Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

226

Consider how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it.

I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon.

When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature.

The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her.

Why? Precisely because she knows that he will be morally harmed by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run.

Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one.

When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it.

"Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?"

In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse.

At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do.

The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'.

And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity.

EDIT: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times.

She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only kind of abuse there is.

You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle.

The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles.

Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood.

They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust.

Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all."

This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense you think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it felt to her.

Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps felt like. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves.

THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL?

Put it all together.

How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male.

This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell.

The Jew IS the feminine principle (not just female, but metaphysically feminine) embodied as a people.

The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom.

The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you.

The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them.

Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's The Shining. I ought to do an analysis of this.

Consider how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it. I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon. When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature. The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her. Why? Precisely because she knows that *he will be morally harmed* by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run. Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one. When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it. "Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?" In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse. At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do. The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'. And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity. **EDIT**: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times. She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only *kind* of abuse there is. You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle. The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles. Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood. They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust. Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all." This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense *you* think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it *felt* to her. Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps *felt like*. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves. THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL? Put it all together. How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male. This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell. The Jew IS the feminine principle (*not just female, but metaphysically feminine*) embodied as a people. The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom. The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you. The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them. Incidentally, this entire dynamic is also portrayed in Kubrick's *The Shining*. I ought to do an analysis of this.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (24).
[–] • 0 pt

We clearly have very different definitions of Christianity. I can find no room for fusion of man's philosophy and God's perfect Word in a plain reading of the Bible

What about Romans 1:20, which proves that truths about God can be learned and known by looking at nature, at created things, which are other-than-Scripture?

And where does it say "plainly" in Scripture that only what is written in Scripture can be known about God? Has not what I've said about Scripture's own words about the "extra-Scriptural" traditions proven that things can be known about God that are not explicitly written down in Scripture?

Hislop's charges against the foundation of the Catholic rituals are not superficial or related only to the trappings and decorations.

I just finished reading a book by the veritable genius, Catherine Pickstock, on the sublimity of the form and structure of the Catholic liturgy. Hislop would be hard pressed to convince me this is something "essentially pagan."

We are to suppose that these "smart people" were hunted down and killed and the historical records controlled accordingly

That's ridiculous. The Church needed only to sic its Doctors like Augustine and Aquinas on the heretics in order to convert the masses - their ideas and arguments were sufficient (the very nature of argument suggests an appeal to reason, by the way, and is not reducible to simply quoting Scripture without elaboration as sola scriptura would require). Heretics were only killed when they claimed to be within the Church but did not submit to the Church - like the conversos during the Inquisition. This was not about killing people who didagreed, but uprooting subversive who claimed to agree and submit to Chrust's Church, but did not. The Church does not have a deep history of polemics against heretics because she "hunted down and killed" all the "true Christians".

Why would the Catholic church suppress and oppose the plain reading of the Scriptures by the layman if the system of ritual was compatible with the teachings in the Old and New Testaments?

The religious wars are complex, and are certainly not reducible to a "hunting down" of "wrongthinkers." The Church has her doctrine, which she is more than capable of defending with words; and then she has her property and temporal means, which she has often defended with the same means (force) that were used to deprive her.

We are called to be Bereans. I listen to men read and teach the Scriptures.

Where does Scripture advocate for this over a submission to an Apostolic exegesis or hermeneutic?

I don't set any man's interpretarion and tradition above what I can plainly read.

Scripture speaks often of the guiding interpretative role that a tradition can play, like with Philip and the eunuch.

How can all being be good when the Scripture tells us that, no man is good, and that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon. It's contradictory to a plain reading of the Bible and yet your tradition leads you to adopt it.

God is Being; nothing could be unless He sustained it, created it, and loved it. Would you accuse God of sustaining, creating, or loving evil?

"No man is good" means precisely what i am saying - that without God there is no good. It is not as if God made man and now man possesses some good independent of God. That's impossible, since unless creatures "participated" in God's being, they could not be at all. Man's nature is Falken, and so he is wicked and has a deceitful heart - but God's grace can save us from this. But grace does not accomplish this by creating a new man who is good; it does so by perfecting the existing man, since "grace perfects nature" as Aquinas says.

Claiming that "all being is good" is a central tenet of the gnostic hermeticism of Babylon.

I don't think is a central tenet of that tradition, but even if it were, what I said before would make this no problem, since "all Truth belongs to Christ."

As Jesus proclaimed on the cross it is a finished work and it does not need man's philosophy to interpret or change it.

Yet what is any argument if not the application of man's philosophy to Scripture to aid in understanding? The very fact that you have posted words here other than merely Scriprure quotes proves that more than Scripture is being drawn upon. If Scripture requires no interpretation, it could have only one possible reading - which is so plainly false and plainly disproven by what Scripture itself says that I cannot take that seriously.

@Chiro