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

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

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).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

My problem with sola scriptura is that no where in Scripture is this doctrine contained, which it would have to be in order for sola scriptura to be true. We can't just say that sola scriptura is a presumed axiom or an article of faith since sola scriptura itself denies that there can be any articles of faith not contained within Scripture.

But it isn't just a matter of the doctrine being absent from Scripture. Scripture speaks quite clearly against the possibility of sola scriptura.

Notably, 2 Thes 2:14 (biblegateway.com) beseeches Christians to hold to traditions passed down to them, whether by word or by epistle. This "word or epistle" dichotomy clearly suggests an oral / written dichotomy, and therefore affirms not just the Scriptural teaching, but that which is passed down through the Apostles to our own age outside of what was written down. And we know that there were things that Jesus taught that were not written down, since Scripture tells us as much:

"And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples." Mark 4:34 (biblegateway.com)

As for sola fide, Scripture gives us a case of a eunuch requiring help from an Apostle in order to understand what Scripture is saying (Acts 8:29-35 (biblegateway.com)). So the million dollar question is, how can man be justified by faith alone if man does not even know what the "faith" constitutes? Is it mere belief in a name? Belief in an essence? Belief in seven articles of faith? Twelve? Belief in every factoid of the Bible, even those whose meaning as either literal or metaphorical is ambiguous? Are the billions of people who populate this Earth supposed to crack open the Good Book and give it their best go? Maybe here or there they'll interpret a metaphor as something literal, or something literal as merely metaphorical; maybe they'll see symbols where there are sacraments, or counsels where there are precepts. Clearly the eunuch needed help. Don't we? At least some of us? Are we to suppose Christ left us to our own devices? Or did He in His wisdom establish, not just an abstract Church, but a living Church with a temporal hierarchy (what are bishops if not members of a temporal hierarchy?), one that would not just provide us with sound exegesis on the Scriptures, as Phillip did for the eunuch, but one that would also preserve those extra-Scriptural traditions (the "word" traditions, as distinguished from the "epistle" traditions) about which St. Paul speaks?

If one is going to assert that man is justified by faith alone, one ought to know - with clarity and certainty - what that faith even is.

Jesus Christ did not leave us with a Bible - that came centuries after His ascension. What He did leave us with, before ascending into heaven, was a Church, and He gave that Church the ability to "bind and loose" - and in obedience to Him, I am obedient to His Church.

@IAmTheOptimizer

EDIT: I left out of this analysis the fact that Luther added "alone" to Romans 3:28 (biblegateway.com), and attempted to remove the epistle of St. James from the Bible, since it contradicted his teachings.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

See Op? I told you he liked to debate. :)

I have been through this ringer with him for weeks and weeks, and he's made the points above in responses to me from the past. I, for one, find these convincing cases.

For my part, I'd just say that it occurred to me that for the full splendor of the good news, as in a full appreciation for the consummation of the arc that Christ represents, one has to treat the New Testament along with the Old Testament. The full significance of the New Covenant is simply not possible to fully understand without the totality of scripture.

When we bring the OT into the fray, it simply becomes an impossibility NOT to approach it without a traditional hermeneutic. It cannot be done. For one obvious reason, in literary terms, the Jews wrote it to require such a hermeneutic, or perhaps I should say with one in mind.

If one considers stories such as Jonah and the whale, it's outside of common sensical bounds to think that we could approach such things at face value. In fact, I have to believe that most protestants don't - even if they say they do. If we accept sola scriptura, there is no way to make the assertion that this story is in any way metaphorical or allegorical. It has to be taken at face value. Any license one takes to 'read into' this scripture is not justified in itself. If we do acknowledge that such stories require an interpretative hermeneutic, then we've already broached the necessity of a teaching tradition.

If one takes this teaching tradition seriously, insofar as the significance of scripture must be honored by the utmost caution and curation of the teaching, this suggests against the kind of broad latitude of denomination we see in Protestantism, rather favoring the longer tradition of Catholicism itself, whose patristic lineage goes back to the time of Christ directly. It's impossible for Protestantism to flout that history, because they shared it for 1500 years. Moreover, at no point in that tradition was the doctrine of sola scriptura supported by any of the earliest church fathers. Literally, the disciples of Christ made no such claim, which makes sola scriptura a child of the Renaissance.

@IAmTheOptimizer

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I'll read your comment and think about it and see if I have any further thoughts next weekend. I would add just to clarify though that I don't reject tradition off-hand. My position is that any tradition that is not at least founded in the Scriptures, is not in agreement with the whole of the Scriptures, or is contradictory to the Scriptures cannot be considered a core tenet of the Christian faith or a prerequisite for salvation.

And I'd challenge your claim that the Catholic tradition predates the simplicity of the Protestant core as a facet of Christianity. Just so you can think about it too, much of my rejection of many Catholic traditions are because my research indicates they are simply adaptations or re-packaging of the same dialectic system of rebellion and false godhood that was present in the mystery religions of Babylon and is traceable all the way back to the same conversation between the Serpent and Eve we were talking about earlier.

It's a huge topic, and it emphasizes the importance of purity in Bible translations, and I'll probably do all of us a disservice in my presentation of what I believe and have found but I'll do my best. I haven't brushed up on my Protestant vs Catholic literature in a long time so I hope both you and @PS are patient with me.

I agree with you strongly on the need to consider the Old and New Testaments and the separate ways in which they proclaim the person and character of Jesus Christ as two parts of a magnificent whole.

[–] • 0 pt

My position is that any tradition that is not at least founded in the Scriptures, is not in agreement with the whole of the Scriptures, or is contradictory to the Scriptures cannot be considered a core tenet of the Christian faith or a prerequisite for salvation.

I would agree that no tradition or doctrine can be at odds with Scripture, and I agree that all doctrines and traditions must be "founded in" Scripture insofar as their principles can be detected within Scripture. This does not require an explicit Scriptural foundation, however, given what Scripture has to say about tradition as such. I've discussed this with @Chiro with respect to the papacy and the Eucharist.

much of my rejection of many Catholic traditions are because my research indicates they are simply adaptations or re-packaging of the same dialectic system of rebellion and false godhood that was present in the mystery religions of Babylon and is traceable all the way back to the same conversation between the Serpent and Eve we were talking about earlier.

Read the Magisterial teachings of the Church, and the writings of the saints, and tell me where you think Catholicism constitutes a "dialectic system of rebellion". It is about submission to the will of God, service of the good, and charity above all. It is the world that rebels against the Church. We all know what Christ had to say about the world andits spirit.

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks for the ping and the discussion. I'll read through it and the passages you reference. It might take me a while but I'll do my best next weekend to put a response together that's not just me throwing sources at you.

It's a little funny since this exact debate has been ongoing for centuries now and men much smarter and more learned than I have spent lifetimes discussing and writing about it.

It is important though to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it, and to check it for consistency. So I appreciate the challenge.