.”
Where do you get your definition of matriarchy from?
Yes I have an explanation for the relationship between Mohammedanism and feminism; it’s the same awkward relation as between communism (the root of feminism) and Mohammedanism.
Superficially speaking you can say that the Left (communism/feminism) is predominantly cultural-relativist, as well as blind to ANY religious motivation in people (ALL has to do with “poverty”/”social injustice”/”suppressed groups”). In the Left’s view, refugees and low-wage immigrants from islamic countries, who coincidentally happen to be followers of Mohammed most of the time, are part of a suppressed group, and hence deserve their sympathy. They are quick to point out that you should not judge this whole group by the actions of “extremist” individuals who are not representative for “Islam”. Hence the adherence to “islamist” and “islamism”.
On a deeper level, both the Left and Mohammedans are totalitarians and hence enemies of freedom. They have willfully blinded themselves and are following the lies of Satan. They are but tools in the hands of a grand scheme, which we all intuitively recognize as “evil”.
I predict that they will find fellowship in even stranger groups that are also clearly opposed to God. It doesn’t matter that in the end one such group will devour another group if these have attained enough power.
Referring back to the OP, Dalrock, you know all this is just rhetorical. Leftists are straight out of Orwell, if they aren’t purging the past like Winston Smith in 1984 they are constantly rewriting “Two legs bad, four legs good!” out of Animal Farm.
The deeper question to ask is this: why would the intellectual cousins of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot want a disarmed population? If that’s a “good first step” as Sarah Brady once said…what’s the next step after that?
I should of course also mention the strange relationship between the LGBT community and “muslims”.
@RagingBeta
Best counter to a jihad is a crusade. Best counter to leftism is “toxic” masculinity.
Don’t tell that to the leaders of modern conservatism (though on second thought, that’s kind of an oxymoron). They still want us to believe that what really makes the left worry are men who will dutifully take a bullet for a culture that hates them:
Reading something like this makes more sense if you know that the “conservative” who wrote it was a Harvard man. He engages culture war in the way that the Ivy League engages football:
Link to the article is here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-counterfeit-masculinity-feminism-dream/
The problem which produces school shootings in America isn’t guns, it is the government run, one size fits all, school system.
Nobody ever asks what it is that causes young white men to snap and go on school shooting rampages, but if they did they would realize the answer is the public school system.
If you had to name one other American institution that most resembled a public high school, it would be what? In my opinion, the answer is government run prison.
Really. Large numbers of people from differing backgrounds and cultures forced together for extended periods. Cliques and gangs form. Both have a bureaucracy that becomes numb to its responsibility and worries more about its own needs than the good of the students/prisoners (look up the Atlanta school cheating scandal; the teachers referred to the students as if they were sub-human; their interest was getting their bonus, not the best interest of the students). In both, males are given drugs to sedate them (Ritalin in schools, this articles discuss prison sedation methods: http://www.jailmedicine.com/tag/sedation/).
You hear that students benefit from the socialization in public schools, but exactly how are they being socialized?
The Florida school had almost 3,000 students. Is it any wonder the shooter got lost in the crowd (and probably felt like he was a nobody). Even with the warnings people raised, the administration’s first instinct was to do nothing. Because, that means sticking their neck out, which invites personal trouble. It’s no wonder public schools can’t get rid of troublesome students (thanks to apathetic administrators and bleeding-heart judges).
Why should we be surprised when one of these school kids on the edge snaps? Given the school environment we should expect it.
Phil Gramm was a congressman and Senator from Texas. In his youth, he was flunking out of school and getting in trouble with the law. He credits a judge packing him off to the Georgia Military Academy (a publicly run school for troubled boys at the time) for turning his life around.
How would the shooter’s life have been different if he had been sent to an all male military school in his youth? Who knows, but we do know that kind of thing isn’t allowed anymore. The Georgia Military Academy was eventually closed, because…feminism. Having an all male, state run school was seen as discriminating against girls.
But, that is exactly what we need–more options in education and less one-size-fits-all, government run schools.
We know that homeschooled children do better than public school educated children (it’s settled science, anyone that disagrees is a science denier). Charter school students do better; private school students do better; students in every non-government run system do better than public school systems. Not just educationally, but mentally and socially.
You want fewer school shootings, then we need to eliminate the American monolithic school systems that produce them.
‘Where do you get your definition of matriarchy from?’
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy?src=search-dict-hed
Our biggest problem is catering to and giving in to a few offended girls. Has closing that school made the girls any happier or content?
As for the strange confusing contridictory alliance discussed here, let me
offer Occum’s Razor. Here is a simple explanation; They hate the white man!
If you had to name one other American institution that most resembled a public high school, it would be what? In my opinion, the answer is government run prison.
One could argue the actual prison is superior, in that I suspect that the felons have a better chance at an actual education, and there is at least the semblance of control.
Paul @ 5:07 pm:
“Matriarchy : a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women. Where do you get your definition of matriarchy from?”
A good question. Women are designed by God to be servants, not leaders, so when women rebel and seize the reins of power, the winners are the men women want instead of the men women need. The AF/BB dynamic, implemented at the government level.
Amazonia never existed and never will. Women are worthless soldiers, workers and leaders. They make good families and bad governments.
“I predict that they will find fellowship in even stranger groups that are also clearly opposed to God.”
How are they able to find such fellowship? What gives them common cause? My answer is that all of them are matriarchies.
Women want to be traded between harems of Apex Alphas and fueled by Betas disposed of into slavery or endless petty conflicts. That’s Islam. That’s Feminism. That’s Globalism. That’s Communism. The common root is matriarchy. That’s how they are able to cooperate.
PokeSalad @ 7:08 pm:
“One could argue the actual prison is superior, in that I suspect that the felons have a better chance at an actual education, and there is at least the semblance of control.”
Better than that, prisons are segregated by race. It prevents a lot of social trouble.
There was a California judge a few years back who decided that keeping black murderers separated from Latino murderers was racist and ordered the California prison system to desegregate. It was the one and only time that prison officials openly defied legislation from the bench. Oh, it would have been a glorious scandal.
@Otto Lamp
Isn’t it weird? An all male military academy gets shut down. Yet female colleges are still around. And even stranger, HBCUs are still open, never mind that the Civil Rights movement occurred in the 60s and integration was in theory achieved. As an outsider to American culture, this baffles me.
@rocko, like Depp said in ‘Fear and Loathing’ “once you get locked into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.”
Gents,
Regarding why Communism, Feminism, Islam, etc. join forces: you’re ignoring the most important component – the spirit.
Jesus already explained all this to us.
John 3:19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a [a]hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a [b]basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
John 15:18 “If the world hates you, [a]you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
Communists, Feminists, Muslims, etc. unite around their common hatred of Christians. They hate Christians because Christians are the light of the world, called out of this world, and because they hated Christ first. This is a spiritual matter, and the people who hate Christians don’t even know what drives them to hatred.
But, why white Christian men, specifically?
Since the Apostles, no one has taken the Gospel to more people around the world than white Christian men, particularly Christian men of the Anglosphere. Men like Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, and Dr. David Livingstone took the gospel to the far reaches of the Earth, and their fruit now numbers in the hundreds of millions. Do you really think the Prince of This World wants a legacy like that to continue?
Obviously, feminists have never given any thought to what they’d do if they ever succeeded in destroying Christianity, but I assure you, the Muslims have.
On the Brown story up here.
If you dont know the frontrunner in the Ontario Premier (governer) was accused by two girls as being inappropriate. His party turfed him within a day. He sued the accusers and the tv network that ran the story. Seems when examined both accusers changed major parts of their stories like being off the timeline by a year and never actually being at the location the alleged act took place.
So Brown is back running for Premier, except his opponents in his own party are trying to even remove him as a sitting member.
Brilliant article on what society should do if a metoo accusation is false
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-patrick-brown-cant-clear-his-name-by-running-for-leader
@Oscar
Satan comes at Christianity from many different angles. Feminism seems particularly effective through their ability to redefine morality and exploiting particular weak points in western Christendom.
To paint Christian Patriarchy as abuse through slander while in reality Christian Patriarchy is being a Just Lord and Master of his own household over his wife and children. Promoting rebellion against the God ordained order from below.
And the lack of fortitude among the men in so called churches is particularly vexing for me.
Islam on the other hand is male tyranny which obviously is much more abusive than the God ordained version.
Women ruling is a form of Gods judgement
as is children ruling- notice how our culture is obsessed with the opinions of young people
Isaiah 3:11
11Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. 12O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.
@Oscar, you are correct. This is worth watching all the way through: https://youtu.be/ao2VlpxGFe4
@Gunner Q, obviously having male and separate female prisons is gross sexism and must be immediately abolished. How can they let this historical injustice stand ? After men and woman are now physically equal.
The thing looked past most, is that most who own guns, own them to confront evil, overwhelmingly more so than those who own them to commit evil.
@Oscar: Regarding why Communism, Feminism, Islam, etc. join forces: you’re ignoring the most important component – the spirit.
That was exactly my point when I wrote : “On a deeper level, both the Left and Mohammedans are totalitarians and hence enemies of freedom. They have willfully blinded themselves and are following the lies of Satan.”
@Gunner Q: Women are designed by God to be servants, not leaders, so when women rebel and seize the reins of power, the winners are the men women want instead of the men women need. The AF/BB dynamic, implemented at the government level.
My answer is that all of them are matriarchies.
Women want to be traded between harems of Apex Alphas and fueled by Betas disposed of into slavery or endless petty conflicts. That’s Islam. That’s Feminism. That’s Globalism. That’s Communism. The common root is matriarchy. That’s how they are able to cooperate.
The problem with your theory is twofold:
1. it does NOT follow the definition of a matriarchy (and yes, there are and have been true matriarchies)
2. even if we should call what you describe a “matriarchy”, you still need to offer proof that it were women only that were behind all these “-isms”. You can’t. We know who started communism and we know who started Mohammedanism, and we know who were involved. It were men. And there was no government to support them, on the contrary, they overthrew rulers to replace them with their own rule.
@Oscar: But, why white Christian men, specifically? Since the Apostles, no one has taken the Gospel to more people around the world than white Christian men, particularly Christian men of the Anglosphere.
Although I see a predominantly hate against white males in the USA, I think it is just a byproduct of a perceived superiority of those who are in power, who most often are white men, which you can explain by history. Large parts of the world were introduced to the gospel by men of middle-eastern descent (especially Nestorians), which are not your typical “white” male. I do however recognize the positive influence of western (white) Christianity, including the benefits colonialism had for large parts of the world, of which the British Empire is a fine example (see Rodney Stark’s How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity). We should be aware however of the negative forces that were also active, and should not conflate worldly power with Christendom.
As a side-note, I just recently became aware of “Muscular Christianity” and its influence on society, such that one author exclaimed: “If asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire.” A very interesting read indeed.
A very important observation to make is that totalitarian ideologies can only thrive in contexts where truth is actively suppressed. That makes truth the most effective weapon against these ideologies. They know they’re suppressing the truth, and that’s why they want to silence their opponents; they cannot hold to power if they don’t. The first thing they will attack is freedom of speech, either explicitly or implicitly by shaming or ridiculing opponents or opposing ideas.
Therefore, always be willing to expose their lies, their inconsistencies, their suppressing behavior. Facts are your allies, truth your weapon.
At the same time, as Christians we should be aware that behind these outward battles, there’s a spiritual battle, that can only be fought with spiritual weapons, and it starts within your own life. Therefore follow God and fight His battles at the place where He leads you.
“The left has a strange bedfellow in Muhammadanism.”
Muslims are, by and large, non-White, so the Left will literally let them get away with murder.
Suzanne Venker has a very good analysis here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/19/missing-fathers-and-americas-broken-boys-vast-majority-mass-shooters-come-from-broken-homes.html
A selection from the article: “The root of fatherlessness rests in two things: our culture’s dismissal of men as valuable human beings who have something unique to offer, and its dismissal of marriage as an institution that’s crucial to the health and well-being of children.”
“1. it does NOT follow the definition of a matriarchy (and yes, there are and have been true matriarchies)”
Name them. I want to see these menopausal warrior women.
@GunnerQ: … name them …
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule
Let’s have a look at these woman-ruled societies…
1. MOSUO
The Mosuo live with extended family in large households; at the head of each is a matriarch. Lineage is traced through the female side of the family, and property is passed down along the same matriline. Mosuo women typically handle business decisions and men handle politics.
Men run society subject to female approval. That’s what I’ve been calling a matriarchy.
2. MINANGKABAU
In Minangkabau society, women usually rule the domestic realm while the men take the political and spiritual leadership roles. … While the clan chief is always male, women select the chief and can remove him from office should they feel he failed to fulfill his duties.
Again.
3. AKAN
The Akan social organization is fundamentally built around the matriclan, wherein one’s identity, inheritance, wealth, and politics are all determined. All matriclan founders are female, but men traditionally hold leadership positions within the society. … Often, the man is expected to not only support his own family, but those of his female relatives.
Sensing a pattern here.
4. BRIBRI
The Bribri are a small indigenous group of just over 13,000 people living on a reserve in the Talamanca canton in the Limón province of Costa Rica. Like many other matrilineal societies, the Bribri are organized into clans. Each clan is made up of extended family, and the clan is determined through the mother/females. Women are the only ones who traditionally can inherit land.
This doesn’t give enough info. “We’re all related to Barbie” doesn’t tell us if Barbies run society.
5. GARO
Much like their Khasi neighbors in the North-East Indian state of Meghalaya, the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Garos pass property and political succession from mother to daughter—typically, he youngest daughter inherits her mother’s property. Much like the Akan, however, the societiy is matrilineal but not matriarchal: the men govern the society and manage property.
Pattern again.
Oftentimes, the youngest daughter’s marriage is arranged for her. But for non-inheriting daughters, the process can be much more complex. In Garo tradition, the groom-to-be is expected to run away from a proposal of marriage, requiring the bride-to-be’s family to “capture” him and return him to his potential bride’s villiage.
Hahahaaaa!
6. NAGOVISI
The Nagovisi live in South Bougainville, an island west of New Guinea. Anthropologist Jill Nash reported Nagovisi society was divided into two matrilineal moieties, which are then divided into matriclans. Nagovisi women are involved in leadership and ceremonies, but take the most pride in working the land entitled to them.
Again, this doesn’t have enough info to tell us if women actually run the society. Sounds like the women just curate their mud huts that nobody else wants and enjoy NSA with Chad Thundercock.
These accounts are just women holding the purse strings. Show me a government of all women, not of men with a queen in charge. Show me an army of women who fight on the front lines with success against an army of men, not armies of white knights protecting mi’lady. Show me a group of women who don’t need men to build a society advanced enough to have indoor plumbing.
Women choosing the men who lead them fits my definition of matriarchy… as does the destitution & death of monogamy that resulted in all six of these examples.
@Gunner Q: now please show why your definition of matriarchy should overthrow the dictionary one, and show how communism and Mohammedanism were the result of women pulling strings for power.
This post is too good for the limited audience here. Hopefully Instapundit will link back. This is very clever juxtaposition.
Calls for closing borders and limiting people from counties likely to harbor terrorists does not violate one of the amendments.
“@Gunner Q: now please show why your definition of matriarchy should overthrow the dictionary one…”
What the dictionary describes as a matriarchy is something that never existed and cannot exist because of human biology. The dictionary is wrong.
“… and show how communism and Mohammedanism were the result of women pulling strings for power”
No, what’s to be shown is that the founders of those movements were doing what women instinctively want. Not that women took control, invented new philosophies and selected men to implement them. I just explained how the latter doesn’t happen.
Mohammed was a mass murderer, highway robber and rapist who couldn’t be bothered to obey the very religion he forced upon others. Alpha status confirmed.
Communism’s a bit harder since it didn’t have a single leader at a single point in time but notice how pro-feminist its family policy was:
http://infogalactic.com/info/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union
But why reach back to the past? Women are turning the West into a matriarchy this very second, as you watch, as Dalrock observes. It’s happening again. The Soviet way was violence, ours is a giant credit bubble. Different mask, same creature.
@Gunner Q: What the dictionary describes as a matriarchy is something that never existed and cannot exist because of human biology. The dictionary is wrong.
For your information: definitions are by definition never wrong.
No, what’s to be shown is that the founders of those movements were doing what women instinctively want. Not that women took control, invented new philosophies and selected men to implement them.
So you’re admitting women did not lead to communism and Mohammedanism, but that the end result was something that women instinctively want? And that its leaders where alpha males?
Well, that might be true, but is not what a matriarchy means by definition. I’m not buying that.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Left is breathtaking. I live in the eternal (and sometimes forlorn) hope that the Cultural Left will collapse under the weight of it’s own contradictions, just like the political Left did.
The difference about the ”Thoughts and Prayers” narrative is that people on the Right are far more likely to believe in God, while people on the Left are far more likely to be atheists.
Thus, it’s far more likely that the people on the Right are more sincere than their Leftist counterparts.
Isn’t it strange that when some horrible atrocity happens, those who previously mocked, denigrated and ridiculed God suddenly need Him?
Paul,
While that was true in the very early years of Christianity, it did not continue. How many of those “middle-eastern men” went to Australia? How many went to China or Japan? How many to the Americas? How about the far north (Sweden, Norway, etc.)?
They started things out, but it went well past them very quickly. It was significantly the British Empire and later the United States that sent out more Christian missionaries than anyone else.
For your information: definitions are by definition never wrong.
Are you saying that dictionaries are never politically correct or that people are never deceitful?
It’s also noteworthy that Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is contrary to the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Nestorianism was the predominant understanding of Christianity in Mecca during Muhammad’s youth, a result of Nestorians migrating to Persia in large numbers after the Council of Ephesus in 431AD condemned their heresy, and one documented reason why Muhammad rejected Christianity. Sending out false teachers to teach heresy results in undesirable consequences. The abominable heretical worldview of Islam is partially a result.
Heresies is why where there goes “Christianity” there also goes feminism/atheism/progressivism. Often “Christianity” become a vehicle to destroy local patriarchal order and promotes many of the sickness of westernization alongside the benefits like sanitation and vaccinations.
Woman loses one house in a divorce — so she burns down 20 houses: https://wsrz.iheart.com/content/2018-02-20-georgia-woman-burns-down-20-homes-after-losing-her-house-in-a-divorce/?ICID=ref_fark
A Georgia woman who had recently lost her home to her ex-husband in a bitter divorce battle decided that if she couldn’t live there, nobody could. According to Fox News, Adrienne Satterly stacked up mattresses in her living room and set them ablaze. The fire quickly spread out of control, burning down her home, and damaging 19 others in her neighborhood.
About Nestorians and their missions:
Yes, you’re technically correct that a part of their theology was declared heretical by some councils. I can tell you that most Christians would not be able to understand the fine points there, nor would be able to formulate how that would impact their relationship with God. And in general Nestorian Christians even have clarified their position towards a common understanding. Be aware that the Great Schism between Western- and Eastern Christianity has been resolved after 1000 (!) years with the recognition that in the theological debate both parties misunderstood each other based on the interpretation of a Latin translation of a Greek word. These parties have been declaring each other heretics for 1000 years for this. Or as Wikipedia phrases it:
“Although the “Nestorian” label was initially a theological one, applied to followers of the Nestorian doctrine, it was soon applied to all associated East Syrian Rite churches with little regard for theological consideration.”
And about Nestorian influence on Islam; that’s highly debatable, given that Mohammed was not very picky about “lending” other sources and distorting them. David Wood has an excellent exposition, and relates this to the psychology of Mohammed being raised without a Father (which should be extra interesting to watch in context of the male-female debate!)
As about the reach of Nestorian Christians. they went as far as China as early as the 7th century.
Before that they lived in the Sasanian Empire, as far as India. So no special position for “white men” there (why should that be anyway? Jesus was of middle-eastern descent).
For your information: definitions are by definition never wrong.
Are you saying that dictionaries are never politically correct or that people are never deceitful?
You need to be careful here! Since the debate with Cathy Newman, you’re very close to becoming a meme when using “so you’re saying …”
Red Pill Latecomer says:
February 22, 2018 at 1:03 am
Safe bet that this bitch will get no more than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Interestingly, I just read that Nestorian Christians may already have reached Japan already in the 7th century, although evidence is scarce.
http://www.aina.org/books/bftc/bftc.htm
Well no. He isn’t. Just because Cathy uses a statement doesn’t mean no one else can. Indeed, she over used it to the point of absurdity. She also never asked pertinent questions but merely tried to obfuscate and put words in Peterson’s mouth.
When someone says that definitions are never wrong, simply because they are by definition “definitions” they are either being sarcastic or wholly deserve the response that they are indeed ‘saying’ that people never lie or are never deceitful. Yes, definitions are sometimes wrong for they are made by humans; and humans are fallible.
Humans are also corruptible and would gladly corrupt definitions as long as it served their agenda. To say otherwise is to be naive.
So… What I’m saying is that you’re incorrect by trying to draw an incorrect comparison; whilst also trying to derail your opponent by playing on his emotion. I mean, he doesn’t want to appear like Cathy Newman… now does he?
OT: A woman writes into “Dear Prudence” for advice on her 40-something-daughter who’s just had a baby “by herself”:
“My daughter is in her 40s and just had a baby by herself. She’s finding it difficult to adjust to single motherhood and keeps pushing more of the responsibility on me. I am 70, and caring for an infant more than a few hours at a time is difficult for me. My daughter has a nanny in the mornings and early afternoons, but if she has to work late, she calls me to come over without advance notice, sometimes four days in a week. On weekends, she drops her daughter off with no warning and gets angry if I am out of the house.”
Babies are not accessories!
These comments are headed in a direction that deserves a new if/then rule of thumb, like whenever X is discussed the conversation will necessarily end at Y,
Nestorian Christians? You don’t say.
@feministhater, OK, I’ll take the Jordan Peterson route then…
No, I did NOT say that dictionaries are never politically correct and I did also NOT say that people are never deceitful.
And yes, definitions are never wrong by definition. However, definitions can be conflicting, or people can try to adapt definitions to their own means. Even then it still applies that definitions are never wrong.
Lowietje @ February 21, 2018 at 4:21 pm:
“@Gunner Q: What the dictionary describes as a matriarchy is something that never existed and cannot exist because of human biology. The dictionary is wrong.”
“For your information: definitions are by definition never wrong.”
If you prefer, I’ll amend my statement to “the dictionary definition is a male sex fantasy based upon wishful thinking.” But that just makes it a different kind of wrong.
It was not you he was responding to, Paul. JDG was responding to Lowietje who said that definitions cannot be wrong. It was to that comment he responded. You saw fit to add your two cents and try and be like Peterson, when he hadn’t used ‘so you say’ in the absurd way Cathy stated it, nor was his criticism of Lowietje ungrounded. You were wrong on both counts. That was quite clear, yet you saw fit to shame.
Definitions change all the time, thus they were either wrong before or after the change. Pick one but in either case, you’re wrong.
NANALT – Not all Nestorians are like that.
Don’t mind me; I’m converting to Ethiopian Orthodox. They still hold the Book of Enoch as canon.
Heidi- Mom could pull a Nancy Reagan and Just Say No. But that would require a backbone.
‘The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1A: The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War’ makes it clear that by Muhammad’s time the Persians were in control of Arabia only terminating with the third and final assault by Arabs under the banner of Islam.
It was the the Persian occupation which enabled Judaism, Monophysitism (e.g. Eutyches), and Nestorianism (the latter two which were bitterly hostile to the more orthodox forms of Christianity prevailing in the Byzantine and Ethiopian empires) to gain the strength they did in Arabia before Islam.
The Christianity Muhammad encountered growing up was that of two different heretical sects (Monophysitism and Nestorianism) whose adherents were strongly opposed to each another. The Christianity assessed in the Qur’an is not the pristine faith of the New Testament but rather distorted versions of it found in heretical sects around Arabia that the false prophet Muhammad encountered.
@feministhater: I’m not shaming at all, but you are trying to shame me. Fact is, the original statement did not contain any reference to political correctness nor to people’s deceitfulness. Hence the reference to the Cathy Newman-meme was just a tongue-in-cheek comparison to a similar situation where something was said to be implied whereas it was never implied in the first place.
Your statement that definitions change all the time does not impact my statement. A definition is a mere clarification of how to interpret words you use. It’s not mandated that definitions cannot change. Of course it is helpful in communication to use shared definitions as much as possible, preferably from an authoritative source. In case of doubt, you should clarify which definition you are using.
In case of GunnerQ’s assertion that both communism and islam are matriarchies, without at first clarifying that he defines matriarchy differently from a dictionary, does not help trying to understand his point.
@GunnerQ
Women are designed by God to be servants, not leaders, so when women rebel and seize the reins of power, the winners are the men women want instead of the men women need.
What gives them common cause? My answer is that all of them are matriarchies.
No, what’s to be shown is that the founders of those movements were doing what women instinctively want. Not that women took control, invented new philosophies and selected men to implement them. I just explained how the latter doesn’t happen.
So… women did not take control, did not select men to implement communism or islam, but the end result was that these movements are doing what women instinctively want. So women were not a cause of these movements. So how does that have any explanatory power to show feminism/communism is aligning with islam?
Paul,
I define “Paul” as “an idiot”. Does that make the statement correct?
@ Paul,
“Large parts of the world were introduced to the gospel by men of middle-eastern descent (especially Nestorians), which are not your typical ‘white’ male.”
Yes, between 2,000 and 1,200 years ago, and we owe those men a tremendous debt of gratitude. But that doesn’t change the fact – and it is a fact – that white Christian men (specifically those from the Anglosphere) evangelized more people in more places all over the world than any other group.
Billy Graham, who just died, probably preached the gospel to more people than anyone in history.
I don’t say that as a point of pride. I’m not Anglo myself, and only part white. It’s simply a fact that Anglo Christian men evangelized more people than any other group. That may change in the future (China alone has 100 million Christians by some estimates, thanks to Anglo Christian men like Hudson Taylor), but for now, those are the facts.
Those facts provide the Enemy with abundant motivation to destroy white Christian men. After all, when white Christian men were strong in their faith, they evangelized people by the millions. Now that they are weak, their evangelistic efforts are similarly weak.
“So… women did not take control, did not select men to implement communism or islam, but the end result was that these movements are doing what women instinctively want. So women were not a cause of these movements. So how does that have any explanatory power to show feminism/communism is aligning with islam?”
I don’t understand the question. Feminism, communism and Islam are all the same system of matriarchy. There’s no external force pushing them together. There doesn’t need to be.
Think about consolidation of power. When a small group of men collect great authority over society, it can only come at the cost of all other men losing the authority they once had. What is hypergamy going to do in that context? Women will love the top 20% of men and hate the bottom 80%. Enslavement or disposal of the 80% would be cheered, even demanded by female nature. Women and Alphas naturally work together to exploit the Betas. This behavior doesn’t need to be taught or enforced.
It doesn’t matter if “the unsexy” means slaves, Betas, kulaks or infidels. It doesn’t matter if “Alpha” means Party Member, imam or gang boss. That’s just the shape of matriarchy’s container.
God intended human civilization to be God->all men->women. Patriarchy.
Satan intended human civilization to be male winners->women->male losers. Matriarchy. Communism, Islam and Feminism all follow this model. Winners take all, losers are barely considered human and attractive women have unlimited sexual access to the top.
In fact, Original Sin was God->Adam->Eve being twisted into Satan->Eve->Adam. Patriarchy vs. matriarchy are the current terms to describe this cycle that has endured since the Fall. We aren’t facing a thousand alternatives to God’s plan for humanity. We’re facing one alternative that has a thousand faces.
@Gunner Q: well at least I’ve found your definition of “matriarchy”:
“male winners->women->male losers”
This clearly shows that “male winners” are calling the shots, not women. I don’t understand why you call this “matriarchy”, which means “rule of the mother”. It is not. It is rule of “male winners”.
And I don’t understand your remark:
“Feminism, communism and Islam are all the same system of matriarchy. There’s no external force pushing them together. There doesn’t need to be.”
Clearly feminism has MANY tenets going directly against the tenets of Islam. If male winners are steering these contrasting ideologies, why is there NO external force needed to push them together? Why would male winners want to bond feminism to islam? And even so, that still makes the role of women insignificant according to your definition of “matriarchy”.
Furthermore, even according to your own definition, I think it is very hard for you to proof that islam is a “matriarchy”. In one of the most strict islamic society of today, only recently women were allowed to drive cars.
@Oscar: that why I said ” do however recognize the positive influence of western (white) Christianity, including the benefits colonialism had for large parts of the world, of which the British Empire is a fine example”
Any attack on a God-given structure will have an impact on society. It is telling that Christianity has been almost successfully eradicated from many places where it was once brought, either explicitly or by internal deterioration.
Luckily building of the Kingdom is God’s responsibility, and we see many evangelists being called, from many places of the world (even former colonies are now sending missionaries back into the west!).
@BillyS:
definition : the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.
A definition cannot be wrong, but can fail to have merit, if they are overly broad, overly narrow, use obscure or ambiguous language, incomprehensible, or contain circular reasoning.
Your definition of Paul as “idiot” is an example of a definition without merit; there are many Paul-s who are brilliant, hence it is overly narrow. Furthermore it confuses classes in its ambiguity: Paul is normally understood to be a proper name of a person, whereas “idiot” is an assigned mental property of a person, and proper names are not of the same class as mental properties.
I blame POTUS 4 Thomas Jefferson who had been over-dosing on Locke such that he held to be self-evident certain truths which are not at least in my view either true or certain and is it then any wonder then that half-a-century later De Tocqueville was predicting that America would be filled with Manly Women and Womanly Men. This goes back some way but even the Frenchman failed to predict further for worse is surely yet to come.
It is not just the military that suffers from delusions of sex; at the moment (I can reveal) a female no greater than a Grade 4 instramentalist has been permitted to conduct in one of the world’s better known Opera Houses; she can’t keep the pit band in sync with the stage band and the dancers are nowhere near her beat. I am sure a man is to blame.
This is all working out in the context of “Affirmative Action”, where often a “quota system” is used to make sure groups who were perceived to have been discriminated against historically, are given positions they would not get based on merit only. Guess what? In 1967 “gender” was added to the list of discriminating factors, next to race, religion, or national origin.
Another example of failure of Affirmative Action is in Universities, where people from “repressed” groups need to adhere to lower standards as people from other groups, leading even to adapting tests etc. because these are “too difficult” for all people. The end result is the devaluation of a degree, and hence lesser value for society. This is even to the point where people from “repressed” groups are even more suspected to be operating sub-par, and face MORE negative prejudices.
If a definition, which is merely a concise statement used to describe something, fails to coherently explain something or the terms used are simply incorrect or the previous understanding flawed, it is wrong. It has not defined that which it was meant to.
If a definition doesn’t have merit, is overly broad, overly narrow, uses obscure of ambiguous language, is incomprehensible, contains circular reasoning or any other manner of being flawed, it is incorrect and therefore….. wrong.
Sure, say a definition cannot be wrong and then go on to list all manner of reasons why a definition is incorrect and pretend to be smart. It won’t work.
@feministhater: this is the last thing I’m going to say about it.
The original statement was:
What the dictionary describes as a matriarchy is something that never existed and cannot exist because of human biology. The dictionary is wrong.
Even if the statements about the existence of “matriarchy” are true, it only shows “matriarchy” never existed, not that the definition of “matriarchy” is wrong. The dictionary is not wrong, it cannot be wrong in that sense.
Same in mathematics; your definitions are just building blocks in your proofs, nobody can object to such definitions being wrong. They can think they are lousy and useless to them, but that does not make them wrong (if they are exact etc).
If you insist that definitions that lack merit due to flaws should be called “wrong”, fine.
“Even if the statements about the existence of “matriarchy” are true, it only shows “matriarchy” never existed, not that the definition of “matriarchy” is wrong. The dictionary is not wrong, it cannot be wrong in that sense.”
I’m running out of ways to describe my position. There is such a thing as a society that is run by the decisions of women but it’s never a society in which women hold the reins of power. Matriarchies are real but they do not take the form of what the dictionary says is a matriarchy.
@Gunner Q: I’ve tried to understand your position by asking some questions, to which I did not get an answer I could understand. If I would need to summarize your position I would say that although male winners run society in different -isms they have invented and are controlling, somehow these -isms are automagically driven by the decisions of women. I stlll do not see the connection between the two. How is in your view a society controlled by the decisions of male winners, and at the same time controlled by the decisions of women which do not have the reins of power? That sounds contradictory to me.
Okay, that’s a reasonable criticism.
Women have a massive amount of power over men but it’s sexual, not economic, political or military. Men go to amazing extremes to impress or attract desirable women. If we ever achieved a post-scarcity society with no lack of food or material comforts, we’d still fight each other for access to the hottest chicks.
So, question: if the way to get lots of sex & female approval is maltreating the men around you, would you do it?
That’s how women drive the process. They aren’t planning it out, they’re instinctively throwing themselves at the top 20% of men and despising the bottom 80%. What men are at the top? According to Game, Dark Triad… psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism. Having lots of money helps, too, and the fastest path to getting rich is stealing it. Men notice what women want, thug up and start culling the male competition. Looting them. Oppressing them. It becomes a feedback loop and hypergamy drives it ever tighter.
“Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands”. Why did that drive Saul crazy? Isn’t killing thousands in medieval combat impressive enough? But the women were no longer singing HIS praises. They were no longer attracted to him, validating him. David himself murdered one of Israel’s military heroes because he never had enough women.
Without strong motivation otherwise, men are driven by the desire for (feral) female approval to seize power, ruin other men and spoof or become Dark Triad. The more men who adopt this strategy, the more society shifts from “every man having the authority he deserves” to “winners and losers”. Which is the endgame of Communism (total Party control of society), Islam (warlords and imams ruling over an empire of dhimmis and slaves), modern globalism (centralized world tyranny) and female nature everywhere (hypergamy, seeking resources & safety, inability to appreciate male honor).
Even in Christian churches, look at how many pastors praise women and blame men. Many of them are too old for sex yet they still solicit female approval.
By contrast, in MGTOW circles lack of motivation is a problem for many of us who’ve decided to live without women. Life gets a bit empty when you give up on sex & marriage.
Whenever you see a massive centralization of resources, authority and status in a society, it’s usually being driven by women being unchained from monogamy to fuck the bad boys; what I call a matriarchy. I suppose it’s possible for men to conquer their peers out of pride instead but even so, enjoying young women is often a formal priority. It takes a lot of motivation to amass more status and wealth than a man can possibly enjoy in a single lifetime.
Humanity never outgrew high school.
GunnerQ ~ “Humanity never outgrew high school.”
My initial response to Paul’s Q:
“How is in your view a society controlled by the decisions of male winners, and at the same time controlled by the decisions of women which do not have the reins of power? That sounds contradictory to me.”
I was gonna post a response:
“hey Paul, you ever heard of sex?”
…but your response is much better, one of the best synopsis of our current reality that I’ve read in a while, and I read a lot… A+ and thank you.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.
– John Adams to Abigail Adams in reply to her request that he “remember the ladies”.
Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters
-Cato the Elder (234 _ 149 BC)
@Gunner Q: sorry, still do not understand. The male winners, the Alpha, the ones in charge, they are supposed to be ABOVE women in your view, right? Treat them like dirt, and swap one for yet another one, getting sex for free, without having to spend any effort. How could a women exert ANY influence on a male winner/Alpha according to you, if these men do NOT need to change their behavior and do NOT have to follow the whims of these women to get sex and female attention as they desire?
“Treat them like dirt, and swap one for yet another one, getting sex for free, without having to spend any effort.”
It’s never NO effort. Alphas are simply willing to do what women find attractive, either because it’s what they would do anyway or because they watched women and figured them out. Not even Hollywood’s top sexy men can keep a wife excited forever.
I live here in coastal Commiefornia. In the ’80s, men looked normal. The low class would have some concealable tattoos and that was about it. Now in the ’10s, ear gauges are popular. Those disks you cram in your earlobes to stretch them out into the equivalent of hoop earrings.
Why do these guys do that? It’s got to be painful. They’re permanently disfiguring their faces which in turn ruins their job prospects–you can’t hide your ears under clothing. The answer is, California girls like the African “noble savage” look. Men are disfiguring themselves in order to be attractive to women.
Behold the future of sexy salesmen:
http://i1.wp.com/gunnerqcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/jacksongalaxy.jpg?ssl=1&w=450
In saner times, a man who looked like that would not have been able to sell water in a desert.
If you still don’t realize how much influence women can exert even on apex men then I can only say you’re fortunate to not be able to relate. I’ve noticed in myself how vulnerable I can be to female nagging at work and have to consciously be on my guard against it. It sucks.
@gunnerQ
“By contrast, in MGTOW circles lack of motivation is a problem for many of us who’ve decided to live without women. Life gets a bit empty when you give up on sex & marriage.”
yes thats very true, it seems our sex drive is the thing that motivates us to do everything, some can channel it into other forms – monks etc. but maybe thats more a goft than anything else.
when they remove the sex drive brain compnent of a say a serial rapist , he not only stops raping, he stops doing anything, possibly even drinking and feeding himself. In 1 respect we only to have sex.
@JDG says:”Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters
-Cato the Elder (234 _ 149 BC)”
great quote and absolutely true even after all this time.
@Paul, women always decide the terms of the relationship, if they want more provider betas they get that, if they want to fight over alphas they get that too,
Ultimately, prayers are the only thing that we can do to really help save this world.
*but maybe thats more a gift than anything else.
*when they remove the sex drive brain component of a say a serial rapist , he not only stops raping, he stops doing anything, possibly even drinking and feeding himself. In 1 respect we only exist to have sex.
(last time I use notepad)
Attempting to repost the pic…
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/02/25) - Social Matter