A very common lament about conservatives, or if you prefer “cuckservatives”, is their uncanny knack for finding a way to “lose with honor” no matter how strong their position might be. Winning really doesn’t seem to be the objective. This makes perverse sense when you consider it from the chivalrous perspective. The best way to prove your chivalry is not to win, but to lose. For losing is the ultimate test of your chivalry. If you can lose with magnanimity, then you truly are chivalrous! What could possibly be more romantic?
Recent Comments
Woody on Message heard. 
Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… whiteguy1 on Message heard. Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… John O. on Message heard. Iowa Slim on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard. wodansthane on Message heard.
Here’s the perfect gift for someone or other.
https://bowselectie.com/products/silver-knight-feather-bow-tie
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1225/2994/products/silver-knight-feather-bow-tie_1024x1024.png?v=1520333171
David French/_National Review_ conservatism in a nutshell. Conserve nothing but a vague sense of “dignity” and abstract “principles,” which you constantly allow to be undermined or destroyed. It makes sense in the light of chivalry’s perverting influence.
This also explains much of Conservatism Inc.’s problem with women. Women love winners. Women are not attracted to losers. Women are put off by “good” losers. Women absolutely detest “good” losers who whine about how they are really winners even though they lost because of how well they took it when they lost. There’s a word for a perpetual loser who is really good at taking it. That word is catamite, and women are NOT attracted to catamites.
How anyone who has read Le Morte D’Arthur can believe chivalry has anything to do with Christianity is beyond me. Arthur was a (literal) bastard, whose conception was a result of black magic, murder and rape. His father, Uther, was a rapacious tyrant who abandoned him. His chief advisor was the same magician who arranged the rape of his mother through which he was conceived.
Under the medieval mindset (which was informed by the Bible) there was no way a bastard could have a legitimate claim to the throne. Of course, much of this was composed by French authors after the conquest of Britain by France in A.D. 1066. I suppose if I was a French propagandist I might well want Britain’s national hero and greatest king to be a bastard who consorted with dark powers, which would, in point of fact, justify France invading and taking over, just as Lancelot, the ultimate French Chad, invaded Guinevere and took over. In this story Arthur, who stands for England, becomes the cuck to Lancelot, the bull who stands for France, and of course Lancelot kills anyone who says anything against it while Arthur slinks around like David French watching his wife at a swingers club.
All of which goes to say it isn’t Lancelot who is wearing the bow tie. Lancelot has sex with whomever he pleases. Arthur wears the bow tie, and even in the end is a noble loser when his own bastard/incestuous son kills him. Arthur dies alone, his friends murdered as a result of his mismanagement of his kingdom, his wife abandoning him for French Chad, and, after hitting that big old castle wall, a nunnery. I definitely see Arthur the cuck in that bowtie, not Lancelot.
It never occurred to me until just now that this is (probably) the origin of “it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, but how you play the game.”
Growing up playing sports, they (the adults) used to say this crap all the time. And I never really bought it. Of course it matters if you win or lose.
Remember after every game? Like in T-ball? “2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate?”
I guess the idea was that you “appreciated” them for giving you a good challenge or whatever. It was all “sportsmanship”
I just know when I was in high school football, that the probability of getting laid after the game increased exponentially if you won.
I was thinking of that same football analogy earlier. A football player is higher on the social scale than a nerd, but a winning football player is higher on the scale than a loser (without getting into the whole linemen v. quarterbacks thing). A winner is always sexier than a loser. Anyone who tries to convince you it’s okay to be a loser is pure poison and needs to be out of your life. Play to win or stay off the field. And if you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough. There’s a reason Tom Brady always has a hot woman on his arm.
Ever since 2004 or so our Afghanistan policy has been about showing how we always play by the rules and what good sports we can be even when we lose. And the same country that nuked the Japanese empire into submission can’t deal with a bunch of boy-loving goat herders as a result.
I was a defensive back. And special teams.
I really enjoyed being just one rung down on the ladder from the “quarterback/prom king” crowd. It was a nice place to hang out for four years, way less stress, just as much fun.
I had a patient when I was on active duty who was experiencing what we are now calling “moral injury” which was inflicted upon him by the stupid ROEs. I hadn’t really thought about how it might be affecting his status with women (in particular his wife). But he was pretty low on self-confidence because he thought he joined the army to go fight and kill the enemy, but ended up watching friendlies get blown to pieces while he had to wait for the go ahead to engage.
Scott
Growing up playing sports, they (the adults) used to say this crap all the time. And I never really bought it. Of course it matters if you win or lose.
George C. Scott’s portrayal of General Patton included actual text taken from Patton’s speeches. Probably would be a thoughtcrime to show this movie in a high school history class now. Too triggering. Not romantic enough.
Patton’s speech is not safe for work. No bowties were involved.
Patton was actually right about the PTSD kid in the hospital. But I’m not supposed to say that.
That scene is used in graduate school and army psychologist training on what NOT to do.
Even as young children, boys have no interest in games without winners and losers. When my son briefly played soccer while in kindergarten he was in a “no score kept” league. The kids kept score anyway. Everyone knew just how many goals each team had scored, and which kids had scored how many goals. Everyone knew who the winners were. The moms tried to keep a lid on it. Unless their kids were on the winning team… and then they didn’t try quite so hard.
I adhere to correspondence theory. For example, if you lose then you’re a loser. If you win then you’re a winner. If you lie then you’re a liar. Etc…
Meaning that if someone chooses to lie by calling losing winning, they are a liar. And you know what the bible says about liars. To hell with chivalry as an excuse for lying. Me, I acknowledge reality and accept hard truth. 🙂
We teach our young men (private school) that there are winners and losers. We play to win, but we also lose with dignity when we come in second place. Winning matters, but there is a graceful way to be a winner and a graceful way to lose.
Let us repeat: winning is important.
This whole idea of turning losing and weakness into virtues is especially pronounced in churches that have a disproportionate focus on the sermon on the mount and simplistically interpret “blessed are the peacemakers” and “the meek shall inherit the earth”.
This is why cuckservatism is a terrible ideology for anyone that hates losing.
The thing about cuckservatives (okay, A thing, since there are many things about them) is that they are habituated to losing… and instead of changing tactics, training harder, or doing anything that might change the outcome… they identify with the enemy and try to make sure everyone else on the right loses as well. They hate Trump because he’s a winner, he proves they could have been winners all along if they would fight, and that to the victor go the spoils (First Lady Melania, etc.). Trump is a true leader in that he aspires to inspire his followers to do what he has done… fight and win. Too many Conservative Inc. leaders have never in their life been in a real fight. Never trust a man who has never been punched in the face. Never follow a man who has never been knocked down and then gotten back up again. Never allow a man who has been knocked down, lays there, explains why he really kind of enjoys it, and advocates that you lay down as well into your group.
1. There are those who win by being brawney enough to dominate in the fight.
2. There are those who win by avoiding the fight altogether and employing some other method to get what they want.
Panties get wet for #1, but not for #2.
So this discussion is about something other than winning.
It’s how you win that matters in some circles. And violence is that how.
Winning isn’t what matters. It is being violent while you win that matters.
Winning by other means is simply ignored.
And sometimes (always?) the violent guy who gets bloodied and loses gets more attention than the guy who wins by non-violent means.
Mankind is a feral bunch. Ignore that at your own peril.
Richard,
Clearly we have different definitions of winning. And women are attracted to all types of winners, even “non-violent” winners. Rock stars are not necessarily known for being great, or even mediocre, fighters (a few exceptions notwithstanding) but I hear they do okay with the ladies. I detest the source, but the saying that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac is true. Demonstrations of success and power, or winning, can come in non-violent forms and still be highly attractive to women. See also successful politicians, successful doctors, etc.
Pingback: Lancelot’s bowtie. | Reaction Times
I just watched a new movie on Netflix called Awake that clearly illustrates this principle. The movie concerns a man who wakes up in the hospital after a bad car accident with amnesia. He is accused of a murder and needs to clear his name without knowing his name or recent personal history. Along the way he elicits the help of a sympathetic nurse who he firsts abducts but who later agrees to help him voluntarily, because his bad boy attitude gives her ‘gina the tingles. While on the run they lay low with Nurse’s friend who is portrayed as your stereo-typical blue pilled loser white knight. Of course the blue pill loser helps them, giving them money, shelter and a vehicle, without receiving anything in return, because of his undying love for the nurse. Later Mr. Blue Pill White Knight gets murdered by a guy trailing the bad boy. The point is that there is something, at least on the surface “romantic” about this act. If you are willing to die for someone, without so much as receiving a smile in return, it is in sense a loving act of self-sacrifice. But in a more practical sense its idiotic and will NEVER win you the respect of the woman of your affection. I guess where I see the disconnect is in the idea that chivalry will win the lady’s heart. It won’t, yet that is what society tells us. If you want to make a sacrifice out of “love” fine go ahead but don’t expect it will get you laid, or find you a wife – it won’t.
Off topic perhaps, but all this talk of King Arthur and Lancelot has put me in mind of a book that was quite popular with the ladies in the 1990s: Mists of Avalon.
I wouldn’t expect any men around here to have read this pile of garbage, but it had serious legs with the female population for a while. It was a reimagining of Arthurian legend where the women are all magical witches, the Christians awful, pagans badass, and Lancelot’s motivation for his affair with Guinevere is that he’s secretly gay and in love with Arthur. It had a number of explicit sex scenes, of course.
I read this in eighth grade, on the recommendation of some of my friends, and it messed me up for a while. One of my teachers was offering extra credit for reading it, and I had to argue with her to get it off the approved book reading list. She didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. This was at a Catholic school too.
It is kind of amazing, in retrospect, that chivalry and the original portrayal Lancelot wasn’t enough for a porn novel (this book is 100% porn for women; it’s the emotional and psychological context that we look for). Oh no, for maximum impact, Lancelot had to not only be an adulterer, but homosexual as well.
okrahead: Under the medieval mindset (which was informed by the Bible) there was no way a bastard could have a legitimate claim to the throne. Of course, much of this was composed by French authors after the conquest of Britain by France in A.D. 1066.
But Le Morte D’Arthur is a retelling of much older tales of Arthur. Arthur is said to have lived around A.D. 500. The earliest mention of him might be from the 6th century, and long predates chivalry.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
One of the most famous Welsh poetic references to Arthur comes in the collection of heroic death-songs known as Y Gododdin (The Gododdin), attributed to 6th-century poet Aneirin. One stanza praises the bravery of a warrior who slew 300 enemies, but says that despite this, “he was no Arthur” – that is, his feats cannot compare to the valour of Arthur.
The tales arose about when paganism was still in conflict with Christianity, and Celts in conflict with invading Anglo-Saxons. The original tales and characters reflect that blend of influences, and were in no way chivalrous.
cynthia
Mists of Avalon.
Written by
https://infogalactic.com/info/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley
The kinky sexual angles in Mists were no accident.
Her daughter, Moira Greyland, explains that in detail in her book The Last Closet.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37494480-the-last-closet
Popularity with the ladies is predictable; 50 Shades of Grey sold a lot of copies. The subsequent books did ok saleswise, but 50 SOG was a best seller.
It is very much worth remembering that aristocratic women such as Eleanor of Acquitaine were largely behind the creation of the Cult of Courtly Love. It is not an accident. The dark side of women is generally hidden, but still there.
@cynthia
Weirdly, the author was a creepy pederast with her husband, let her friends abuse her children, otherwise horribly abusive. Chances are, if the author writes a lot of disgusting stuff you can assume they are into disgusting stuff.
Isaac Asimov had a planet where they eschewed human contact (later book the final form of the planet was hermaphroditic self sexual beings) his son was caught with a LARGE collection of cp and editing and filming equipment. (6 months probation from Robert “The Prober” Mueller)
So many landmines in the sf/f genre, a genre largely written by people who find the romantic concert of chivalry fascinating.
@AR
“It is very much worth remembering that aristocratic women such as Eleanor of Acquitaine were largely behind the creation of the Cult of Courtly Love. It is not an accident. The dark side of women is generally hidden, but still there.”
I wonder if the whole point of courtly love was to create plausibly deniability for women who wanted to cheat with bad boys. By ritualizing courtship and what men could do you create an environment where the Lotharios who break the mold become that much more obvious (good for women who want to cheat and waste no time tracking down a bad boy alpha), while at the same time creating a safe haven for the lady’s status and wealth. Sort of like how the creation of the Masquerade in Vampire: The Masquerade involved vampires supporting the docile modern office human society because it made it easier for them to roam the seedy underworlds eating people, whereas living in a more brutal direct conflict would require them to actually put their skin in the game and fight.
General George S Patton put it this way:
” I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. ”
A real man fights hard to win. When he wins, he is magnanimous in victory. If he loses, he loses with grace by congratulating his opponent for winning fair & square. He keeps his dignity and maintains his composure and looks forward to the next opportunity to win.
How is it possible that there is any other way to be?
Cosign everything okrahead said about Le Mort d’Arthur. It was entertaining once one got past the old English. But looking back, yes.
I also read T.H. White’s rendition “Once and Future King”. The writing is very good. White is careful to step back at one point and delineate the sin at the center of Arthur’s origin and why Malory titled his opus “The Death of Arthur”. Because it was the sin that doomed everything in the end. But everyone wanted to read about the romancing the Queen Guinevere, about what a wuss Lancelot was around her, about the medieval pageants and battles. Easy to lose sight of the sin but White returns to the concept of sin now and then. Another way White pokes at chivalry: the part about Lancelot’s formative years is titled “Le Chevalier Mal Fet” which stands for “The Ill-made Knight”. The point White was trying to make at that time which also went over a lot of people’s heads was just how dysfunctional Lancelot was to begin with and how he got that way.
A long forgotten gf got me to start reading Mists of Avalon many many years ago. What tripe that was. I made it maybe fifty pages in and I had enough. I remember when that book was being flogged pretty hard at bookstores all over. I was somehow not surprised when Bradley’s daughter came out with her memoirs.
Given Dalrock is a “a happily married father” as I am I find the long streak of posts showing the total defeat of fathers and Christianity in “a post feminist world” to be indistinguishable from the “lose with honor” mentality this very post criticizes. The few here who have tried posting solutions rather than the defeatist, whining and/or victimhood status signaling so similar in feminist circles have been viciously attacked. Note I am in no way defending the white knight cuckservative chivalrous idiots, nor contesting the FACT that modern feminized churchianity is a Jezebel demonic spawn. Rather I am again noting the fact that all I see from Dalrock is a description of problems and insurmountable odds; with most commentators virtue signaling to one another how they too have lost with honor (MRA) or not bothered to even fight for a better future (MGTOW).
I am 62yo. I have my house in order, as in I give the orders, and my wife obeys because she fears God. My 2 married daughters obey their own husbands, who asked my permission to date them, as the 3rd grandchild comes in 2 weeks. I fight back the cuckservative churchianites at Suday School every Sunday at the weak kneed semi-feminized PCA Church I am a member of.
What have any of you losers done but belly ache about losing with honor?
Have any of you tales of victory or at least a battle strategy or are you all content to lose with what you consider honor? Have any of you spent 14 days on nothing but water, eaten one meal to stave off blindness, and then gone 15 days on nothing but water? Does ANYONE here actually believe that Yehovah Elohim will actually take an interest in your personal prayers? Or do any of you have even half the enthusiasm of the Beth of Jezebel Moore has for her husband the Serpent as you should for your Beloved, the Lion of Judah?
Oh, you like Patton. Until he slaps your sorry PTSD claiming faces.
Go ahead Dalrock, remove this challenge or let your lackeys begin a personal assault.
@jsolbakken
This is the problem, or rather problems. It’s the last iteration of the British Victorian middle class way of contest, but it’s not Christian.
1.
A real man is a real man. We shame or encourage men to be strong because they really are men. It is not acceptable for any man to be cowardly or otherwise behave in a way unfit a man. You might say that this is basically what you mean, but words matter. We should not pretend to offer escape from reality as a possible outcome.
2.
This posture incentivizes losing because nothing is risked if the loser is able to maintain a claim on manhood equal to that of the winner. The winner, we should hope, is the better man. That’s the first error. The second error is that life is not sport! It is unacceptable for us to cede public space and opinion to perverts or feminists. We should never congratulate them. Nor would they do the same.
3.
This is a lie. Some or all of the loser’s dignity is forfeit. If not, then he never really tried and see point 2. We should recognize this.
Christians fight a longer war than those of the world, and we measure honor unlike the world, but we do not reject that there are things at stake like honor, dignity, and the right to claim public spaces.
Nice rant, boomer.
Sorry, my previous post was a response to Jesus Rodriguez, not Cane Caldo.
Seriously though, if the real Jesus de la Torre is even half as overbearing as your online persona then I feel for your family. Jeez, give it a break.
“Oh, you like Patton. Until he slaps your sorry PTSD claiming faces.
Go ahead Dalrock, remove this challenge or let your lackeys begin a personal assault.”
Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Jesus. Yes, I admire Patton very much. What made Patton so effective was that while he was bold, he was not stupid. He more or less followed the advice of Sun Tzu, who said this:
“2. When in difficult country, do not encamp. In country where high roads intersect, join hands with your allies.
Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions. In hemmed-in situations, you must resort to stratagem. In desperate position, you must fight.
3. There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.
Section VIII, Variation in Tactics.
Sun Tzu also said:
“15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”
Section IV, Tactical Dispositions.
See, Jesus, a lot of us here think you and your ilk are suggesting that we rush headlong in to battle without having any idea how we can possibly win. Your commands are such as those that seem best not to be obeyed.
Most of the men here are open to suggestions, but speaking ignorantly to those of us who have given the problem some serious thought does not inspire confidence in your advice.
Thanks for the feedback.
When I say a real man fights hard to win and then when beaten accepts defeat with dignity, the example in my mind involves the difference between the Allies and the Japanese during WWII. The Japanese assumed that the Americans in the Philippines surrendered because they were cowards and were afraid to die and had not the guts to do a desperate but futile banzai charge against them so they could die for Franklin Roosevelt the way Japanese were willing to die for Hirohito.
Both views have pros and cons. It is clear that if one’s biggest concern is being considered a coward then the banzai charge is the only way to go. If a bigger picture is contemplated, then it’s not as simple.
Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre
Given Dalrock is a “a happily married father” as I am I find the long streak of posts showing the total defeat of fathers and Christianity in “a post feminist world” to be indistinguishable from the “lose with honor” mentality this very post criticizes.
That is because you do not read carefully and do not understand much of what you read. You are merely another drive-by “Yer doin’ it all wrong!” troll with nothing of substance to say.
“Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre”
I sympathize with his apparent desire to improve the situation such that MGTOW’s would feel that marriage and family was a more reasonable option than at present. His problem is he thinks that browbeating and rah-rahing men is the path to the improvement. Not so. The problem has been created by the enemies of normal men, and it is those forces that need to be neutralized first. I’m open to suggestions from Jesus as to how to do that.
Cane,
I thought about what you wrote above, and would agree and amplify…
Conservatism Inc. has agreed to be good losers on…
1) Infanticide
2) Homosexual “marriage” enforced by the state
3) Pornography
4) Gender dysphoria enforced as “reality” by the state
These are only a few samples, of course. I cannot maintain my walk as a Christian and compromise with any of these. I cannot be a follower of Christ and be a “good loser” on any of these. All of these must be fought tooth and nail daily with whatever means I have available provided by God. But my moral betters leading Conservatism Inc. each day explain why I must accept these defeats and move on and get used to it. As much as I despise Disney, there is one statement from the last Avengers movie from Captain America I identify with… “Some people move on. But not us.”
The Gospel came well before chivalry of the declining order of the medieval period.
While we’re at it…. the great defeats to conservatism, which at one time could have been interpreted as Biblical morality, have not come from the people. Abortion, pornography, gay marriage, etc. have all come from court decisions which overturned long established laws passed by the people and their representatives. We now have a judicial oligarchy in which as long as you can get five lunatic black-robed thralls of Cthulu to agree to anything than it becomes the law of the land and no one is supposed to question it. Conservatism Inc. has surrendered to an octogenarian Jewish whore for Satan, and tells the rest of us we’re out of line, and probably anti-Semitic to boot, if we don’t do the same. Seriously, how did our society come to the point where no one knows what the law will be tomorrow, except that it will be contrary to everything we’ve ever known and held sacred, because five black robed Satanists say so?
Very poor analysis.
The so-called “conservatives” are just the rearguard faction of the progressive team. Their function is to make sure the gains made by revolutionary progressives are conserved; that the pulic opinion pendulum never swings back into actually undoing what the radical leftists do.
(That is, in fact, why they are called “conservative” in the first place.)
@CaneCaldo
Indeed conflicts of importance outside the sports arena looks like “The art of War” by Sun Tzu
Effective war minimises effort and resources to achieve an objective. It doesnt look flashy and even looks cowardly like how the maoists in China was so good at running away.
Yet their effective guerilla tactics and eventual straight up confrontations won them the country.
The mongols were experts in feigned retreat as were the Shimazu clan yet they were the winners.
@jsobakken
Its like one instance of the civil war were the confederates wanting to fight a decisive battle kept charging uphill at Gettysburg until their army got destroyed.
Instead of just moving to capture Washington in order to force the Union troops downhill to fight them at favorable ground.
Now in video format.
@ Scott
“It doesn’t matter if you win or lose” is a very effeminate thing to say. Of course it matters if you win or lose. It also matters how you play the game.
The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, told us to play, and fight, to win.
1 Cor 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
@ Cane
I think part of the problem is that conservatives don’t understand the difference between a sparring partner, an opponent, and an enemy.
I got into jiu-jitsu in the Army. To be clear; I’m not good at it. I do enjoy it.
When you spar with a man from your own gym, you resist each other vigorously, because otherwise neither of you improves. You don’t go 100%, because your intent is to learn, not to injure each other.
When you compete against an opponent from a rival gym, you push a lot harder than with a sparring partner. You fight to win. But, your intention is still not to injure your opponent. When he taps out, you let go. Then you shake hands.
When you engage an enemy in hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield, all bets are off. Eye gouging, hair pulling, biting, smashing his head into the pavement… everything is on the table. The aim is to get into a dominant position, draw a blade and stab the bastard. If you lost your knife, then choke him out, and smash his head in with a rock. Or, break his arm, and then smash his head in with a rock. Enemies don’t get the courtesy of tapping out.
Conservatives don’t seem to understand that people who wish to sexualize our children, or convince our daughters to murder our grandchildren in the womb, are enemies. Conservatives seem to think those people are opponents, or maybe even sparring partners.
Or, maybe they really are sparring partners. Maybe they really are members of the same gym. If so, then the pejorative “cuckservative” is very fitting.
Allow me to introduce to the ultimate in good losers; a group of people who even as they lose look down in pity on the people who have just insulted them and rubbished their most cherished beliefs and invaded their institutions. Let me introduce you to The Church of England.
@Opus good point about the different kinds of enemies. In the Latin version of the New Testament, it distinguishes beteween nemesis and inimicus. You love one, but not the other. When the two are conflated, you have a cuckservative. Very interesting going back to the verses where they are used and seeing what a difference it makes. You updated the concept with modern language; I’ll have to bookmark it.
>Boomer arrives
>claims to hate chivalry
>brags about how wonderful his household is
>casually mentions his son-in-laws asked for permission to date his daughters
>casually mentions he teaches at sunday school
>implying he went 14 days without food without dying or going blind
>implying he is the one true Christian man here
This guy is definitely a troll
…. or a real boomer
” five lunatic black-robed thralls of Cthulu”
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide the law of the case, not the Law of the Land. The psychological victory was achieved by confusing people on this crucial difference. So, you’ve got to give the devil his due, he’s very clever when it comes to manipulating the minds of mental midgets.
I’m being persuaded that the reason people lost their minds and became stupid is the result of Sexual Liberation. If you would read “Libido Dominandi” by Professor E Michael Jones you’ll see why I think that.
“Indeed conflicts of importance outside the sports arena looks like “The art of War” by Sun Tzu”
I love the smell of Sun Tzu in the morning.
I believe you are referring to Pickett’s Charge. And US Grant had his Cold Harbor. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man is able to learn from the mistakes of others so he can then make his own, new mistakes. Damn mistakes, I hate them.
” nemesis and inimicus.”
Don’t we all know and expect that professional football players will play differently in a pre-season game than they do in a regular season game, and then differenter still in a play off game?
Happy Thanksgiving, you bunch of Dalrockian misogynists!
Losing is romantic? Who knew? Guess I’m really romantic then 😉
@Oscar
I was about to post something similar, the difference between sport and self defense. Your distinctions are the best, there really are three levels. I’ve done jiu jitsu as well and you don’t go 100% in rolling because the point is learning. You’re not a pussy for tapping out because of this, no one could learn anything if you were.
I think there’s reaction to the effeminacy that goes too far into ape territory. The reason you tell kids playing sports to lose with grace is because guess what tough guy, you’re going to lose at some point so you’d better learn not to lose your shit so that no one wants to play the game with you anymore.
A lot of the “rules” for what’s manly is tough guy bullshit really, invented by bullies to ensure they win. It’s the mirror image of rules invented by the weak to ensure they always win.
This is why in dueling the guy that issues the challenge doesn’t get to dictate the form the fight takes place. You’re physically larger and stronger? Awesome we’re not doing cudgels, we’re doing swords or pistols.
Our vision of masculinity seems to be more surface and limited. Eugenio Corti was infantry on the Eastern Front, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were both infantry in the Great War. I’m dead certain there’s a certain type of man who would call them faggots because they were all soft spoken and had an interest in poetry.
@Oscar
“When you engage an enemy in hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield, all bets are off. Eye gouging, hair pulling, biting, smashing his head into the pavement… everything is on the table. The aim is to get into a dominant position, draw a blade and stab the bastard. If you lost your knife, then choke him out, and smash his head in with a rock. Or, break his arm, and then smash his head in with a rock. Enemies don’t get the courtesy of tapping out. ”
Or they simply get the sting of a poison dart and fall over dead without the need for the above.
And I think in Jujitsu. Just because the opponent is stronger doesn’t mean they necessarily win.
As their superior momentum can be turned into a throw.
And I think tactics like running away leading enemies into a death trap are valid tactics too.
“Weakness” can be a form of bait. Openings that entice the enemy into attacking.
But I think there are already preliminary things that one can do before it comes to blows according to the Art of War.
That before the fight begins the opponent has already lost.
“Oscar says: November 28, 2019 at 2:36 am”
^ Word. Someone gets it. Know yourself and know your enemy.
“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, …wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. …We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness…” – Boston Gay Community News – February 15-21, 1987.
“Men go on quests. Women do not. They wait at the finish line and fuck the guy who crosses it first”
-Rollo Tomassi.
In short, winning does matter. And it’s high time Cuckservatives – the term I’ll use as an umbrella for the broad sweep of those who are not radical – to understand this.
The Western world needs to win the following:
-The Culture War: Radicals / Far Left / Lunar Left / Women’s Rights vs Conservatives
-Islam / LGBTIQ vs Christianity
-Political Atheism vs Theism
-China vs West.
if anything on this list makes you afraid, this is where you have to pin your ears back, state your views and stake out your ground.
And don’t relay on a woman as your ally. She isn’t one, won’t ever be one and can’t be one, because she’s different to you.
“Men go on quests. Women do not. They wait at the finish line and fuck the guy who crosses it first”
Sounds good on a blog. Mostly useless in real life.
Women wait outside the locker room for the guys who one the football game to come out.
No women are waiting at the finish line for the guy who wins the cross-country track meet.
What makes the difference. If you say “violence”, you win the ladies after they are done with the winning football team.
Winning doesn’t alway matter to the ladies. Violence pretty much always does.
@ RichardP
Your thesis is demonstrably wrong.
Women are attracted to status. Cross country is, in general, a low-status sport. Football is a high-status sport in most of the USA. That’s not the case everywhere.
Soccer, for example, is king in many countries around the world. That’s certainly true in South America. Professional soccer players in Brazil and Argentina have their pick of supermodels, even though soccer is not a violent sport, and even though international soccer actually rewards men for behaving like primadonnas.
Violence is certainly one way for a man to earn status, but there are many others.
“I say my good man, how’s my bowtie?”
“Splendid, old boy.”
“To industry!”
I am not sure amount America but in England the three letters WAG are a short hand way of writing wives and girlfriends and the term is always applied to sportsmen who have such appendages. They have WAGs because they are very well paid sportsmen i.e. young strong and fit and very skillful. The WAGs are always very hot totty i.e. 8s and above. Somehow these women make a bee-line for these men as do actresses to Harvey Weinstein and women generally to H.R.H. The Duke of York (Prince Andrew). Men I concluded are attracted to young women: I was shocked by this realisation such that I had to sit down and take smelling salts. I am a little better now.
May you have a happy thanksgiving (if that has not already happened). May you treat the Indians as well as they treated your ancestor colonists. It is clear why to me why Xmas is not such a big thing in America – you have run out of Turkey – which is why you have to return to work on December 26th, rather than waiting as we do until about 4th Jan.
Slightly O/T, but anathematizing complementarianism is always on topic:
https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/11/27/it-aint-for-women-why-the-church-should-not-have-female-leadership/
“We play to win, but we also lose with dignity when we come in second place. Winning matters, but there is a graceful way to be a winner and a graceful way to lose.”
This is appropriate for playing friendly games with friends. It is no way to deal with enemies.
“May you treat the Indians as well as they treated your ancestor colonists.”
Slaughter as many as possible, then? And torture the survivors for sport?
There’s a reason we referred to them as savages, you know. “Savage” wasn’t a compliment.
“This is appropriate for playing friendly games with friends. It is no way to deal with enemies.”
Howabout Patton’s idea of using the defeated Wehrmacht after they surrendered to push the Red Army back to Russia where he thought it belonged? It was bizarre but I think it was the case that the previous enemy was a better friend than the prior supposed ally.
Real life can get complicated and won’t necessarily follow our neat and clean definitions.
What I’m saying is that if and when an enemy sincerely surrenders then a re-evaluation is possible. I think it has to be a case by case basis.
The relationship between Europeans and the native populations here is complex, spanning centuries now so it’s probably not wise to try to think of it as “the way they treated our ancestor colonists.”
Not to mention, there were quite a few different nations (“tribes”) of natives here that were not particularly fond of each other, and who held different positions regarding us. Some of their tactics were brutal.
I think most rational thinkers can agree that the final stop along the continuum of US/native policy of creating “sovereign” nations within a nation has been an utter failure, which could be entitled “why socialism doesn’t work, exhibit A”
But mostly, I think its safe to say that any time a more advanced civilization appears on the shores of a lesser one, conflict will ensure, and the less advanced civilization will lose. There is currently a sovereign nation occupying the space between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and Canada and Mexico. It doesn’t really matter how it got here, but boy its existence sure pisses off a lot of people.
If aliens came here from outer space tomorrow, that would pretty much be it for us.
It depends who your employer is. If you work for Corporate America you typically don't come back to work until Jan 2nd. But if you work for a small firm, then yeah, you don't get that week off.
That said, in the American mindset Christmas ends on Dec 25. The tree gets thrown out and decorations are put away on Dec 26. the liturgical calendar be damned. In the US, the merchants define the "Christmas season", and since Dec 26 is too late to sell gifts, well then, Christmas is over. The Feast of the Epiphany? What's that? Isn't that a Hispanic thing? What do you mean it's "Advent" and not "Christmas time".
A lot of Americans believe that the "12 days of Christmas" are before Dec 25, as opposed to after.
Frank, you should try life on the Julian liturgical calendar.
About 400 million Christian earthlings are on it.
@Oscar – I think you miss the point of what makes something high status rather than low status. Things don’t have status (high or low) until folks give things that status. So the question becomes, what attributes cause something to get assigned high or low status, and who does the assigning? (Rhetorical questions here.)
And violence is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, in the eye of a particular woman, not in the eyes of males. Place any given woman who lines up at the finish line into a game of soccer with professional male athletes and see how quickly she decides whether the game is violent or genteel. It doesn’t matter what you think of the violence quotient of the game. It matters what she thinks.
Nice guys don’t get the ladies is a cliche bandied about the manosphere. But the “bad” guys do. What is it about the “bad” guys that the nice guys don’t have? Folks in the manosphere will respond as one: the potential for violence.
The girl attracted to the guy who is wealthy, because status, who is also not perceived by her to be violent on some level, will eventually find herself the subject of an Eagles song (Lyin’ Eyes).
Why do you think the “pimp hand” gets referred to so much? Because it doesn’t work?
This is not a hill I need to die on. I’m just pointing out that there is a truth that lies underneath the interactions between everyday women and everyday men. Sure, there are exceptions. But it is the guy who knocks her over the head and drags her back to his cave that gets talked about. For a reason. If she doesn’t perceive a potential for violence in a guy, she is not likely to spend much time around him as an object of sexual interest. And that perception might be only in her eyes, and that perception might be wrong. But, in terms of her displaying sexual interest in someone, it is the only perception that matter.
Guys who game women know this. Help her to think you are the dude she wants you to be, the gamers say. And it isn’t Mr. Nice Guy she wants you to be.
How can Beauty tame the Beast if she doesn’t first perceive him as a beast?
I agree that you should generally strive to win, but that is not true in all aspects of life. How enjoyable are friends who always have to beat you? Can you not have friendly competition or even just lack a specific “winner” for each activity?
I play board games. I have to fight my own urge to always win, since it makes me obnoxious to everyone else. I don’t like playing with those who are that way either.
Winning there is not necessarily winning the game, but can be winning the fellowship time. Take everything in context!
If you’re not a Christian, my only advise is beg to be one.
If you are an unmarried Christian man, and you wish to marry, then concern yourself with earning and keeping a lot of money first. Then become very clear on what the Bible has to say about marriage. Aquatint yourself with relevant textual variants, look up the Hebrew and Greek and form your own opinion far away from the cuckservatives who rule the modern Churchianity. If you look must look at commentaries, consider doing so at those before 1800.
Once you know what a Christian marriage should be, pray. If a woman becomes interested find out what she thinks are good Bible teachers. Look up what people she likes to listen to and if Beth Moore or any of the many others that compromise the Word move on. If she claims to like solid people (and there are so few theses days) then ask of passages that ask her to obey and call her husband lord like 1 Peter 3, or how women are to cover their heads and remain quiet in Church. It would be best if you could find out indirectly. In any case, if she has any “reinterpretation”, move on. Better to be single than live with the 95% of contentious women these days. v 10 is often missed by the Proverb 31 readers “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.: which means she is RARE. Most women today are not worth marriage, including most Christian women.
If you’re a Christian married to a non Christian wife, hide as much money as you can. Do not invest anywhere a court can discover it. Be patient, pray and speak softly, calmly but firmly.
If you’re a Christian married to a true Christian, what has worked for me is a 3 step process. First I teach her what the Bible says (in my case, she was always quite clear on her need to obey). I do seek her advice, but she knows mine is the final decision. When she disobeys, I make it clearly known she is wrong and ask she stop. One time she kept on going, in that case spending, so I cut back my working hours in half and announced to both her and the extended family we would now go into bankruptcy and lose the house.I also cut up the credit cards and told all the critics, which was everybody in the family and Church I did not care one whit about their opinion. I told my wife that if she divorced me, I would rather get raped in jail than pay one dime of alimony. She relented. But that was a minor move. On another 2 occasions she was also disobedient. I explained to her I would complain to God about her. That I would seek He judge between the 2 of us. That truly frightenes her. She has seen what happens when God is displeased. We are BOTH terrified of God. If you are not, then you have not even begun the journey to wisdom for FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Oh, we are both 100% certain of our salvation. We have no fear of hell at all. We fear His Loving discipline, administered for our own Good, here and now. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand being a child of a Loving but Just Father.
.
Those are my suggestions which have worked well for me. Others have posted Christian suggestions here and have been lambasted by those who prefer cursing darkness than at least trying to light a candle, however feebly. It is always easier to tear down than to build.
I am interested in seeing posts by Dalrock where there is an attempt at solutions. I do see his reference to Maximus, but that is devoid of any Biblical grounding. Threatening your wife with prayer is thoroughly Biblical, and since I have a truly Christian wife, extremely effective (both ways actually).
I find that Dalrock who claims he is a happily married father is long on complaints and the very “losing with honor” attitude he decries here and short on answers. I ask again, does anyone here actually believe God can answer prayer?
Jesus
I’ve had a pretty successful run at post marriage 1.0 and most readers here seem to like me.
You know why?
1. Because I don’t shit on their despair over the fact that the probability of an average Christian guy finding a sweet, hell, forget sweet — just not a ball busting sword of Damocles welding life sucking potential “wife” is basically zero.
2. Related to point one— I acknowledge their fear that even if they find one, they will have to constantly employ perfect, stress inducing “game” in an uphill against the whispers, the culture, her friends, her relatives….
3. I don’t question their faith. I know they believe in prayer but it is unrealistic to think that God will drop a high quality potential wife into their field of view who is not exhibiting some level of choice addiction induced neurosis.
4. They know I love them and I regularly express my heartbreak and angst over their collective situation.
Solutions are great. Peeling away the expectations of everyone involved nowadays is a good starting point, I figure.
I am so lucky to have what I have. I don’t think these guys did anything wrong.
Dear Senor de la Torre,
I am happy to hear of your success in raising a God fearing family, and I pray it continues. But please do remember that pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall. Also please remember the sin of the friends of Job and guard against repeating it.
@ RichardP
Remember Prince? He was 5’2″, skinny, flamboyantly effeminate, and sang in falsetto, and yet women threw themselves at him. Why? Because they perceived him to be violent?
Obviously not.
Women threw themselves at a 5’2″, flamboyantly effeminate man because was a world famous singer, song writer, and musician, who filled stadiums with screaming fans – mostly women. And that bestows on a man stratospherically high status. No violence necessary.
@ BillyS
Like I said, men need to learn to distinguish between a sparring partner (i.e., a friend), an opponent, and an enemy.
Well that is interesting Frank K – about Xmas – I felt returning to work when I was state-side on 26th Dec was positively indecent or immoral. I have thus always seen Americans as endlessly hard working. Your country does well so all that hard work must be paying off. For me, however, I take down the decorations on Twelfth Night (6th Jan) – must get myself an advent calendar – and then there is the annual trouble when a Town Hall erects a crib and is forced to take it down. Yes American Xmas is different. In Spain by contrast so I am informed the big day is not 25th Dec but 6th Jan when the baby Jesus (rather than Santa) brings the presents.
Last night I was informed by my friend that he had and somewhat inadvertently come across a channel somewhere which 24/7/365 shows Xmas movies. When I was young there were no such movies.
” I ask again, does anyone here actually believe God can answer prayer?
Yes. Psalm 37 says
4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
You should pray for what you want, and let others pray for what they want.
Your problem, Jesus, is that you think that individual men are the problem, and not the demon infested ruling class overlords of society who have perverted justice and morals such that no man with a smidgen of common sense would risk committing traditional acts like marriage and child rearing. First, defeat and destroy the demon infested ruling class who did this to us, then it makes sense to exhort and cajole men in to taking on the responsibilities of marriage and family again like it was in the olden days of yore. Why don’t you pray for that to happen? That makes a lot more sense that for you to harangue against men and demand that they do something stupid.
Conservative leaders are much like Groucho Marx: “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
Over the decades I have marveled at the ability of conservatives to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Much of the time it has been the result of back-stabbing but not always. Both conservatives and “progressives” understand the old adage that “a knife in the dark may succeed where a thousand swords will fail. but is only used in one direction.
The common thread that I see emerge over the past 150 years is that most or all actions by conservatives have the effect of devaluing manhood, regardless of their supposed goals and intentions. When the left loses a battle the fight is never over. When conservatives lose, they seem to enthusiastically embrace the very evil they recently claimed to oppose. Their lines in the sand mean nothing. One might conclude that devaluation of manhood is their only unchanging principle.
I can imagine explaining celebrating Christmas in January to the neighbors. That should get some interesting stares.”You celebrate Christmas … in January? You’re joking,right?”, “Julian Calendar? What’s that?” So much fun.
Actually, it is the Magi, who are better known as “Los Reyes Magos” who bring the presents on Jan 6. The holiday is commonly known as “Dia de Reyes” and is observed throughout the Spanish speaking nations. And the Feast of the Nativity is a big deal in Spain, they just don’t do Santa Claus.
Switching gears, I suspect that eventually we will officially stop celebrating Christmas in the US and it will be supplanted by a secular holiday, maybe something like Seinfeld’s “Festivus”. We are more than halfway there already as creches are a rare sight outside of a church or a few front yards, you certainly won’t see one at the shopping mall. Sure, Santa will still come, but he is already fully secularized. Ask most unchurched children who St. Nicholas is and you will get blank stares. I recall that the Soviets renamed him Father Frost and he brought presents on New Years Day. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens here.
This is one reason why I expect to live to see Christmas “banned” as a public holiday. Churches will of course celebrate it in the privacy of their sanctuaries, but it will be banished from the public square. And “conservatives” will embrace that banishment,
Still, there is always hope. The following would have been impossible before the fall of the Berlin Wall (turn on captions for an English translation)
Woman gets black out drunk, bar gets suded because she gets taken advantage of:https://news.yahoo.com/woman-raped-outside-bar-while-143831602.html
This whole thing about winning and losing reminds me of one of my favorite Charlie Brown lines:
“Winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything.”
I am reminded of a scene in one of the Star Trek movies. Picard describes how every time the Federation faces the Borg that “we fall back”, while the Borg always come back even after losing.
And that’s the way it is with the cold war with the Left. When the Left loses, they don’t fall back, they hold their position, regroup and strike again. The Right never does that, if it wins it only holds its current position, it never pushes the Left back, never. We allegedly have a conservative Supreme Court, but no ground is ever recovered. We are stuck with abortion and homosexuality being protected by the government. We elect a Republican president and our embassies fly the rainbow flag during “pride month” (except in some Islamic countries).
And as others have expressed here, conservatives eventually embrace the issues they once opposed. How many pundits still speak out against same sex marriage? Almost none. With every year that passes, something that was once unthinkable becomes mainstream and “normal”. As Picard said “we fall back”.
Most beings had to fall back against the Borg because they were too powerful. If you survived long enough to fall back that in itself was a victory. Then when Captain Janeway came back from the future with advanced technology to even the match the Federation took the opportunity.
It should be obvious to us now that if the cuckservatives were able to push the Marxist Globalist Transgender wackos back, they would not. Because, they are on their side, not on our side.
This is why I take care to differentiate between conservatives, who mean well but are simple minded and gullible, and cuckservatives, who are clever and devious and know what’s going on and what they are about.
@Nick M,
“A woman is suing a bar claiming bouncers stood by and watched as she was sexually assaulted in an alley. … The woman, named only as Jane Doe in court papers, [alleged] that the bar’s staff failed to protect her.”
She’s got no case. Security isn’t law enforcement. They have no more duty to intervene than any other civilian.
Whether that matters in Current Year is, of course, a different topic.
I don’t elevate the pagan savage, the state atheist, the adherent of a non-Christian false religion, or the regressive leftard. Each is wrong and a danger to right thinking people.
@ Gunner Q
Neither does law enforcement. This is from 2005.
The Supreme Court has affirmed multiple times the fact that law enforcement has no constitutional duty to protect individuals. Their duty is to arrest a criminal after he’s violated you. Each individual is responsible for his/her own safety and security. And getting black-out-drunk is counterproductive to ones safety and security, whether one is male or female.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734900/Cleaning-streets-Russian-style-Cossack-vigilantes-attack-drunk-man-fire-extinguisher-whip-punish-sleeping-outside.html
My understanding is that at least one rationale given on why the SCOTUS has ruled that way has to do with limiting liability.
That is, if every individual is entitled to “protection” by the police, then every time a person is a victim of a crime, they have a case in the form of a lawsuit against the government.
This is peculiar in light of those who believe no one has the right to protect themselves with a firearm. Because it means “we can’t protect you, and YOU can’t protect you.”
My understanding is that at least one rationale given on why the SCOTUS has ruled that way has to do with limiting liability.
That makes sense. I’d never heard this before, thanks for the link Oscar. I like learning new things.
@Dalrock, your theory of chivalry and pointing out that they believe “love sanctifies sex” does perfectly explain why the church has been defenseless against the legalization of gay marriage. If love sanctifies sex, then love sanctifies homosexuality too. This is in-fact their argument – if two people love each other they should be able to get married.
@ Scott
That’s exactly what it means. Historically, throughout cultures, free men were authorized to own, carry, and train with weapons. Serfs and slaves were not. What does that say about politicians who want you disarmed?
@ Liz
You’re welcome. It’s a handy fact to present to people who argue that you don’t need a gun because the police will protect you.
And even if they wished to protect you, how could they? They can’t be everywhere at once. As the old adage says: when seconds matter, the police a minutes away.
Ask the disarmed citizens of London about how their police protect them. It took a brave civilian, armed with a narwhal tusk, to stop a known terrorist who was stabbing people.
The biggest problem in our civilization is that most “conservative” leaders are progressives in disguise to appeal to their local voting population. Remember Sen. Brown, who won Kennedy’s Senate seat in 2010? He promised traditional-values people all kinds of things, then betrayed them by voting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” itself a masterpiece of cuckservative surrender.
I was active in politics for a number of years. I had ideas to get the message out and build momentum and movements–and got shouted down or kicked to the curb. After awhile, I gave up. I didn’t have the “connections” to advance and couldn’t make any by advocating for ferocious counteroffensives and victory. Most conservatives are LOSERS, content with the crumbs from Satan’s big table.
In my opinion, our biggest problem is betrayal. For some reason, God is permitting decency to be betrayed at every step. That is why our increasingly infrequent victories are always swamped by counterattacks from the Left.
Make no mistake, their bottomless resources, unflagging energy, unbounded power, and seemingly unstoppable omnipotence are demonic and actively being allowed by God.
Perhaps we are in the End Times. But none of it makes any sense. I do not believe the world has been more evil since the Flood, and maybe not even then. At no time since the Resurrection has God allowed those fighting for His way to be defeated so constantly, for victory to appear so impossible.
Bottom line: do what you can, and hold fast in your own corner, however small (or big) it may be, for as long as possible.
Pingback: Blog Watch: Narrative Warfare, Arthurian Propaganda, Bad Children’s TV, and Mecha Vietnam | Jeffro's Space Gaming Blog
Its a form of cowardice + deception + theft
They are too gutless to really stand and fight but they know that if they dont at least pretend to fight they will be replaced by actual men who win, ie Trump.
So they “lose with honor”. Its not a “real” loss bc “we kept our principles, so we are the REAL winners”
“Woman gets black out drunk, bar gets suded because she gets taken advantage of:https://news.yahoo.com/woman-raped-outside-bar-while-143831602.html”
It’s high-time for Western men to start asking themselves which women are worth risking their lives for and which ones aren’t. And more often than not, the best thing to do is stand down.
Oscar @ December 1, 2019 at 4:52 am
“Security isn’t law enforcement. They have no more duty to intervene than any other civilian.”
“Neither does law enforcement. This is from 2005.”
A common misconception. Police have the duty to respond to crime but are not liable for insufficient responses… but they still have a duty to respond. They cannot, in this example, casually watch a possible rape taking place. Security can. Legally, security could KNOW it was a rape in progress and not care so long as it happened off-property. The only way she’d have a case is if she could prove collusion/conspiracy.
Of course, feral women won’t be happy until all men everywhere have a duty to protect them no matter how badly she behaves.
@Frank K
I have crossed and recrossed London Bridge (not the one with the gothic towers which I have rarely crossed) more times than I bothered to count. It was also the scene of an earlier terrorist attack hence it now being bollarded but that won’t stop a terrorist on foot. Terrorists seem to be very keen on London bridges. After the latest I thought it would have played out even assuming it had ever started very differently had we had been allowed to carry concealed weapons. Despite what you say about the Police what amazed me this time was that within a short while of the terrorist being held by the Narwhal tusk and one of those then present was apparently a plain-clothes policeman, two armed police showed up and as the terrorist appeared to be wearing a suicide vest they shot him dead and without the benefit at exhaustive public expense of a fair trial. Where did they spring from? He won’t be released on licence again by the soft-hearted Judge who now has in my view blood on his hands. May that now retired Judge suffer the pangs of hell ere long. I would have said that which I now retract as not very christian of me were it not for the fact that the terrorist took out one of the ‘refugees welcome crowd’ whose Masters Dissertation asserted that by reason of the cult of equality there are far too many BAME in British prisons. The victim caught by his own petard whatever a petard might be. Cambridge University is and for far too long has been a breeding ground for Marxists. Karma.
@ Gunner Q
Not if they feel that doing so will place them at excessive risk, thus “the Coward of Broward”.
Agreed.
The Tower Bridge is definitely the most iconic bridge on the Thames. It would make for an interesting target to destroy, perhaps via a lorry filled with explosives. Clearly beyond the reach of a nutter with a knife. I did miss the previous London Bridge attack by just a day. My London-Chicago flight had landed and I was waiting at the gate for my connection when I saw the news on a nearby television. I was in the UK (same trip) when the bombing occurred at the pop star’s concert, though it wasn’t in London. That was the same trip when more than one of your new subjects hurled invective on me. The clerk at the hotel was a young Hungarian chap. who expressed to me that he was fed up with the UK and wanted to emigrate to the USA. I wished him well.
[quote] We allegedly have a conservative Supreme Court, but no ground is ever recovered. We are stuck with abortion and homosexuality being protected by the government. We elect a Republican president and our embassies fly the rainbow flag during “pride month” (except in some Islamic countries[/quote]
The problem stems from our beliefs about Classical Liberal Governance. It’s unsustainable because it is ultimately rooted in Rebellion to God’s authority. We can’t take offensive measures of any significance because we won’t submit to the authority of the Churches and Kings modeled after the Old Testament system of governance. So we’re stuck with the self destructing degeneracy of the Enlightenment Era ideas that no man is worthy of bowing the knee to, despite the fact that was never the standard of authority given to us by God.
Instead of smashing degeneracy, instead we’re trying to find a way to coexist with evil.
So, RegularGuy, let me get this straight. You think a “Churches and Kings” model of government would be a good thing? Are you completely ignorant of medieval history? Do you not know about the horrific persecution and killing done by both the church and the royalty? Europe was a brutal and unstable place for many hundreds of years, largely due to those “Kings” and the “Church”. A monarchy can be just as corrupt and oppressive as our current democracy, but without the hope of any checks and balances. And I trust a Theocracy even less than a Monarchy. I ESPECIALLY distrust any theocracy that is in bed with a “church” run by a bunch of gay pedophiles passing themselves off as “priests”.
You can fuck right off with your “Churches and Kings” solution. And just so you know, I will fight to the death in opposition to ANY theocracy, and I say that as a committed follower of Jesus Christ. The only theocracy I will accept is that of Jesus in the world to come.
Applicable to OT at hand, watch and let the RP flow through you:
Haven’t perused the YT comments yet. The few other places I’ve read the discussion is the usual, “Girls can be cops too!!” sans anything else.
Or, maybe they really are sparring partners. Maybe they really are members of the same gym. If so, then the pejorative “cuckservative” is very fitting.
You’ve just described the song and dance which is found in the political show we observe daily. They are all actors playing a part and get their scripts to entertain the ignorant.