WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

805

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)

[–] 0 pt

I've not read Hislop. I've read the Church Fathers and the Saints and reject Protestantism per se.

[–] 0 pt

Ok, that's good to know. I'd feel bad if I put together some thoughts and only ended up wasting your time.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

I just read the Wiki page on Hislop; while I haven't read any of his works I am familiar with his line of argument - namely the association of the Catholic faith and practices with paganism. I do not find this line of argument compelling or threatening to what the Catholic Church actually is, but if you find it a compelling argument against Catholicism, then please present it as you understand it, and I will share my thoughts.

In brief, I will say that we have to understand that Christ is Truth, and that anything that is true belongs to Him. If we suppose that anything that existed in the world prior to Christ must be false, then, indeed, any connection between Catholicism and the pagan world would be just cause for criticism. But can we really suppose that there was nothing good or true in the world prior to the Incarnation? I know many Protestants have their belief in "total depravity" after the Fall, but frankly I find this view to be impossible unless one adopts a pagan understanding of evil. The pagans would say that evil has its own principle, its own being, its own representatives, etc. But this could only be so if there were some eternally existing Evil One, an "anti-God" like the Zoroastrians and Manichees believed. For it could not be that God could create a principle of evil, for God is all good and what He makes is only good. Therefore all being is good. And therefore evil can only be a privation of being. This is a necessary understanding of evil from the Christian perspective, as far as I'm concerned, based on the understanding of God that Christians have - unless we are talking about heretics who would deny God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence or His sole claim to being uncaused, but I don't think you deny these divine attributes.

And so if being is good, then any notion of total depravity is incoherent, for unless something good in man's created nature remained after the Fall, there would be no man at all!

And if even Fallen man has some good, insofar as he has being and is still called to God as his final end, then Fallen man is still capable of creating good things. And this applies to the pagans as to anyone else. And so if there are certain artworks, or technologies, or archetypes, or philosophies that pagans produced, that has some good, then it is totally allowable that Christians would incorporate these good elements into their lives and their communities. Plato and Aristotle, while pagan, both had many true ideas which helped shape Christianity. To claim that nothing pagan could be touched, on pain of delegitimizing the faith, would be to say that Christianity was not in fact a synthesis of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy, but was rather merely a continuation of the Hebrew tradition - but this denies the very victory and mission of Christianity! Christ established a new and eternal covenant, a final covenant that brought all peoples into the fold, Jews and Gentiles. It was a victory over paganism, which is why the Cross (a Roman torture weapon) was made our symbol, and Rome was made our seat; not because we are pagan, but because we have triumphed over the pagan. What is the Resurrection if not a defiance of the Cross? By remembering the Passion, we don't celebrate the pagan, we celebrate our victory over the pagan (and death itself)!

Of course it incorporated what was good from all traditions - and discarded what was bad! You referenced people smarter than us who have discussed this - there are certainly many in that category. But I would argue that the number of years, and therefore the total selection of smart people to be thinking about these things, is much more expansive within the full Christian tradition, than is to be found in a relatively modern offshoot of that tradition.

Are we really to suppose that the real Christians slapped themselves on the foreheads 1500 years after Christ's resurrection and realized that all Christians always and everywhere had been doing everything wrong for 1500 years? Are we to imagine that there were no "smart people" within this span of 1500 years, more proximate to the historical events in question, and comfortable with the knowledge that the Church was conformed to the expectations of reason and the teachings of Scripture?

To suppose that the Protestant form of worship - typically, coming together and listening to one man with no connection to the Apostles give his opinions on Scripture - is superior to the liturgy of the Church, which has successfully directed the minds of all the faithful to things divine for centuries, is simply not a serious claim to me. But I am always open to arguments to the contrary.

I do think most Protestants are guiltless, insofar as they are born into traditions that are founded on the arguments of men smart enough to formulate such arguments, without having truly delved into the implications of such arguments. How could they? People have lives to live, families to support - we don't have the time to personally familiarize ourselves with every factoid of Church history, every detail of Christian dogma, every page of spilled ink of polemics and apologetics - all the more reason to suppose Christ would have established not just an abstract Church, but a hierarchical one with Apostolic succession and a solid doctrinal tradition, a Church that the faithful would have sufficient reason to believe in, so that they, like the eunuch, could rest assured knowing that Christ had chosen an Apostolate to clarify and teach.

@Chiro

[–] 0 pt (edited )

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. The New Testament is a perfectly completed fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a synthesis of Hebrew and Greek philosophy forming a new system. That's the gnostic form of Kabbalism.

Hislop's charges against the foundation of the Catholic rituals are not superficial or related only to the trappings and decorations. It would be worth a read on your part. My understanding is that the parallel fallen system of worship set up as an alternative to the worship of the one true God that was in place at the Tower of Babel has simply been renamed and reskinned throughout history and found its most powerful incarnation in the Catholic church and that the doctrines and ritual adopted along with the pagan trappings are not just incidental but incompatible with the worship of the God of the Bible. But Hislop presents it far better than I ever could.

Are we to imagine that there were no "smart people" within this span of 1500 years, more proximate to the historical events in question, and comfortable with the knowledge that the Church was conformed to the expectations of reason and the teachings of Scripture?

We are to suppose that these "smart people" were hunted down and killed and the historical records controlled accordingly. The wars between the Catholic church and her vassal kings and groups such as the Waldenses who held to the purity and simplicity of the Scriptures are exceedingly well documented. 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?

To suppose that the Protestant form of worship - typically, coming together and listening to one man with no connection to the Apostles give his opinions on Scripture

We are called to be Bereans. I listen to men read and teach the Scriptures. And I seek the Scriptures myself to see what is incompatible. I don't set any man's interpretarion and tradition above what I can plainly read.

For it could not be that God could create a principle of evil, for God is all good and what He makes is only good. Therefore all being is good.

This is probably going to end up at the root of our disagreement. 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.

The Catholic church claims superiority through age and I find both claims to be false. The pure, simplicity of the Gospel story is presented in Genesis, repeated throughout the Old Testament, and fulfilled in the New Testament. As Jesus proclaimed on the cross it is a finished work and it does not need man's philosophy to interpret or change it.

You claim that God would not leave us without a system set up to interpret His Word for us. I maintain that His Word needs no such mediator and that He left us with a faith that can be plainly understood by anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.