← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · John Graziano
Thread ID: 17617 | Posts: 114 | Started: 2005-04-03
2005-04-03 00:20 | User Profile
Women are in everything but their youthful appearance and raising children, mediocre. Twenty-five hundred years of European history have not produced one decent female painter. Nor have those years produced one decent female philosopher -- nor one decent female composer. Think about that! But we're told they are our equal. Think about the women you work with. They may be hard working, well-organized, presentable and punctual. But they're not likely looked to for innovative ideas or out-of-the-box thinking. They are not the star performers.
...
It is worthwhile to observe that after "Women's Liberation," females emphasized their sexuality more than ever before, which is exactly the opposite of what the feminists cited as their objective. Essentially, women are immodest when unrestricted. They are the natural corrupters of society because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon. When permitted, women will emphasize that sexuality to obtain higher status and collect more resources, naturally loosening public mores in the process. They will seek neither political nor economic freedom, as only aesthetic and sexual freedom relate to their evolutionary survival strategy.
More here: [url="http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/AllingtonFile.htm"]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/AllingtonFile.htm[/url]
2005-04-03 00:39 | User Profile
Boy oh boy, you must really hate women.
2005-04-03 03:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]Essentially, women are immodest when unrestricted. They are the natural corrupters of society because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon. When permitted, women will emphasize that sexuality to obtain higher status and collect more resources, naturally loosening public mores in the process.[/QUOTE]
This sounds like a paragraph that could have come straight out of the Taliban's playbook. And I don't mean that in a Fox-News-told-me-so kind of way, it's literally the same! Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true. :osama: :lol:
2005-04-03 03:33 | User Profile
Every time things get slow at VNN they start with the anti woman crap. They bring back the ever-boring John Allington.
John Allington is probably a pony rider.
2005-04-03 03:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Every time things get slow at VNN they start with the anti woman crap. They bring back the ever-boring John Allington.
John Allington is probably a pony rider.[/QUOTE]
Wonder what ever happened to Elizabeth Bennett at that site--she wrote some insightful pieces on male/female relations.
Maybe she ran off with Little Herschel...
2005-04-03 03:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Wonder what ever happened to Elizabeth Bennett at that site--she wrote some insightful pieces on male/female relations.
Maybe she ran off with Little Herschel...[/QUOTE]
She probably is a he. The world is a stage...
2005-04-03 03:57 | User Profile
These types of guys and the crazy feminists they hate so much actually have a lot in common. They both get no attention from the opposite sex, they are usually a bit on the unattractive side, and hence haven't had any in a while.
but on the bright side, muhammed, there are plenty of woman in the turd-world, that don't know any better and are used to playing the part of a dog to their superior master, the man. And no matter how grotesque you may be physically, after looking at a bunch of greasy, hook-nosed Arabs,or even worse Africans all day, you might just look not half-bad to them.
[QUOTE] females emphasized their sexuality more than ever before, which is exactly the opposite of what the feminists cited as their objective. Essentially, women are immodest when unrestricted. They are the natural corrupters of society because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon. [/QUOTE] And this is why they must be kept covered from head to toe. Allah Akbar!:osama:
2005-04-03 04:04 | User Profile
The urbanization and immigration problems are brought about because "women prefer crowds"? That is perhaps the absolute dumbest sociological theory ever expressed. The entire "sketch" is a litany of assertions and the author in no way attempts to make something even tenuously comparable to a serious argument. It isn't worth much serious consideration, but I have to point out that I found this funny, after discussing matters pertainent to a healthy society, the self-righteous author notes:
[QUOTE]They will flock to Florida for spring break, where they hope to be captured on film baring their breasts for the next "Girls Gone Wild" video. You think all of this is really sexy? Well, of course it is in one way. So too is a strip joint filled with drugged-up dancers. [/QUOTE] Women might be the author's "natural corrupters of society", but heck, he still loves coked up strippers , regardless.
2005-04-03 04:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Every time things get slow at VNN they start with the anti woman crap. They bring back the ever-boring John Allington.
.[/QUOTE]You have that right. It seems these type of threads pop up about once a week over there. This post(directed at me) had to be one of the best:
[QUOTE] originally posted by SMG3000 You are not an Aryan, your White trash. Everything you write backs it up. I may be a bitter man, but at least I belong in the pro-White ranks as a genuine White person. You can bet, I won't be fighting for nasty cunts like you. All that needs mention is Lorena Bobbit and other jewish nightmares and your cheering and whooping it up, wallowing in your own lust for the sexual mutilation of your foe, the penis.
Whoever beds such women must be a sorry lot, or hopeless suckers [/QUOTE]
2005-04-03 04:58 | User Profile
I like women. Without them, life would just be a pointless parade of predator and prey with no surcease, no light; certainly nothing worth living and struggling and fighting and dying for. If you don't intuitively grasp that, you need to get your woman a gift certificate to Victoria's Secret.
Men are, inevitably, too grim if left alone among their fellows. I'm grateful for having had a few awfully nice-smelling Certain Someones in my life who'd rudely interrupt my plans for world domination and death camps to ask me what I think about her new hat.
2005-04-03 14:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]This sounds like a paragraph that could have come straight out of the Taliban's playbook. And I don't mean that in a Fox-News-told-me-so kind of way, it's literally the same! Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true. :osama: :lol:[/QUOTE]
It is true.
God endowed women with the GREAT POWER to confer life. But that comes at a price. They are naturally geared toward the personal and immediate and oriented away from the abstract and secular.
Since their minds are geared toward reproduction, they don't have a lot of gray matter left over for intellectual persuits, at least as a class. They don't produce as a class a lot of geniuses, that's just the simple fact. Larry Summers just got creamed for stating the obvious fact of the paucity of women geniuses, like Jimmy the Greek took it in the neck for stating the obvious facts of life about innate African athletic prowess.
In the realm of politics, since women have a very hard time of separating their feelings from their reason, they tend to personalize everything and project their personal desires onto the political. Women turn the political discourse into an Oprah Winfrey show. Women and their astonishing ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their air heads at the same time while believing both to be true is the root of most of our present difficulties.
The sum of all human experience dictates that for the good of all, women as a class must be relegated to the domestic sphere. All of their life's energy must be focused on children, husband, hearth and home. But here's the rub - and something guys don't like - within that sphere the MUST RULE as queens. They must be made very secure in their roles as wives, mothers, daughters. And in the caring professions that they should by right dominate - elementary education and applied medicine. Under the general supervision of men, of course.
But we men are at our best when we let women rule within their proper sphere. They must be protected from the more barbaric among us. There should be strong marriage laws, and men who abandon their families should get slammed, for example. No woman should suffer serious physical abuse. No woman should have to put up with a drunken husband.
But they shouldn't be given any public voice. Certainly no right to vote, hold public office, sit on juries, join the Bar, or serve as military officers.
BTW, Mrs. Yannis agrees with all this, and insists only that I make her more money. Basically, she gets to decide (mostly) the family budget, where the kids will go to school, where we'll live, where we'll take our vacation, which parents we visit at Christmas and similar things, and I get to work my a$$ off and also get to decide whether to vote for Shrub or that other guy, you know, what's his name.
Viewed objectively, who has the better deal?
2005-04-03 14:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It is true.
God endowed women with the GREAT POWER to confer life. But that comes at a price. They are naturally geared toward the personal and immediate and oriented away from the abstract and secular.
Since their minds are geared toward reproduction, they don't have a lot of gray matter left over for intellectual persuits, at least as a class. They don't produce as a class a lot of geniuses, that's just the simple fact. Larry Summers just got creamed for stating the obvious fact of the paucity of women geniuses, like Jimmy the Greek took it in the neck for stating the obvious facts of life about innate African athletic prowess.
In the realm of politics, since women have a very hard time of separating their feelings from their reason, they tend to personalize everything and project their personal desires onto the political. Women turn the political discourse into an Oprah Winfrey show. Women and their astonishing ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their air heads at the same time while believing both to be true is the root of most of our present difficulties.
The sum of all human experience dictates that for the good of all, women as a class must be relegated to the domestic sphere. All of their life's energy must be focused on children, husband, hearth and home. But here's the rub - and something guys don't like - within that sphere the MUST RULE as queens. They must be made very secure in their roles as wives, mothers, daughters. And in the caring professions that they should by right dominate - elementary education and applied medicine. Under the general supervision of men, of course.
But we men are at our best when we let women rule within their proper sphere. They must be protected from the more barbaric among us. There should be strong marriage laws, and men who abandon their families should get slammed, for example. No woman should suffer serious physical abuse. No woman should have to put up with a drunken husband.
But they shouldn't be given any public voice. Certainly no right to vote, hold public office, sit on juries, join the Bar, or serve as military officers.
BTW, Mrs. Yannis agrees with all this, and insists only that I make her more money. Basically, she gets to decide (mostly) the family budget, where the kids will go to school, where we'll live, where we'll take our vacation, which parents we visit at Christmas and similar things, and I get to work my a$$ off and also get to decide whether to vote for Shrub or that other guy, you know, what's his name.
Viewed objectively, who has the better deal?[/QUOTE]
LOL! You sound like the perfect husband. ;)
2005-04-03 14:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]LOL! You sound like the perfect husband. ;)[/QUOTE] Thanks, Gabby.
Overall Mrs. Yannis says she's pleased, although she insists that I should work on the gut.
2005-04-03 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It is true.
God endowed women with the GREAT POWER to confer life. But that comes at a price. They are naturally geared toward the personal and immediate and oriented away from the abstract and secular.
Since their minds are geared toward reproduction, they don't have a lot of gray matter left over for intellectual persuits, at least as a class. They don't produce as a class a lot of geniuses, that's just the simple fact. Larry Summers just got creamed for stating the obvious fact of the paucity of women geniuses, like Jimmy the Greek took it in the neck for stating the obvious facts of life about innate African athletic prowess.
In the realm of politics, since women have a very hard time of separating their feelings from their reason, they tend to personalize everything and project their personal desires onto the political. Women turn the political discourse into an Oprah Winfrey show. Women and their astonishing ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their air heads at the same time while believing both to be true is the root of most of our present difficulties.
The sum of all human experience dictates that for the good of all, women as a class must be relegated to the domestic sphere. All of their life's energy must be focused on children, husband, hearth and home. But here's the rub - and something guys don't like - within that sphere the MUST RULE as queens. They must be made very secure in their roles as wives, mothers, daughters. And in the caring professions that they should by right dominate - elementary education and applied medicine. Under the general supervision of men, of course.
But we men are at our best when we let women rule within their proper sphere. They must be protected from the more barbaric among us. There should be strong marriage laws, and men who abandon their families should get slammed, for example. No woman should suffer serious physical abuse. No woman should have to put up with a drunken husband.
But they shouldn't be given any public voice. Certainly no right to vote, hold public office, sit on juries, join the Bar, or serve as military officers.
BTW, Mrs. Yannis agrees with all this, and insists only that I make her more money. Basically, she gets to decide (mostly) the family budget, where the kids will go to school, where we'll live, where we'll take our vacation, which parents we visit at Christmas and similar things, and I get to work my a$$ off and also get to decide whether to vote for Shrub or that other guy, you know, what's his name.
Viewed objectively, who has the better deal?[/QUOTE]
Great post, Mr. Yannis.
2005-04-03 21:37 | User Profile
Here's Mencken's take on the question--from In Defense of Women:
"...Women, in truth, are not only intelligent; they have almost a monopoly of certain of the subtler and more utile forms of intelligence. The thing itself, indeed, might be reasonably described as a special feminine character; there is in it, in more than one of its manifestations, a femaleness as palpable as the femaleness of cruelty, masochism or rouge. Men are strong. Men are brave in physical combat. Men have sentiment. Men are romantic, and love what they conceive to be virtue and beauty. Men incline to faith, hope and charity. Men know how to sweat and endure. Men are amiable and fond. But in so far as they show the true fundamentals of intelligence--in so far as they reveal a capacity for discovering the kernel of eternal verity in the husk of delusion and hallucination and a passion for bringing it forth--to that extent, at least, they are feminine, and still nourished by the milk of their mothers. "Human creatures," says George, borrowing from Weininger, "are never entirely male or entirely female; there are no men, there are no women, but only sexual majorities." Find me an obviously intelligent man, a man free from sentimentality and illusion, a man hard to deceive, a man of the first class, and I'll show you aman with a wide streak of woman in him. Bonaparte had it; Goethe had it; Schopenhauer had it; Bismarck and Lincoln had it; in Shakespeare, if the Freudians are to be believed, it amounted to down right homosexuality. The essential traits and qualities of the male, the hallmarks of the unpolluted masculine, are at the same time the hall-marks of the Schalskopf. The caveman is all muscles and mush. Without a woman to rule him and think for him, he is a truly lamentable spectacle: a baby with whiskers, a rabbit with the frame of an aurochs, a feeble and preposterous caricature of God.
It would be an easy matter, indeed, to demonstrate that superior talent in man is practically always accompanied by this feminine flavour--that complete masculinity and stupidity are often indistinguishable. Lest I be misunderstood I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that masculinity contributes nothing to the complex of chemico-physiological reactions which produces what we call talent; all I mean to say is that this complex is impossible without the feminine contribution that it is a product of the interplay of the two elements. In women of genius we see the opposite picture. They are commonly distinctly mannish, and shave as well as shine. Think of George Sand, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth of England, Rosa Bonheur, Teresa Carreo or Cosima Wagner. The truth is that neither sex, without some fertilization by the complementary characters of the other, is capable of the highest reaches of human endeavour. Man, without a saving touch of woman in him, is too doltish, too naive and romantic, too easily deluded and lulled to sleep by his imagination to be anything above a cavalryman, a theologian or a bank director. And woman, without some trace of that divine innocence which is masculine, is too harshly the realist for those vast projections of the fancy which lie at the heart of what we call genius. Here, as elsewhere in the universe, the best effects are obtained by a mingling of elements. The wholly manly man lacks the wit necessary to give objective form to his soaring and secret dreams, and the wholly womanly woman is apt to be too cynical a creature to dream at all."
[url]http://encyclopediaindex.com/b/ndwmn11.htm[/url]
The average American Woman is smarter than the average American Man. Malefolk, however, populate the extremes at either end of the Bell Curve.
No goin' back to "Kids, Kitchen & Church", dudes... :heart:
2005-04-03 21:45 | User Profile
Gee, I didn't know that the founding fathers were a bunch of islamicist faggots who were pissed off that they couldn't get any pussy.:osama:
I don't know who this Mr. Allington is. The thought has crossed my mind once or twice that it might even be Mr. Linder himself. But I see nothing to suggest that he is some camel jockey with a ZZTop beard squatting in his batcave somewhere in Ragheadistan.
This fellow's thinking reflects that of the western tradition. Not allowing women to give free rein to their naturally irresponsible impulses was the Graeco-Roman tradition, at least before they miscegenated themselves into oblivion. For centuries thereafter, sagacious Christian rulers wisely revived this wise social policy of their noble pagan forebears. Now, in our thoroughly feminized degenocracy, females of both genders instinctively vituperate those who are foolhardy enough to mention the unmentionably obvious. Those 'men' who are so dickless that they fear the censure of other dickless men or (heaven forbid!) sleeping on the couch more than they fear living death are more to blame for this state of affairs than out of control women are. If an unsupervised child burns down the neighbor's house, it is the parent's who shoud be horsewhipped, not the chile.
Since some of you have engaged in gratuitous pop-psychoanalysis, I beg to be allowed the same indulgence. I have a feeling that those hysterical males who instinctively lash out at those who dare to suggest that women are anything less than perfectly fitted by nature for absolute hegemony over all creation are acting out on the natural shame and self loathing they feel for being the pussified faggots that they are.
2005-04-03 23:02 | User Profile
I agree with you fully Walter. Women are lovely when they fulfill their God-given roles. But these stupid little ersatz men in their business jackets and skirts ... they are people I could do without. Feminism was a satanic/jewish ideology designed to destroy us.
And it would certainly be wise to restore the vote exclusively to white, Christian, property owning men. Women, of course, could exert influence on their husbands. But blacks, joos, hindoos and mozzies have no business casting votes in our society.
2005-04-03 23:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]females of both genders ... I have a feeling that those hysterical males who instinctively lash out at those who dare to suggest that women are anything less than perfectly fitted by nature for absolute hegemony over all creation are acting out on the natural shame and self loathing they feel for being the pussified faggots that they are.[/QUOTE] I love it John. You have a way with words that makes my heart sing.
Amen brother!!!
2005-04-03 23:31 | User Profile
Originally Posted by John Graziano - I don't know who this Mr. Allington is. The thought has crossed my mind once or twice that it might even be Mr. Linder himself. But I see nothing to suggest that he is some camel jockey with a ZZTop beard squatting in his batcave somewhere in Ragheadistan.
Who ever the freak is; he should take a loaded pistol to his head and pull the trigger - or just admit he prefers pony riding.
2005-04-04 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Who ever the freak is; he should take a loaded pistol to his head and pull the trigger - or just admit he prefers pony riding.[/QUOTE] That is just more hate-filled, joo-inspired political correctness. John spoke the truth, and I think he's one good guy.
2005-04-04 00:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]That is just more hate-filled, joo-inspired political correctness. John spoke the truth, and I think he's one good guy.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to Allington, not John Graziano.
2005-04-04 00:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I was referring to Allington, not John Graziano.[/QUOTE] OK, but Allington sounds like a good guy too. It is time for men (white, Christian men) to take charge and whip some jooish and plutocrat _ss.
2005-04-04 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I agree with you fully Walter. Women are lovely when they fulfill their God-given roles. But these stupid little ersatz men in their business jackets and skirts ... they are people I could do without. Feminism was a satanic/jewish ideology designed to destroy us.
And it would certainly be wise to restore the vote exclusively to white, Christian, property owning men. Women, of course, could exert influence on their husbands. But blacks, joos, hindoos and mozzies have no business casting votes in our society.[/QUOTE] Very well said. :rockon:
2005-04-04 01:10 | User Profile
What exactly are our "god" given roles. And who's "god" of which do you refer?
2005-04-04 01:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]OK, but Allington sounds like a good guy too. It is time for men (white, Christian men) to take charge and whip some jooish and plutocrat _ss.[/QUOTE]
Allington is a mental case and Schopenhauer was gay.
2005-04-04 01:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]What exactly are our "god" given roles. And who's "god" of which do you refer?[/QUOTE] What a silly question. The answer is obvious, the Creator of the universe. Read His book, the Holy Bible. And make sure you bow the knee to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
2005-04-04 01:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Allington is a mental case and Schopenhauer was gay.[/QUOTE] I just read all three of Allington's essays in this series. And he's no mental case.
2005-04-04 02:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I have a feeling that those hysterical males who instinctively lash out at those who dare to suggest that women are anything less than perfectly fitted by nature for absolute hegemony over all creation are acting out on the natural shame and self loathing they feel for being the pussified faggots that they are.[/QUOTE]
Dude, you kissed a girl - that is so [I]gay![/I]
Graziano, if you want to use your podium to call other members of the forum pussies and faggots for disagreeing with you, there's a line that forms on the right. Thank you.
Just remember that when you cite chapter and verse from VNN, you're referring to a website where a 40-year-old unmarried loner regularly exhorts the rank and file to have half-a-dozen Aryan babies by next Thursday, or they're betraying their race.
2005-04-04 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]It is time for men (white, Christian men) to take charge [/QUOTE]
IMO, Christian churches, even so-called fundemental ones, have done great disservice to the institution of marriage, and to a lesser extent, to the male/female relationships in general.
Year after year, at these mens' retreats, speakers hammered home on white males in attendance, that all problems in a marriage were caused by the man, not the woman. It was the man's irresponsibility, and lack of leadership which caused a woman to be unsubmissive and rebellious.
Some "experts" went so far as to say there was no Biblical reason for a woman to obey or show reverence towards her husband if he erred in any Biblical responsibility. (they weren't talking about adultry, not providing for the family, etc. They meant if the husband didn't do the dishes, clean the house, did not communicate perfectly, etc.)
They also stated if the man was not the perfect husband to the wife, not to expect much.
Then they turn around and publically tell the wives the same thing, that it's all the husband's fault. That he's just not a leader if the wife doesn't love him.
Today, there is no difference in the divorce rate between Christians and non-Christians in our area. None.
These same churches also operate under 501(c)(3), which means they bend the knee to the beast. Looking back, I often wonder if this type of anti-Biblical teaching was a dilberate agenda. While professing to support families, the church is at the same time, destroying the family unit by not preaching Biblical marriage.
2005-04-04 02:44 | User Profile
Robert,
Thanks for the kind words, Bro. I think her Gabbiness was cowed into disavowing her bluntly stated wish for my demise by her unfounded fear that the mods here would penalize her even to the point of exile. As I am one of the more politically incorrect people on this board, she could openly call for my lynching and subsequent drawing and quartering with nary a reprimand from those guys.
I'm not sure that I made the point I was trying to make as effectively as I could have, leaving myself open to the convenient smear of misogyny, which is as about as substantive as that of racist, anti-semite, homophobe, or, more generally, hater. The point is that we must avoid passing the buck. Women act the way they do because we, the other half of the population, allows and even encourage them to do so. Women have no power to work their mischief, other than that allotted to them by weak and venal men who imagine that they are the masters of all they survey as they abjectly plead for a little nooky. When your wife slaps you repeatedly and then reports you to the police for domestic violence even after failing to provoke you into reciprocating, it will be several dickless and brainless brutes who will drag you at the points of several guns out of YOUR house. You will then be prosecuted by gentlemen such as Mr. Yannis, Esq., for your brutish behavior, and sentenced to indefinite indentured servitude in order to provide your wife with the means of keeping her veritable train of semen donors in the style to which they will have become accustomed. When you are denied the promotion you not only deserve but desperately need to keep up with the extortionate alimony and child support payments, and you complain about it going to the affirmative action project (if you are white collar guy, this will almost certainly be some incompetent white woman, NOT an inept colored MAN), your white male colleagues like Mr. Starr will snidely snigger behind your back that you're "just sore 'cause he can't get laid" as you're cleaning out your desk and heading down to the unemployment line and the destitution that awaits at the end of that line.
No, the only females I hate and despise are those who possess testicles but no balls. These contemptible creatures go by the fatuous self styled title of 'Real Men' (or 'Gentlemen' in the deep south).
2005-04-04 11:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]Robert,
Thanks for the kind words, Bro. I think her Gabbiness was cowed into disavowing her bluntly stated wish for my demise by her unfounded fear that the mods here would penalize her even to the point of exile. As I am one of the more politically incorrect people on this board, she could openly call for my lynching and subsequent drawing and quartering with nary a reprimand from those guys.
I'm not sure that I made the point I was trying to make as effectively as I could have, leaving myself open to the convenient smear of misogyny, which is as about as substantive as that of racist, anti-semite, homophobe, or, more generally, hater. The point is that we must avoid passing the buck. Women act the way they do because we, the other half of the population, allows and even encourage them to do so. Women have no power to work their mischief, other than that allotted to them by weak and venal men who imagine that they are the masters of all they survey as they abjectly plead for a little nooky. When your wife slaps you repeatedly and then reports you to the police for domestic violence even after failing to provoke you into reciprocating, it will be several dickless and brainless brutes who will drag you at the points of several guns out of YOUR house. You will then be prosecuted by gentlemen such as Mr. Yannis, Esq., for your brutish behavior, and sentenced to indefinite indentured servitude in order to provide your wife with the means of keeping her veritable train of semen donors in the style to which they will have become accustomed. When you are denied the promotion you not only deserve but desperately need to keep up with the extortionate alimony and child support payments, and you complain about it going to the affirmative action project (if you are white collar guy, this will almost certainly be some incompetent white woman, NOT an inept colored MAN), your white male colleagues like Mr. Starr will snidely snigger behind your back that you're "just sore 'cause he can't get laid" as you're cleaning out your desk and heading down to the unemployment line and the destitution that awaits at the end of that line.
No, the only females I hate and despise are those who possess testicles but no balls. These contemptible creatures go by the fatuous self styled title of 'Real Men' (or 'Gentlemen' in the deep south).[/QUOTE]
Once again, I was referring to Allington or who ever he is, not you.
Here is my post below: Now try reading it, Einstein .
Originally Posted by John Graziano - I don't know who this Mr. Allington is. The thought has crossed my mind once or twice that it might even be Mr. Linder himself. But I see nothing to suggest that he is some camel jockey with a ZZTop beard squatting in his batcave somewhere in Ragheadistan.
Who ever the freak is; he should take a loaded pistol to his head and pull the trigger - or just admit he prefers pony riding.
2005-04-04 11:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I just read all three of Allington's essays in this series. And he's no mental case.[/QUOTE]
Do you own a poodle also?
Poodle Man aka Crazy Charlie [img]http://www.fecundity.com/simulacra/Schopenhauer3.jpg[/img]
2005-04-04 11:50 | User Profile
I hate women and all men should too! Get a poodle!
[img]http://www.nippon-reise.de/xenon/bilder/schopenhauer.jpg[/img]
On Schopenhauer, by Gabrielle LaFoote
After reading 'On Women', by Arthur Schopenhauer [this is available many places, including [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/...p?essayID=1250][/url], and researching the German philosopher and several of his other works, I can only conclude that Mr. Schopenhauer felt a very strong deprecation toward women, and an (unnatural?) affinity toward men. In his work, 'On Women', he likens women to animals, states that their reasoning power is, at best, like unto that of immature children, etc. Let's look at some of his statements, contradictions, and inane, insane babbling. To start with, let's address the statement '...fundamentally women exist solely for the propagation of the race and find in this their entire vocation...' He seems to overlook the truth that women were created to be the HELPMATES of men; instead, he says that women are solely to make more children - that is (in his limited opinion) their only reason for existence, not ONE of the reasons women were made!! If we were to continue with such absurd reasoning, we could conclude that the only reason men were created was to support and protect their children, and children were created only to continue the cycle - this fits perfectly into Mr. Schopenhauer's pessimistic, narrow perception of the world, where people are born into meaningless misery, and death is an escape from that misery; but not into reality, where EVERY life has purpose and meaning!
In his essay, Schopenhauer states "Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up." He continues, "More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please." At an earlier point in his essay, he claims, "...women are decidedly more prosaic than we are..." He later states that women are liars, deceitful, perjurers, and 'the inferior second sex in every respect'.
While he makes such disparaging, disgust-filled remarks about women, he makes references to '...the young, strong and handsome men...'
One can draw several conclusions from his statements, his admiration and love for men, and his disgust and hate for women...for instance, amongst other conclusions, we can liken his attitude toward to that of the Talmudic Jews, who pray (daily) in thanks that they were not born women.
Later in his article Schopenhauer declares that Western women should be treated like Oriental women; one has only to look at how Oriental women are treated to know that they are considered lower than animals, and not even human! [Naturally, as a scholar of the East, Schopenhauer would have been aware of this, and, consequently, believed that Aryan women should also be treated thusly]. This attitude is apparent all throughout the article, particularly when he states that a man should be able to take a new wife if his is chronically ill, can not have children, or 'gradually [has] grown too old for him' - he obviously believes that a woman does not have the right to grow old with the man she loves...and the 'in sickness and in health' part of marriage vows don't seem to mean anything to him...
The man's hypocrisy is stunning - he states that it is advisable to consult women with difficulties directly after saying they are dull, and like unto animals; he says the behavior of European ladies is 'intolerable', but makes no mention of that of European gentlemen; he says that women are born liars, while men are born honest (the statement is ridiculous, as it has nothing to do with someone’s sex, but their bringing up, beliefs, sense of honesty, and integrity); the list goes on and on - one has only to read his essay to find multiple contradictions (as well as incredibly flawed reasoning!).
In conclusion, Mr. Schopenhauer - a violent, ill-tempered man, who was not even received by his relations - spent his life viewing everything as pessimistically as possible, hating women, admiring men, and, in the end dying, with his only life-long companion being a poodle dog (...one must wonder if this was because the dog was the only one who could tolerate him...). Indeed, one must feel pity for his close-minded, narrow view of life, women and men, families, and the world, and wonder if he would not have been so miserable if he had been a part of the (Western) lifestyle he detested, instead of spending his life denouncing and criticizing Western civilizations, and studying and admiring Eastern/Oriental cultures…
Gabrielle LaFoote
2005-04-04 14:30 | User Profile
Women are sinners just like men are sinners; all humans are sinners. Except that women are fully encouraged to sin by the media masters who tell them there's no repercussions for their sins while at the same time seeing that men have become completely and sufficiently neutered and domesticated. Many women take the bait, "you can have it all, baby!" which invariably leads them to misery which in turn breaks down society one brick at a time.
Women are beautiful and loving creatures, but if they're loosed from the moorings, they are dangerous vipers. They just don't have the mental functions to put themselves back into place or keep themselves from believing in deceitful fantasies. Many end up resentful and wicked and love to smile in your face while they stab you in the back. I admit, they fooled me once or twice a long time ago but I've learned how to pick them apart and it requires doing and saying things that you, yourself, might even find harsh. A Woman MUST know that YOU know that they (modern woman) are full of SHIT. Allington's commentary is mostly on target, although the modern urban career feminist is not representative of all, or even most, females. Certainly the female OD members are testament to the ability of women to come to find truth and pursue intellectual discourse.
Yet, a man must be ever vigilant when romantically involved with a modern American woman. Can't let your guard down. It's not all the fault of women, it's not all the fault of men. We, White Americans, didn't start the fire. We're just trying to deal.
2005-04-04 17:00 | User Profile
Men and women do have different aptitudes, and they do have different roles. At the risk of simplification, I think men have an external orientation, and women have an internal orientation. Women are focused more on the family, the household, and the nurturing of their children and those close to them. Everything that relates to the internal functioning of the family unit belongs to their domain. Men are the interface between the family and the rest of the world. They acquire resources for the family and protect it from any potential harm. Since a community is, properly understood, a collection of family units, and a polis is a collection of communities, all politics, by definition, consists of a family unit interfacing with the outside world. This is the reason that governance is the natural sphere of men. Women are fiercely and emotionally attached to their own families, which makes them ideally suited to their intra-family role. However, this same trait makes it more difficult for them to view others logically and dispassionately, which makes them poorly suited for the making and enforcing of laws. As an example of this, C.S. Lewis posited this hypothetical situation -- If your dog had bitten the neighbour's child, and you had to go over to talk to the child's parents, would you rather the father or the mother came to the door when you rang the bell? I think the answer is obvious. The father would be able to deal with you in a reasoned manner, although his concern for his child would be real. The mother, on the other hand, would likely not be so forgiving. In nature, a mother protecting her offspring is the most vicious of all animals. In some ways, we humans are not so different.
2005-04-04 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I think the answer is obvious. The father would be able to deal with you in a reasoned manner, although his concern for his child would be real. The mother, on the other hand, would likely not be so forgiving. In nature, a mother protecting her offspring is the most vicious of all animals. In some ways, we humans are not so different.[/QUOTE] IMHO, women have a huge blind spot about conflict. Men tend to learn from experience that in a confrontation, if one or both parties does not stand down at some point, then the only alternative is an escalation to physical violence. Women tend to demand some resolution, almost always involving a capitulation by the other side. When this is not forthcoming, they go into berserker mode. More restrained men respond by stomping outside for a walk around the block, or they smash their fist into the nearest inanimate object. Less restrained men act according to what their basal brain is screaming at them to do, and strike out at the source of the perceived threat, which is often the woman's face.
2005-04-04 18:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I like women. Without them, life would just be a pointless parade of predator and prey with no surcease, no light; certainly nothing worth living and struggling and fighting and dying for. If you don't intuitively grasp that, you need to get your woman a gift certificate to Victoria's Secret.
Men are, inevitably, too grim if left alone among their fellows. I'm grateful for having had a few awfully nice-smelling Certain Someones in my life who'd rudely interrupt my plans for world domination and death camps to ask me what I think about her new hat.[/QUOTE] LOL! You've earned a home-cooked dinner and a hug from the Missus for that post, il ragno, should you ever find yourself down Texas way.
...who'd rudely interrupt my plans for world domination and death camps to ask me what I think about her new hat.
In my case it's purses.
Walter,
While your post does contain some trenchant observations (the woman ruling the domestic sphere leads to happiness, I agree) it's blown by the all the condescension. No one likes to be talked down to, and speaking of which...
[quote=Walter Yannis]...they don't have a lot of gray matter left over for intellectual persuits.
Although I usually decry the nitpicking self-appointed typo-police, you left yourself open on this one, because that's pursuits, my good man. You need to cross your i's and dot your t's (so to speak :wink: ) when waving your Smart Stikâ⢠around for everyone to see.
2005-04-06 03:55 | User Profile
Many wise words here.
[QUOTE]John said:
Women act the way they do because we, the other half of the population, allows and even encourage them to do so. Women have no power to work their mischief, other than that allotted to them by weak and venal men who imagine that they are the masters of all they survey as they abjectly plead for a little nooky. [/QUOTE][QUOTE]xmetalhead wrote:
Women are beautiful and loving creatures, but if they're loosed from the moorings, they are dangerous vipers. They just don't have the mental functions to put themselves back into place or keep themselves from believing in deceitful fantasies. Many end up resentful and wicked and love to smile in your face while they stab you in the back.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Quantrill observed:
C.S. Lewis posited this hypothetical situation -- If your dog had bitten the neighbour's child, and you had to go over to talk to the child's parents, would you rather the father or the mother came to the door when you rang the bell?
I think the answer is obvious. The father would be able to deal with you in a reasoned manner, although his concern for his child would be real. The mother, on the other hand, would likely not be so forgiving. In nature, a mother protecting her offspring is the most vicious of all animals. In some ways, we humans are not so different.[/QUOTE]We have our different roles. We are equally important for human survival. We are of equal worth before God. But we were created differently. Men were meant to lead their families. Women were meant to nurture. But with men behaving like women, and women behaving like men, the world is a confused and less enjoyable place. Let us respect the wisdom of God, and abide by the Creator's commands.
PS CWRWinger - I think you are referring to the "Promise Keepers". I'm no fan of that group either. They push white guilt, and teach men to wear their emotions on their sleeves like little girls.[font=Arial][size=2]
[/size][/font]
2005-04-06 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
They just don't have the mental functions to put themselves back into place or keep themselves from believing in deceitful fantasies
[/QUOTE]what in the world does this mean? LOL.
You guys do realize that reading crap like what this raging homo with a mommy complex said in this article often times greatly reinforces the feminist viewpoint for some woman, correct?
Nothing is truly a greater recruit for the feminist movement then so-called men such as this. He, and others like him, should be the ones on the University campus bitching and passing out fliers. The rate of ultra-lefty feminst women would go through the roof.
2005-04-06 23:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]You guys do realize that reading crap like what this raging homo with a mommy complex said in this article often times greatly reinforces the feminist viewpoint for some woman, correct?[/QUOTE]Star, thanks for helping prove our point by illustrating the quality of your own mental functions. Apparently, you believe that you can win us over to your jewish-influenced point of view by calling us homos.
Say some more crazy stuff.
2005-04-06 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Star, thanks for helping prove our point by illustrating the quality of your own mental functions. Apparently, you believe that you can win us over to your jewish-influenced point of view by calling us homos.
Say some more crazy stuff.[/QUOTE] do you have a reading comprehension problem? I was referring to the guy who wrote the article as a homo, not you, or anyone else on here. though it would make me wonder why you were so easily offended by the term, and why you are so sure I was talking about you, Robert.
2005-04-06 23:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]what in the world does this mean? LOL.
You guys do realize that reading crap like what this raging homo with a mommy complex said in this article often times greatly reinforces the feminist viewpoint for some woman, correct?
Nothing is truly a greater recruit for the feminist movement then so-called men such as this. He, and others like him, should be the ones on the University campus bitching and passing out fliers. The rate of ultra-lefty feminst women would go through the roof.[/QUOTE]
Give that lady a dozen long stem roses. No...better yet I will!
[img]http://www.roysflorist.com/listings/1030.jpg[/img]
2005-04-07 00:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]what in the world does this mean? LOL.
You guys do realize that reading crap like what this raging homo with a mommy complex said in this article often times greatly reinforces the feminist viewpoint for some woman, correct?
Nothing is truly a greater recruit for the feminist movement then so-called men such as this. He, and others like him, should be the ones on the University campus bitching and passing out fliers. The rate of ultra-lefty feminst women would go through the roof.[/QUOTE]
Nonetheless, the author of the essay makes great points.
In this era of women-are-equal-except-for-their-lower-anatomy, it is refreshing to read.
2005-04-07 01:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Nonetheless, the author of the essay makes great points.
In this era of women-are-equal-except-for-their-lower-anatomy, it is refreshing to read.
-----------[/QUOTE]
No he doesn't, Franco.
Here are some quotes from fagboy -John Allington
If you haven't already read Arthur Schopenhauer's discussion about women then you need to
No, you shouldn’t… Schopenhauer was a fag.
Consequently, men are usually outgunned emotionally, psychologically and sexually in their dealings with women.
Why doesn’t this fag put a loaded gun to his head and pull the trigger, or find another fag?
Women are prone to deception; it is their nature-endowed weapon. As Schopenhauer noted, they are so good at detecting deception in others because they're so good at it themselves. This deception is not limited to their ability to lie with a straight face. In fact, that is just beginning. They deceive us by coloring their hair, altering their shape through constrictive clothing and prostheses, and altering their height and posture with high-heeled shoes. They use colored contact lenses to fool us into thinking they have desirable green or blue eyes. They get cosmetic surgery to reduce the size of their noses and apply a multitude of cosmetics to their faces and skin designed to fool us into thinking they are younger than they actually are. They carefully select clothes which are designed to make them appear thinner.
Hey, fagboy, most women are like that because that’s what most men want!!
Women are parasites. …. To men, courtly love means chivalry; to women it means that they are the center of a man's attention and the recipient of his resources.
Who does fagboy Allington remind you of here? Hint – think poodle.
Women squander resources. This is related to their lack of concern for the future. Turn your finances over to them and they will likely spend most -- if not all -- of your money. Young, single women have the lowest savings rate of any demographic group. This is related to both squandering and the expectation that a man will support them later on in their lives. If they are poor, they buy a bunch of cheap junk at Wal-Mart. If they're rich, or have sufficient credit, they will buy a bunch of high-priced, unnecessary shoes. Do men yearn to blow their money on overpriced Prada shoes, Coach bags or Tumi luggage? If women are educated, they tend to blow their money on travel, from which they usually learn nothing. Since women do not conserve resources, why should you expect them to be conservative in other areas such as culture or politics?
Of course men don’t squander resources! :rolleyes:
Interestingly, when you compare the nature of the female to the natur e of the Jew, you find many similarities. You'll find nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, mimicry, narcissism, deception, pretense, opportunism, parasitism, haughty conceit and decadence all in abundance. You will find no honor in either group. This is not to say that women are like Jews. Rather, Jews are like women. Since Jewish culture is matriarchal, you should not be surprised by this.
Allington, shut up you fag! Get a poodle and a Talmud… you already have the mindset.
2005-04-07 02:08 | User Profile
Mostly what I think about is screwing 'em. Been that way since I was 14. 'Course, some of us are limited to actually doing that with just one. Been that way since my late 20's.
2005-04-07 02:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]females emphasized their sexuality more than ever before, which is exactly the opposite of what the feminists cited as their objective. Essentially, women are immodest when unrestricted. They are the natural corrupters of society because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon[/QUOTE] This is what I found to be the most amusing part of the article. Can anyone honestly say these do not sound like quotes taken straight from the Talmud or Koran?
I called this guy a homo earlier, but I recognize that may have been a little hasty, it is possible that he, instead, in deep denial of his true identity which is that of an orthodox Jew. LOL
2005-04-07 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]This is what I found to be the most amusing part of the article. Can anyone honestly say these do not sound like quotes taken straight from the Talmud or Koran?
I called this guy a homo earlier, but I recognize that may have been a little hasty, it is possible that he, instead, in deep denial of his true identity which is that of an orthodox Jew. LOL[/QUOTE]
How about a jewish homo?
2005-04-07 02:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]How about a jewish homo?[/QUOTE]
If this was my forum, I would ban you for saying that. I'm serious. There is ZERO evidence to prove your "homo theories." You are simple spouting words, apparently because his essay, and Schopenhauer himself, offended you.
In fact, I hereby suggest to OD admin. that either you retract your words about both Schopenhauer and the VNN writer, or be banned from OD for 1 month.
2005-04-07 02:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]
Of course men donââ¬â¢t squander resources! [/QUOTE]
It would be a considerable effort to point out and address all of the nonsense in that essay, but the one here does merit some attention. I would like to see it empirically demonstrated that women waste more resources, by volume or monetary value, than men.
2005-04-07 03:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]If this was my forum, I would ban you for saying that. I'm serious. There is ZERO evidence to prove your "homo theories." You are simple spouting words, apparently because his essay, and Schopenhauer himself, offended you.
In fact, I hereby suggest to OD admin. that either you retract your words about both Schopenhauer and the VNN writer, or be banned from OD for 1 month.
-----------[/QUOTE] Are you serious? LMWAO! who is this VNN writer, the Pope? Is this guy infallible(sp)? or so great that he is beyond criticism?
She didn't say he was a mere homo, she said he was a Jew homo, and I would have to agree.
2005-04-07 03:18 | User Profile
I frankly don't find anything wrong with Allington's little essay on women. He is correct in all respects. Any society that let's its women run rampant is a sick society. The problem with conservatives these days is that even they have fallen for a lot of 1960's era feminst claptrap. Women belong in the home. Those unable to marry should be nurses and elementary school teachers (any teaching posts above grade four should be taught by men, women are much too anti-intellectual to teach any grades higher than fourth.)
And as for the Taliban, I can say that I have no brief with Islam. However, Westerners who permit their young girls to dress and act as prostitutes have no business looking down on the Taliban, who may err on the side of caution, but at least they have women of modest habits. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Taliban's Ministry of Vice and Virtue that attempted to confiscate and destroy every television in Afghanistan. A laudable effort.
A patriarchal society is one mandated by God Himself. No, not just the Islamic god, but the Christian God.
2005-04-07 03:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I frankly don't find anything wrong with Allington's little essay on women.[/QUOTE] Practically every sentence features one or more of the following: unsupported assertions, undocumented evidence, non sequiturs, unwarranted conjecture, errors of fact, misrepresentations of fact, half truths, contradiction of previous statements, explaination in lieu of argument, sweeping generalizations and patent nonsense.
2005-04-07 03:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Mullah Mohammed Omar And as for the Taliban, I can say that I have no brief with Islam. However, Westerners who permit their young girls to dress and act as prostitutes have no business looking down on the Taliban, who may err on the side of caution, but at least they have women of modest habits. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Taliban's Ministry of Vice and Virtue that attempted to confiscate and destroy every television in Afghanistan. A laudable effort.
A patriarchal society is one mandated by God Himself. No, not just the Islamic god, but the Christian God.
[/QUOTE]The woman under the Taliban that you are praising were "modest" because they were forced to be under fear of death(and don't bother, I don't believe that is a lie made up by the jews) I certainly don't want to get into a religious discussion here, but since you brought "god" into this, why is it do you suppose that those who get punished(stoned,etc) for being "adulterers" are always and almost only woman? What about the men who do the same thing, why are they handled very different according to these types of societies? Isn't a sin a sin? you may want to check with "god" about that little inconsistency.
2005-04-07 03:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Practically every sentence features one or more of the following: unsupported assertions, undocumented evidence, non sequiturs, unwarranted conjecture, errors of fact, misrepresentations of fact, half truths, contradiction of previous statements, explaination in lieu of argument, sweeping generalizations and patent nonsense.
[/QUOTE] That is exactly what the whole entire article is. Much of it is also just a bunch of psycho-babble. Another sign that points to his Jew heritage.
2005-04-07 03:50 | User Profile
That article could serve as a primer on elementary critical thinking/reading skills.
2005-04-07 06:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]I frankly don't find anything wrong with Allington's little essay on women. He is correct in all respects. Any society that let's its women run rampant is a sick society. The problem with conservatives these days is that even they have fallen for a lot of 1960's era feminst claptrap. Women belong in the home. Those unable to marry should be nurses and elementary school teachers (any teaching posts above grade four should be taught by men, women are much too anti-intellectual to teach any grades higher than fourth.)
And as for the Taliban, I can say that I have no brief with Islam. However, Westerners who permit their young girls to dress and act as prostitutes have no business looking down on the Taliban, who may err on the side of caution, but at least they have women of modest habits. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Taliban's Ministry of Vice and Virtue that attempted to confiscate and destroy every television in Afghanistan. A laudable effort.
A patriarchal society is one mandated by God Himself. No, not just the Islamic god, but the Christian God.[/QUOTE]
I am glad that you agree. We seem to be of the same mind.
I am getting very tired of the rampant feminism that is found throughout America. For example: women demanded that they be hired in the work force in large numbers, and now that they are hired, they demand that we men cater to their desires, e.g. by removing "girlie" calendars from our walls at work, or, not telling certain jokes. Why is the burden on the men? Why do we have to "bend" to female desires? And why are the women working at all? Why aren't they home raising children like women did for THOUSANDS of years?????
2005-04-07 11:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]If this was my forum, I would ban you for saying that. I'm serious. There is ZERO evidence to prove your "homo theories." You are simple spouting words, apparently because his essay, and Schopenhauer himself, offended you.
In fact, I hereby suggest to OD admin. that either you retract your words about both Schopenhauer and the VNN writer, or be banned from OD for 1 month.
-----------[/QUOTE]
"In his essay, Schopenhauer states "Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up." He continues, "More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please." At an earlier point in his essay, he claims, "...women are decidedly more prosaic than we are..." He later states that women are liars, deceitful, perjurers, and 'the inferior second sex in every respect'.
While he makes such disparaging, disgust-filled remarks about women, he makes references to '...the young, strong and handsome men..."
Perhaps you should get a poodle, Franco. :wink:
2005-04-07 11:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]I frankly don't find anything wrong with Allington's little essay on women. He is correct in all respects. Any society that let's its women run rampant is a sick society. The problem with conservatives these days is that even they have fallen for a lot of 1960's era feminst claptrap. Women belong in the home. Those unable to marry should be nurses and elementary school teachers (any teaching posts above grade four should be taught by men, women are much too anti-intellectual to teach any grades higher than fourth.)
And as for the Taliban, I can say that I have no brief with Islam. However, Westerners who permit their young girls to dress and act as prostitutes have no business looking down on the Taliban, who may err on the side of caution, but at least they have women of modest habits. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Taliban's Ministry of Vice and Virtue that attempted to confiscate and destroy every television in Afghanistan. A laudable effort.
A patriarchal society is one mandated by God Himself. No, not just the Islamic god, but the Christian God.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with Allington's bull; and if you find nothing wrong with this freak's article ... maybe, you should get a poodle too.
2005-04-07 13:28 | User Profile
John Allington writes to his mother.
Dear Mother,
A few fellow women haters and myself are working on an idea of how to rid the world of the parasitical female sex (don’t worry, you will be long dead before our plan is accepted). We are basing many - if not all of our plans - from our hero Schopenhauer, and, of course, the Talmud. Oh, how I love to read that wonderful, holy book! I especially love the prayer about thanking god I was not born a woman. That warms my heart, and sends a tingly feeling jetting all through me! But I digress.
We guys are tired of women spending our hard earned money at Wal-Mart on trinkets. Oh, speaking of money, Mother, I still have not received that hundred dollars I asked you for last night on the phone – I have to buy my baby poodle a new collar, you know, because his is so out of vogue; and I need to buy myself a few guysie toys. Also, I must say, mother, that I was quite put out when I found out that you plan on giving my sister Mary your entire bone china tea and saucer collection. You know damn well I would love to have it for myself! How else am I going to keep having my tea parties?!
Well, back to the fellows and me: we came up with the perfect solution to you blood sucking, money wasting females. We want to pass a law kind of like the one they have in China – you know, kill all female babies and only let the male babies live. Then, in time, once the disgusting female sex is killed off, we can still reproduce through the help of science in the laboratories.
Then we “young, strong and handsome men” will never have to look upon “the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex” again; that will truly be paradise! Oh, how I long for those glorious days, those perfect, utopian days!
Oh, and mother don’t believe those stories about me pushing that extremely loud old woman down the stairs at my boarding house; it was quite an accident, I assure you.
You will be so glad to hear this, mother: my little darling poodle went poo poo on old lady Smith’s flower garden the other day and when the old bitch starting complaining to me, I simply told her he was doing her a favor - now she won’t have to fertilize her flowers. LOL! I wish you could have seen the old hag’s face. Lord, how I hate women.
Well, any ways, don’t forget the hundred dollars and oh, yeah, Happy Mother’s Day.
Your handsome, intelligent, and devilishly sexy son,
Johnny Boy
P.S. Don’t forget the money, Momsie dearest!
2005-04-07 14:26 | User Profile
A ways back, before Allington, VNN featured a castrating shrew called Elizabeth Bennett, who offered similar - albeit ludicrously pro-female - "sex tips" and "gender facts". She even began running some VNN Personals which drew such grotesques that the whole idea was shitcanned inside of two weeks.
Here's the sad, brutal yet inescapable truth: [I]youth & beauty seeks out youth & beauty[/I]. Like gravitates to like. Too many middle-aged men & women (and not necessarily in years) desperately try to hold back the dawn for as long as they can and will use any means to cling to the vestiges of their own rapidly-retreating youth and beauty. Some will be pretty successful at it. Some will go absolutely bugf*ck from trying and failing. And some, like Bennett and Allington, will self-publish manifestoes demanding that society be completely reordered until we are [I]all [/I] as neurotically miserable as they are.
For all the "historical overviews" and "empirical truths" about the sexes these VNN articles trumpet, they all come off as being written by unhappy people who have so intellectualized their unhappiness that there's almost nothing left in them than a member of the opposite sex can be attracted towards, and respond to. If either John Allington or Elizabeth Bennett were in love with someone who reciprocated the feeling, these 'essays' would have remained unwritten. It may sound dopey and simplistic but then, so [I]much [/I] of what is best in life [B]is[/B] dopey and simplistic.....and thank goodness for that.
2005-04-07 15:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]The woman under the Taliban that you are praising were "modest" because they were forced to be under fear of death[/QUOTE]
Yeah - no kidding. The woman in that photo is being executed for not wearing her burka in public. A full video is available (google it if you have the stomach for it). There were daily executions of women who violated Mohammedan commandments in a soccer stadium dedicated to the purpose.
I wouldn't say the Taliban are a model Western Civilization should aspire to.
2005-04-07 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]A ways back, before Allington, VNN featured a castrating shrew called Elizabeth Bennett, who offered similar - albeit ludicrously pro-female - "sex tips" and "gender facts". She even began running some VNN Personals which drew such grotesques that the whole idea was shitcanned inside of two weeks.
Here's the sad, brutal yet inescapable truth: [I]youth & beauty seeks out youth & beauty[/I]. Like gravitates to like. Too many middle-aged men & women (and not necessarily in years) desperately try to hold back the dawn for as long as they can and will use any means to cling to the vestiges of their own rapidly-retreating youth and beauty. Some will be pretty successful at it. Some will go absolutely bugf*ck from trying and failing. And some, like Bennett and Allington, will self-publish manifestoes demanding that society be completely reordered until we are [I]all [/I] as neurotically miserable as they are.
For all the "historical overviews" and "empirical truths" about the sexes these VNN articles trumpet, they all come off as being written by unhappy people who have so intellectualized their unhappiness that there's almost nothing left in them than a member of the opposite sex can be attracted towards, and respond to. If either John Allington or Elizabeth Bennett were in love with someone who reciprocated the feeling, these 'essays' would have remained unwritten. It may sound dopey and simplistic but then, so [I]much [/I] of what is best in life [B]is[/B] dopey and simplistic.....and thank goodness for that.[/QUOTE]
I hear what you say, but still, I think the essay made good and important points.
2005-04-07 16:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I hear what you say, but still, I think the essay made good and important points.
-----[/QUOTE]
No, it did not!
2005-04-07 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr] What about the men who do the same thing, why are they handled very different according to these types of societies? Isn't a sin a sin? you may want to check with "god" about that little inconsistency.[/QUOTE]No need for recourse to any of the three desert religions on this one. Just basic sociobiology: the male's risk of cuckoldry has placed a premium on female virginity prior to marriage and fidelity during. Women, such as our next President Hils, tend to be more tolerarant of cheating. Look it up.
2005-04-07 20:00 | User Profile
Not bad, overall I'd give it a B.
[B]Women are social creatures. If raised on a farm or in a rural area, you can almost bet that they will leave that area for a city after high school. They seek a more socially stimulating environment and this consideration generally supersedes career opportunities. They're willing to move to a city even though the cost of living is higher, and there's more crime. In many small towns and agricultural communities, there are often shortages of eligible females. The female preference for high-density herding is one of the reasons why women don't generally oppose immigration -- they prefer crowds. The preference among women to live in an urban environment has its consequences for our society. The more urban a population, the less self-reliant it is. It depends more on government services and it is more disconnected from nature. The strength and security that come from a strong male are thus devalued in an urban environment. Urban populations are always less free as it takes more laws to control the mass of people. You only have to think of places like Singapore or the coastal provinces of China to realize this. This also applies to Japan and the densely populated areas of Europe. More people = less free. And this is just fine with most women.[/B]
It's true that women, in general, prefer cities to the country or less populated, remote areas. It's an interesting question why this is the case. The author's postulates are not very persuasive, however. At least in my opinion.
2005-04-07 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Not bad, overall I'd give it a B.
It's true that women, in general, prefer cities to the country or less populated, remote areas. It's an interesting question why this is the case. The author's postulates are not very persuasive, however. At least in my opinion.[/QUOTE] How do you know this to be a fact? How come this guy does not back up anything he is saying with statistics, there are barely even any examples. It is just opinion, and as is said, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. So why are so many of you treating these words as if they are unquestionable truths?
2005-04-07 23:30 | User Profile
Yawn :yawn: ,
Starr's, Gabby's and Robinder's PMS-inspired hysteria was funny at first, but now it's just plain boring.
Why don't you three find a nice polygamist joo :caiphas: to marry, and unleash your PMS on him? :taz:
Rimjob :whlch: would be proud.
Good day!
2005-04-07 23:59 | User Profile
I think its great that the Taliban execute female adulterresses. It would be nice if male adulterers got it too, but hey, I didn't say the Taliban was perfect. I say better half a loaf than none at all. Beats the heck out of our system which is, in effect, matriarchy.
Freminism was sold to society as a plea for equality. In a family unit though SOMEONE has to be in charge. So we have a system now where in most homes the female is effectively in charge. A recipe for insanity. The male dosen't do as he is told and divorce is the result.
Ameriican society is nuts, but the dames are nuttier than the men by a country mile.
2005-04-08 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
I think its great that the Taliban execute female adulterresses. It would be nice if male adulterers got it too, but hey, I didn't say the Taliban was perfect. I say better half a loaf than none at all. Beats the heck out of our system which is, in effect, matriarchy. [QUOTE] Ameriican society is nuts, but the dames are nuttier than the men by a country mile.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]LOL. Well if you want to live among people like this, the third world is only a plane ride away. You may want to convert to Islam however since they don't look to favorably on infidels such as yourself. Another option would be Africa, you can have your pick of some fine negresses that have most likely been circumcised, now "soceities" that practice such things, they really are aware of how to keep their women in line. Yes we really should be looking to some of these turd-world societies, they are a great role model for us.
Another great option for you might just be to live among the orthodox Jewish settlers in Israel(though, with this option you could be going to war with the Israeli government very soon) Your views on women would be welcome among them as well, since they claim to live every aspect of their lives according to the Torah and the Talmud, where women are also not thought of too highly.
Think it over, I think you would be a lot happier if you take my advice.
2005-04-08 00:57 | User Profile
Who's the real nut here, starr?
CornCod doesn't really want to shoot anyone, he's just egging you on.
But you actually mean all the crazy stuff you're saying.
To the loony bin you go, Starr.
Good Day!
2005-04-08 01:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE] But you actually mean all the crazy stuff you're saying.[/QUOTE]Why wouldn't I mean what I am saying? Even if he was joking, he still agrees with the article and I truly believe that such so called men would be much more happy living in a society where woman have absolutely no rights and only speak when spoken to, exist solely for the pleasure of their husbands and to bear their husband's child. So what is wrong with my options?
Let the muds lead the way.
2005-04-08 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]So what is wrong with my options?
Let the muds lead the way.[/QUOTE] Everything. Let me be blunt. You're serving as a "useful idiot" for the jooz. We can't have a strong civilization when women reject their God-given roles, and when men refuse to put them back in their place.
Hymie is cheering you on starr.
Good Day!
2005-04-08 01:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Everything. Let me be blunt. You're serving as a "useful idiot" for the jooz. We can't have a strong civilization when women reject their God-given roles, and when men refuse to put them back in their place.
Hymie is cheering you on starr.
Good Day![/QUOTE] I have been going back and forth recently on whether I believe in "god" And I have come to realize that any belief I have in "god" may only exist because I want to believe. So "god-given roles" may not mean much to me. If God does not exist and the concept of "god" was created by man, then these "god given roles" of which you refer are meaningless.
2005-04-08 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I have been going back and forth recently on whether I believe in "god" And I have come to realize that any belief I have in "god" may only exist because I want to believe. So "god-given roles" may not mean much to me. If God does not exist and the concept of "god" was created by man, then these "god given roles" of which you refer are meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Jesus is real, starr.
2005-04-08 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I have been going back and forth recently on whether I believe in "god" And I have come to realize that any belief I have in "god" may only exist because I want to believe. So "god-given roles" may not mean much to me. If God does not exist and the concept of "god" was created by man, then these "god given roles" of which you refer are meaningless.[/QUOTE]Starr, now honestly, I don't want to see you get yourself into trouble. There is a God. His name is Jesus Christ. And you need to get to know Him. I pray that you will.
2005-04-08 02:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Yawn :yawn: ,
Starr's, Gabby's and Robinder's PMS-inspired hysteria was funny at first, but now it's just plain boring.
Why don't you three find a nice polygamist joo :caiphas: to marry, and unleash your PMS on him? :taz:
Rimjob :whlch: would be proud.
Good day![/QUOTE]
I take it John is your kind of man. :heart:
2005-04-08 02:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Starr, now honestly, I don't want to see you get yourself into trouble. There is a God. His name is Jesus Christ. And you need to get to know Him. I pray that you will.[/QUOTE] I have tried to get to "know" him from time to time. But that doesn't stop me form having questions, which are many. One of the biggest and most obvious is, if there is a "god" that created everything what was it that created this being? Has it just always existed. That doesn't make sense to me.
Back to the original subject. LOL.
2005-04-08 03:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Since Jewish culture is matriarchal, you should not be surprised by this.[/QUOTE] LOL. Some people, even those who agree with this article, must at least see this is being incorrect.
2005-04-08 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]LOL. Some people, even those who agree with this article, must at least see this is being incorrect.[/QUOTE]
In most Jewish households, the women wear the pants and the men say "of course, honey." You didn't know that?
2005-04-08 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]In most Jewish households, the women wear the pants and the men say "of course, honey." You didn't know that?
-------[/QUOTE]I may have misunderstood that comment. When he said "jewish culture" my assumption was that he was talking about something a little older then more modern times. When I think of "Jewish culture" I think of jews living according to the "laws" of the Talmud or the Torah, which are extremely Patriarchal(sp)
Judaism practiced in it's true form(that is according to the laws) is certainly Patriarchal, as are Christianity and Islam.
2005-04-08 14:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I have been going back and forth recently on whether I believe in "god" And I have come to realize that any belief I have in "god" may only exist because I want to believe.[/QUOTE] Starr- I would like to point out that any belief you hold exists only because you want to believe. All belief is an act of will.
[quote=starr]One of the biggest and most obvious is, if there is a "god" that created everything what was it that created this being? Has it just always existed. That doesn't make sense to me. That is the definition of God -- the only entity who has true independent existence, meaning He depends on nothing else for His existence. He is the Prime Mover, the motivating force, the Ursprung. If you are envisioning a 'god' that is created, then you are not envisioning God at all, but rather a demigod or a pagan deity. If you choose not to believe in God, then you are left with the same question. What created the universe? Has it just always existed? A universe without beginning or end is hardly more comprehensible than a God without the same.
2005-04-08 14:24 | User Profile
I thought we were talking about the fag JohnBoy and his faggy article.
2005-04-08 14:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I thought we were talking about the fag JohnBoy and his faggy article.[/QUOTE] Ok, ok, enough is enough. You allege that he [and, it seems, Schopenhauer], are pillow-biters. Either provide proof of that, or please keep your opinions to yourself.
Charges of homosexuality are not funny.
2005-04-08 15:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Charges of homosexuality are not funny.[/QUOTE]
Can we create an exception for that faggot who led Germany during WW2?
2005-04-08 15:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Can we create an exception for that faggot who led Germany during WW2?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you refer to Hitler or not. I assume so. If so, piss off, pal.
And also, let's see some proof that Hitler was gay. Come on, pal, let's see it.
In fact, you should be banned from OD for saying that.
2005-04-08 15:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I don't know if you refer to Hitler or not. I assume so. If so, piss off, pal.[/QUOTE]
Not much of a history buff are you?
[QUOTE=Franco]And also, let's see some proof that Hitler was gay. Come on, pal, let's see it.[/QUOTE]
Posted it before. The Viennese police records of the 20s list him as a known homosexual.
[QUOTE=Franco]In fact, you should be banned from OD for saying that.[/QUOTE]
Why you... NAZI!!!
:lol:
2005-04-08 16:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Not much of a history buff are you?
Posted it before. The Viennese police records of the 20s list him as a known homosexual.
Why you... NAZI!!!
:lol:[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't see your Viennese "proof." Re-post it.
And, how did they know - they actually saw him in an act? Suuure.
2005-04-08 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Sorry, I didn't see your Viennese "proof." Re-post it.[/QUOTE]
The source for that little factoid is "Napoleon and Hitler" by Desmond Seward, page 299. Look it up if you get the chance.
The Viennese police compiled list of homosexuals, like most police back then when homosexuality was illegal. Hitler was on the list because of his close relationship to Ernst Roehm, and the fact that he frequented a bathhouse with a reputation as hotbed a homosexual activity.
I can't find a direct link to an electronic version of the text online.
P.S. Sorry to be rude, I'm (mostly) just joking with you. I can't resist the opportunity to give people with national socialist leanings a ribbing about the Hitler gay thing.
2005-04-08 16:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I don't know if you refer to Hitler or not. I assume so. If so, piss off, pal.
And also, let's see some proof that Hitler was gay. Come on, pal, let's see it.
In fact, you should be banned from OD for saying that.
---------[/QUOTE]
Ban him... hang him... stone him... :censored: :osama: :crybaby:
2005-04-08 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]The source for that little factoid is "Napoleon and Hitler" by Desmond Seward, page 299. Look it up if you get the chance.
The Viennese police compiled list of homosexuals, like most police back then when homosexuality was illegal. Hitler was on the list because of his close relationship to Ernst Roehm, and the fact that he frequented a bathhouse with a reputation as hotbed a homosexual activity.
I can't find a direct link to an electronic version of the text online.
P.S. Sorry to be rude, I'm (mostly) just joking with you. I can't resist the opportunity to give people with national socialist leanings a ribbing about the Hitler gay thing.[/QUOTE]
Did he say Napoleon was a queer?
2005-04-08 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]P.S. Sorry to be rude, I'm (mostly) just joking with you. I can't resist the opportunity to give people with national socialist leanings a ribbing about the Hitler gay thing.[/QUOTE] I'm not laughing.
At least Hitler fought the Jews. The Pope? Ha! He kissed their shoes.
2005-04-08 17:48 | User Profile
I thought Allington was offensive, but this rampant [I]smearing [/I] of anyone who even mildly ticks you off with "fag" and "fag-boy"...especially coming from someone like Gabby, whose job here is to pimp for the Bush Family 24/7/365....makes Allington look downright [I]reasonable[/I].
Let's keep it somewhat clean - [I]and [/I] rational.
2005-04-08 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=Quantrill]Starr- I would like to point out that any belief you hold exists only because you want to believe. All belief is an act of will. [/QUOTE]Of course that is true. But the need to believe in god is very strong, compared to other things, since it is a bit on the disturbing side to believe that after you die there is nothing. [QUOTE]That is the definition of God -- the only entity who has true independent existence, meaning He depends on nothing else for His existence. He is the Prime Mover, the motivating force, the Ursprung. If you are envisioning a 'god' that is created, then you are not envisioning God at all, but rather a demigod or a pagan deity.[/QUOTE]But you do understand with our limited knowledge how something such as that is a hard thing to grasp and hence truly believe without question? [QUOTE] If you choose not to believe in God, then you are left with the same question. What created the universe? Has it just always existed? A universe without beginning or end is hardly more comprehensible than a God without the same. [/QUOTE]Yes, and when I do think of things such as I referred to, questions like these are the other side of the coin, basically. The more scientific theories, ie. the Big bang theory,etc make about as much sense to believe in without question as the existence of a supreme deity that is, and has always been.
2005-04-08 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco].
Charges of homosexuality are not funny.
---------[/QUOTE] I agree, but neither is to slander all women as being parasites and the natural "corrupters of society". And to say "women are immodest when unrestricted" sounds a bit to close to something such as Islamic fundamentalist propaganda.
2005-04-08 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I thought Allington was offensive, but this rampant [I]smearing [/I] of anyone who even mildly ticks you off with "fag" and "fag-boy"...especially coming from someone like Gabby, whose job here is to pimp for the Bush Family 24/7/365....makes Allington look downright [I]reasonable[/I].
Let's keep it somewhat clean - [I]and [/I] rational.[/QUOTE]
Listen moron, it is not me mentioning Bush.
John Allington writes to his mother.
Dear Mother, A few fellow women haters and myself are working on an idea of how to rid the world of the parasitical female sex (don’t worry, you will be long dead before our plan is accepted). We are basing many - if not all of our plans - from our hero Schopenhauer, and, of course, the Talmud. Oh, how I love to read that wonderful, holy book! I especially love the prayer about thanking god I was not born a woman. That warms my heart, and sends a tingly feeling jetting all through me! But I digress. We guys are tired of women spending our hard earned money at Wal-Mart on trinkets. Oh, speaking of money, Mother, I still have not received that hundred dollars I asked you for last night on the phone – I have to buy my baby poodle a new collar, you know, because his is so out of vogue; and I need to buy myself a few guysie toys. Also, I must say, mother, that I was quite put out when I found out that you plan on giving my sister Mary your entire bone china tea and saucer collection. You know damn well I would love to have it for myself! How else am I going to keep having my tea parties?! Well, back to the fellows and me: we came up with the perfect solution to you blood sucking, money wasting females. We want to pass a law kind of like the one they have in China – you know, kill all female babies and only let the male babies live. Then, in time, once the disgusting female sex is killed off, we can still reproduce through the help of science in the laboratories. Then we “young, strong and handsome men” will never have to look upon “the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex” again; that will truly be paradise! Oh, how I long for those glorious days, those perfect, utopian days! Oh, and mother don’t believe those stories about me pushing that extremely loud old woman down the stairs at my boarding house; it was quite an accident, I assure you. You will be so glad to hear this, mother: my little darling poodle went poo poo on old lady Smith’s flower garden the other day and when the old bitch starting complaining to me, I simply told her he was doing her a favor - now she won’t have to fertilize her flowers. LOL! I wish you could have seen the old hag’s face. Lord, how I hate women. Well, any ways, don’t forget the hundred dollars and oh, yeah, Happy Mother’s Day. Your handsome, intelligent, and devilishly sexy son, Johnny Boy P.S. Don’t forget the money, Momsie dearest!
2005-04-08 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Yes, and when I do think of things such as I referred to, questions like these are the other side of the coin, basically. The more scientific theories, ie. the Big bang theory,etc make about as much sense to believe in without question as the existence of a supreme deity that is, and has always been.[/QUOTE]The Big Bang theory speaks of an explosion of already existing material. It does not address the origin of that material. It seems to me, however, that, logically speaking, there must exist some thing that is uncreated. It is impossible for existence to spontaneously spring from non-existence. I am not talking about forms of life coming from non-living material (abiogenesis), but rather 'being' coming from 'not-being'. Whatever it is that is uncreated, whether it is an old man on a throne or just a mysterious force, is God, by definition. There are legitimate discussions to be had about what sort of thing God is, how well (or if) we can know Him, what (if any) are his wishes for mankind, etc. To me, however, the conclusion that there must be some uncreated thing is fairly obvious.
2005-04-08 19:15 | User Profile
Well, this sort of argumentation is unpersuasive, imo. Because then it forces you to speculate on who or what created God; and you're back to square one.
2005-04-08 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Quantrill]It seems to me, however, that, logically speaking, there must exist some thing that is uncreated. It is impossible for existence to spontaneously spring from non-existence. [/QUOTE]I agree. And that is a great point. I remember discussing this very thing with a hard-core atheist, and though is guy is extremely smart, he was stumbling quite a bit with such questions.
[QUOTE] There are legitimate discussions to be had about what sort of thing God is, how well (or if) we can know Him, what (if any) are his wishes for mankind, etc. To me, however, the conclusion that there must be some uncreated thing is fairly obvious. [/QUOTE]How and why is "god" referred to as "he" Don't misunderstand this and assume I am some wacked out feminist that refers to "god" as a "she". LOL. But assuming "god" does indeed exist, and the Bible is correct(a big assumption), and with the creation story being how it is in the Bible, the creation of male and female,etc does it make sense to assume that "god" has a gender? I know it is referred to as father, or he, him,etc, but there are obvious reasons for that.
2005-04-08 19:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]How and why is "god" referred to as "he" Don't misunderstand this and assume I am some wacked out feminist that refers to "god" as a "she". LOL. But assuming "god" does indeed exist, and the Bible is correct(a big assumption), and with the creation story being how it is in the Bible, the creation of male and female,etc does it make sense to assume that "god" has a gender? I know it is referred to as father, or he, him,etc, but there are obvious reasons for that.[/QUOTE] In this particular case, it is because English lacks an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun, so the masculine form is traditionally considered the generic one. In general, it depends on one's theology, which I would be happy to discuss with you. However, I think we are hijacking this thread.
2005-04-08 22:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I take it John is your kind of man. :heart:[/QUOTE] Gabbie, you're just as mentally deficient as Starr.
If I refuse to tolerate feminazism, then according to you, I'm a homo.
According to Abe Foxtrot, I'm an anti-semite.
According to Jesse Jackass, I'm a racist.
I don't think name calling intimidates the people who come to this board. We're the ones who refuse to be pushed around by the name-callers of this world. Your name calling means no more to me than the hot air of Foxtrot and Jackass.
2005-04-08 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Gabbie, you're just as mentally deficient as Starr.
If I refuse to tolerate feminazism, then according to you, I'm a homo.[/QUOTE] What truly feminist comments have been made here by either her or I? So simply objecting to ALL white women being trashed in such a vile way makes one a feminist? I think it is actually amusing watching a few of you bitch about being called a fag or this great "god-like" writer of this article, being called the same. But you expect white women not to respond negatively to the crap in this Talmud/Koran style article. I guess it makes some sense considering you believe that the inferior woman should just shut up and believe everything that is told to them, and about them, from the superior man:osama:
2005-04-09 00:04 | User Profile
starr, you just don't get it. The God-given roles of men and women do not resemble either the filth of the koran and talmood or the filth of modern feminazism. Why don't you quit arguing here, and read what the Apostle Paul had to say?
2005-04-09 00:30 | User Profile
The beauty of patriarchal Christianity is that it puts women in submission to their fathers and then their husbands. Not any random man off the street. By keeping women under the authority of ONE and only ONE human male, it keeps them from suffering under the whims of any number of men, as we see in Islamic cultures and in pagan America.
2005-04-09 01:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]starr, you just don't get it. The God-given roles of men and women do not resemble either the filth of the koran and talmood or the filth of modern feminazism. Why don't you quit arguing here, and read what the Apostle Paul had to say?[/QUOTE] Didn't Paul/Saul in some places, advocate a life of complete celibacy? Did this include himself? If so what would he know about women, besides what Judasim taught him?
2005-04-09 01:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]The beauty of patriarchal Christianity is that it puts women in submission to their fathers and then their husbands. Not any random man off the street. By keeping women under the authority of ONE and only ONE human male, it keeps them from suffering under the whims of any number of men, as we see in Islamic cultures and in pagan America.[/QUOTE] You use words such as "under submission" or "authority" and you don't think that you sound like a Muslim? It also sounds like you believe women are similar to children. LOL. As a child I had to live "under submission" of my father as well as my mother, but now as an adult I am capable of making my own decisions, and don't need to live under anyone's authority.
2005-04-09 03:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]You use words such as "under submission" or "authority" and you don't think that you sound like a Muslim? It also sounds like you believe women are similar to children. LOL. As a child I had to live "under submission" of my father as well as my mother, but now as an adult I am capable of making my own decisions, and don't need to live under anyone's authority.[/QUOTE] You are not a Christian, and therefore you don't have any conviction that this is the way to live. I don't sound like a Muslim explicity because I don't believe women should be under submission to any man but her husband or her father. Think for a moment what this means. This is amazingly powerful. Under Christian patriarchy, a woman receives the protection that she needs, but she is freed from second-class citizenship that derives from both heathen mysogeny (Islam, Hinduism) and pagan licentiousness.
Post-Christian American women squawk all the time about how 'free" they are, but they spend their entire productive time either trying to entice a man into their beds or trying to keep him there. How free is that? Essentially these women are the equivalent of rental equipment, free to be the playthings of any alpha male who roams into their vicinity.
Whether you deny you are under anyone's authority or not, you are. You can choose to serve One Master or you can choose to serve a series of tinpot dictators, but you will serve. Not because you are a woman, but because you are a human being living in a fallen world.
2005-04-09 03:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Amaara]You are not a Christian, and therefore you don't have any conviction that this is the way to live. I don't sound like a Muslim explicity because I don't believe women should be under submission to any man but her husband or her father. [/QUOTE]I was not raised in any other religion, and I do not now practice any other religion and I am not an atheist, so I am not quite sure what that make me. Why do I or any other woman need to be under submission to either my father or my husband? [QUOTE]Post-Christian American women squawk all the time about how 'free" they are, but they spend their entire productive time either trying to entice a man into their beds or trying to keep him there. How free is that?[/QUOTE]The same can be said for men in this society.
[QUOTE]Whether you deny you are under anyone's authority or not, you are. You can choose to serve One Master or you can choose to serve a series of tinpot dictators, but you will serve. Not because you are a woman, but because you are a human being living in a fallen world[/QUOTE]Who's authority am I under? I am not quite sure what you are referring to here? This sounds like some type of sermon. LOL
2005-04-09 03:25 | User Profile
Amaara, you expressed the point brilliantly. Thank you for your contribution.
And starr, whose authority are you under?
The Bible declares that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. You can do it now and receive eternal life. Or you can wait and do it from the depths of hell. But you will bow.
For your sake, please make the right choice.
2005-04-09 03:33 | User Profile
Robert, are you an Evangelist or something? I appreciate you trying to "save" me and all, but I think I can take care of that on my own when the time arises.
2005-04-09 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Listen moron, it is not me mentioning Bush.
John Allington writes to his mother.
Dear Mother, A few fellow women haters and myself are working on an idea of how to rid the world of the parasitical female sex (donââ¬â¢t worry, you will be long dead before our plan is accepted). We are basing many - if not all of our plans - from our hero Schopenhauer, and, of course, the Talmud. Oh, how I love to read that wonderful, holy book! I especially love the prayer about thanking god I was not born a woman. That warms my heart, and sends a tingly feeling jetting all through me! But I digress. We guys are tired of women spending our hard earned money at Wal-Mart on trinkets. Oh, speaking of money, Mother, I still have not received that hundred dollars I asked you for last night on the phone ââ¬â I have to buy my baby poodle a new collar, you know, because his is so out of vogue; and I need to buy myself a few guysie toys. Also, I must say, mother, that I was quite put out when I found out that you plan on giving my sister Mary your entire bone china tea and saucer collection. You know damn well I would love to have it for myself! How else am I going to keep having my tea parties?! Well, back to the fellows and me: we came up with the perfect solution to you blood sucking, money wasting females. We want to pass a law kind of like the one they have in China ââ¬â you know, kill all female babies and only let the male babies live. Then, in time, once the disgusting female sex is killed off, we can still reproduce through the help of science in the laboratories. Then we ââ¬Åyoung, strong and handsome menââ¬Â will never have to look upon ââ¬Åthe stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sexââ¬Â again; that will truly be paradise! Oh, how I long for those glorious days, those perfect, utopian days! Oh, and mother donââ¬â¢t believe those stories about me pushing that extremely loud old woman down the stairs at my boarding house; it was quite an accident, I assure you. You will be so glad to hear this, mother: my little darling poodle went poo poo on old lady Smithââ¬â¢s flower garden the other day and when the old bitch starting complaining to me, I simply told her he was doing her a favor - now she wonââ¬â¢t have to fertilize her flowers. LOL! I wish you could have seen the old hagââ¬â¢s face. Lord, how I hate women. Well, any ways, donââ¬â¢t forget the hundred dollars and oh, yeah, Happy Motherââ¬â¢s Day. Your handsome, intelligent, and devilishly sexy son, Johnny Boy P.S. Donââ¬â¢t forget the money, Momsie dearest![/QUOTE] Do you realize who you are calling a "moron?"
And to think that I was once banned from OD for several weeks for a comment far less severe!
[edited]
2005-04-09 04:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]You are not a Christian, and therefore you don't have any conviction that this is the way to live. I don't sound like a Muslim explicity because I don't believe women should be under submission to any man but her husband or her father. Think for a moment what this means. This is amazingly powerful. Under Christian patriarchy, a woman receives the protection that she needs, but she is freed from second-class citizenship that derives from both heathen mysogeny (Islam, Hinduism) and pagan licentiousness.
Post-Christian American women squawk all the time about how 'free" they are, but they spend their entire productive time either trying to entice a man into their beds or trying to keep him there. How free is that? Essentially these women are the equivalent of rental equipment, free to be the playthings of any alpha male who roams into their vicinity.
Whether you deny you are under anyone's authority or not, you are. You can choose to serve One Master or you can choose to serve a series of tinpot dictators, but you will serve. Not because you are a woman, but because you are a human being living in a fallen world.[/QUOTE]
Great stuff, Amaara.
2005-04-09 14:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Robert, are you an Evangelist or something? I appreciate you trying to "save" me and all, but I think I can take care of that on my own when the time arises.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be so cavalier. You never know when the Lord will call your number.
2005-04-10 01:11 | User Profile
Women gave up their moral authority once they got the vote and opted for being enveloped by the strong arms of the state instead of relying, as nature intended, on the good will of their fathers, husbands and son.
2005-04-10 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Here's Mencken's take on the question--from In Defense of Women:
the cynicism and cruelty and deformed pity by which we seek to bend the rules so as to bring about utopia are hallmarks of the increasingly feminist horror that is our age.
in no small part due, IMHO, to the girlie boys who run things