I read through this thread and saw that none of you have mentioned a major reason for non-involvement in such assault cases in the U.K. According to U.K. legal system today, involving one's self in a fight to defend someone in a public altercation subjects one to the legal liability of being arrested and charged with an offense. This is the reason why, in the U.K., people are told to shout "call the police" rather than "help" because in doing the latter, the victim risks involving someone into legal liability. You see, it is actually illegal to either defend one's self or, as a bystander, to help defend the victim of a crime. In doing so, you are considered to be committing crime yourself and will be subject to arrest and criminal charge. This legal climate is completely alien to that of the U.S. where people generally have the right to use force to defend themselves from victimization as well as "good samaritan" policy for innocent bystanders to do the same.

Those two "white men" in the U.K. did exactly what they were supposed to, in the eyes of U.K. law. It is this fact that most of you (who are presumably American - like myself) have difficulty wrapping your heads around. There was a recent case where a home owner was prosecuted in the U.K. for defending myself from violent assault IN HIS OWN HOME from a home intruder. This is the kind of legal environment that destroys any concept of a civil society and why the people who promulgate such a legal climate deserve to suffer the full consequences of doing such. Having read about the women in this case, there is no question that she has fully supported policies that have created the situation for her experience that now she chooses to "blame" others for not coming to her aid.

There is a saying that you reap what you sow.

Quote: (06-06-2018 10:28 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I suppose it's not to anyone's benefit to simply go back and forth over why intervening in a situation like this is a bad idea. It's more helpful to explain the why in detail. This forum typically approaches the nature of women in relation to sexual manipulation one way or another, but there are other facets of their ingrained behavior where it's important to understand the nature of women so you don't get blindsided with bad outcomes for "nice" behavior.

What I'm going to go into here is stuff that a lot of guys understand on a basic level yet without having an appreciation for the nuts and bolts level of how it works.

My experience in this field is drawn mostly as a guard who had to deal routinely with issues of domestic violence and female mental health issues in health care settings. This has been complimented by the mentorship in these issues of the older guards who I foolishly dismissed as fossils until I was proven wrong often enough to accept reality.

I'll open with the big premise.

Women do not do "gratitude" except where it's a convenient entry to gain the continued patronage of someone they're sexually interested in.

This is not limited to saving them from a violent encounter. We are generally painfully aware here that an ugly man who changes a flat tire for a woman and a handsome man who does likewise will receive two vastly different responses. The handsome man will be showered with praise and offers of future rendezvous while the ugly man will have to suffer the woman standing silently and awkwardly to one side as she fidgets, desperate for the horrible ordeal to disappear in her rear view mirror.

For most women in any stage of fertility there is no such thing as gratitude. Only an opening to gain sexual access to a suitable set of genetics.

The second part of this equation is arguably more cruel.

Women are biologically driven shut out men they owe an obligation to when that man is not considered to be sexually suitable. Worse, they will actively seek to harm that man's social standing in order to "get rid of him" rather than suffer his continued proximity under the burden of a debt they don't wish to recognize.

Hear me, young pups, as I tell the tale of two guards. One as ugly as sin, the other an Adonissian vision of male charm. Several damsels found themselves under duress. A vicious, drunk cad was attacking their booth at their place of work. The ugly guard arrived first on scene and bore the lion's share of the peril in restraining the attacker. The gorgeous guard arrived second and merely provided support to finalise the matter.

Who got the credit from all these women? You guessed it. But worse. The women soon began to find agreement that the ugly guard who had long since been accepted as benign in his patrols suddenly took on an aura of creepiness, such that a request was made to management that the creepy guard should be left to patrol outside while the gorgeous guard patrol the booths.

That, gentlemen, is how female gratitude manifests itself.

Moving on.

When faced with a violent encounter a woman's first reaction is to secure her survival. "White middle class men, save me!"

What most men don't understand is that the very second survival has been secured, a woman will instantly mentally re-arrange the event to preserve her tribal alignments.

Did that go by you too quickly? Again.

The very second survival has been secured, a woman will instantly mentally re-arrange the event to preserve her tribal alignments.

This is why police will save a woman from being stabbed by her deranged husband and she will provide a report mere minutes later that the police busted in and assaulted him for no reason. Not only will she says this but she will believe it down to her core.

You can bet on it again and again and again and you will not be disappointed. If a woman has to choose between telling the truth and protecting "her tribe" (even if that's loosely defined as progressives-plus their human pets) then she will lie until the end of time to protect her tribe. She does this effortlessly because her tribe is intrinsically linked to her ego. It's a survival mechanism that ensures she places her own children above everyone else's, even if her "child" is a 6 foot "unwell asian man".

These are not principles on female modus operandi. They are iron laws.

Respect these laws and account for them or suffer the consequences.

p.s. If you wonder now what the difference is between white-knighting in the 50's and white knighting today then the million dollar question is this.

Does the woman I'm trying to save consider me to be part of her tribe or a factional enemy?

This is a superb commentary on a facet of sociobiology that governs female behavior.

Quote: (06-07-2018 04:34 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Quote: (06-06-2018 10:07 PM)Rocha Wrote:  

Good reaction to a bully in some russian tube.

Thruth be told is that many guys are devoid of masculinity nowadays, and are just fuckin drones looking at their cellphones, almost vegetative, they could do some shit to help, yell at the bully, call cops, stop the train, etc. She is right indeed on that, she is only wrong in excusing the "asian" of wrongdoing, instead of pointing out his criminal behaviour.

But...Women do what Men allow them to do... So it is also men's fault that she has this kind of thinking.

No - she is not correct.

This is an utterly different situation. You had a rude American being slightly aggressive towards a poor woman transporting things in the train. A Russian bloke slapped him. But he slapped him also because he knew that it was an American. That white American is not going to pull a knife on him, the Russian media and cops are not going to call that Russian man an Americaphobe, the Russian Twitter and social media are not going to descend on the Russian man like a ton of bricks and his company is not going to fire him.

In contrast the men saw an aggressive likely Muslim/Pakistani man kick a woman.

Now here are the options:

1) Muslim man reacts certainly more aggressive towards men challenging him. Muslim man may quickly draw a knife and kill or severely injure the two middle-aged office warriors whose workout probably consists of taking out their walk or having a run. Their families collect money for more rapefugees on their funeral after the guy used the knife on them.

2) The guys fully knowing that the Muslim is dangerous take down the man while risking their lives. One of them beats the "poor oppressed mentally challanged" man too much. The woman changes her story and calls the white men as unnecessarily brutal. She calls them the racist they are. Their careers are destroyed, even their wives are fired from their jobs. They collect unemployment checks in the same line as the rapefugee and their wives divorce them.

That is why they did not act and I cannot blame them.

Even I who is willing to risk my life for unknown people - I would probably not do much. I would instantly react in Eastern Europe, but there I know that the government is not as globalist controlled and there would be no repercussions.

In London saving a SJW while the situation is still unclear? You could even escalate the situation.

It's wonderful how karma works in this case. The bitch is for open borders, the bitch is against all white men, the bitch is for more Islam, the bitch is for more diversity. I think that the bitch has gotten enriched.

I don't think you are right saying that the russian guy slaped that american bitch just because he was american and harmless, I could bet he would do the same if it was a chinese or an arab, because the guy holds old world values, like dignity and chivalry.

Nonetheless whithout footage we don't know if what she is saying is true. We don't know the version of the "asian" or the version of the white folks. For me this is fake news, some people are desperate for attention, and to me this seems the case.

But...

If someone told me that witnessed a similar situation, not with a "female CEO", but with an handicapped person, a child, or an elder and the bystanders did not gave a damn, I would not be very impressed, because that is the state of affairs in soulless places like London, there is no compassion, no community sense, nothing.

It is all a bunch of soulless drones. People only revolt because of football (soccer) or the black friday.

The article is indeed toughtprovoking, and focused on the weakness of spirit of the regular western man, compared to before. We all know Islam, feminism and communism is evil, the big (brother) state is evil, etc.

But I intended to focus on the evil whitin. Which is the lack of old world values, and the never ending alienation of the western folk.

Guys who accuse the men of not being manly enough should read up on the current situation in Western Europe and the UK in the Migrant Invasion of Europe and RIP London thread.

You cannot just jump into action attacking a poor oppressed rapefugee - even if you are Bruce Lee and you are armed. Especially if you are Bruce Lee you cannot do that.

There is no reason to be hung up about it, but those situations have political repercussions and can even get you jail-time if something goes wrong. He on the other hand could have raped her on the subway - he would be out in 2 weeks anyway and she would have still blamed the guys.

Her attitude stems from the assumption that she is owed protection by men.
Her vitriolic attacks will surely convince men to step in and protect her.

Men are humans too with the right to give as much or as little of themselves to people as they want.

Those men chose not to put their bodies on the line. Their body, their choice.

*all sentences are taken from various bullshit feminist articles with the genders reversed.

Like a couple posters have said, you'd know at the moment whether to intervene - this woman just looked like a bitch who eventually would have had some bad shit happen to her. I'm not going to stop the universe from delivering her just deserts.

Its important to have your activation switches defined, eg
- seeing a child threatened with a weapon
- people close to you getting beaten up
- someone trying to kill you
etc

You all need to, right now, define what you will decide is worth fighting for. Do it right now, this very moment.

Decide what you are willing to fight for and commit to taking action. Plan what you would do if you forsee the situation, but the situation must be the the thing that fires you into action.

When you are presented with a violent situation when fists are flying towards your face, it will be too late to decide where you stand morally.

Like spi says about the "vitriolic attack," maybe next time some white men who read her article will join the Arab, get a few kicks in and they all grab a drink.

The thing is this - we are perfectly willing to solve the London crime problem.

But the measures taken of mass deportation, closing of mosques and curtailing of Islam, tens of thousands of arrests, enforcement of sound borders - all those steps would be attacked constantly by brainwashed bitter-bitches like her.

She wants us to deal with the consequences of diversity while turning up the diversity even higher - also blaming us for all the problems of diversity.

We can do one or the other, but not both.

We are choosing to let you enjoy the enrichment - and it has barely begun.

The real reason this post-wall "highly-successful" woman is furious at White males, has little to do with that negligible subway incident. On the other hand, it has everything to do with the fact that no White man has given her the D since she hit the wall.


^Has a (bullshit) career, Hits wall, Marries a fat Turk, gets no White dick, hates "White middle-age men". Sad!

Tamara Cincik, poor hag, for your information: "White middle-age men" are off to SEA or Russia to merrily fuck 22 year-old slim cuties, they're not in a bloody London subway train fighting for useless old you under the watchful eyes of some Paki mayor and "diverse" police force.

White middle-age women, you are by yourselves, and best of luck to you. You wanted independence and tons of migrants, you can now have both, White middle-age men be:



Personally, if I had seen the scene (unlikely, as I can't think of any reason I would travel to the sad, disgusting multiku city of London), I would have intervened if the woman had been Latina, SEAsian, Arab, Jewish or Russian-Ukrainian. But, for a wealthy-looking (meaning, careerist and leftist) middle-age White woman with no EE accent, sorry, no (and I'm White, mind you).

I just researched the U.K. laws with regards to self defense. You can use force in self defense as well as to defend another person. However, that force must be "proportional" with, I suspect, judges having broad latitude to define "proportionality". This means, in practice, you will be subject to the ideological and racial biases of the judge and prosecutor in such cases. Since the law and legal precedent can be quite murky in such cases, particularly in the racially ideologically driven London area, I would presume that it is the rational choice NOT to involve one's self in the defense of another person in the case of this woman above. It is a general principle not to tread with the law and application thereof is murky. Murkiness represents liability risk, and a major lesson of modern living is proper risk management. Hence, the point of my previous pst remains intact.

There will always be something to be outraged out for leftists, best to ignore them like the crying child in a plane.

The UK is a write-off, it's best to just pretend it doesn't exist. The news coming from Europe won't be anything good for the next decade either.

Quote: (06-07-2018 06:14 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  

There will always be something to be outraged out for leftists, best to ignore them like the crying child in a plane.

The UK is a write-off, it's best to just pretend it doesn't exist. The news coming from Europe won't be anything good for the next decade either.

Technically it doesn't. They may as well just write Pakistan on the map.

Quote: (06-07-2018 06:38 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Technically it doesn't. They may as well just write Pakistan on the map.

Perfect now Kona and I have our own Island Ethnostates™

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:02 AM)Matt3B Wrote:  

Whatever her votes were in whatever elections, do you want to think of yourself as a man by watching some short middle aged woman get threatened physically by some 6 foot idiot whilst doing nothing?

For the Catholics:

Look, I get the instinct. A very, very hard realisation I came to last year - it was the persistent, recurring message of the year - was that not everyone will be saved, so to get yourself right with God. However seemingly-unfair, or painful, or horrific that realisation is to bear, it just simply is the fact: the world is deeply-disordered by people's choices.

Under terms of the Natural Law: it stems from the same place I was sensing last year, that dysfunctional actions guarantee dysfunctional results. If you extrapolate that to demonology - the idea that you will be continually-wounded by demonic forces in a manner that guarantees to keep wounding you, driving your behaviour further away from God, then this all seems perfectly-logical.

Think about Noah and his Family on the Ark. They had to hear the screams of everyone drowning outside, begging to be let on; women screaming for them at least take their babies.

They didn't: they prayed and bore their emotional suffering for God, to obey his Will. No-one else is to be let on.

See also Abraham pleading God down for the sake of the righteous men in Sodom. Compassion is not always God's Will. What cost you incur under the Law, must be repaid.

Spiritual Protect requires Obedience to the Law, as such, you will be compelled to protect the truly-innocent and righteous. You see these stories all the time: note that the heroic men are always traditionally-masculine (fulfilling their assigned duty under the Law).

In a Godless City, with the men of the city ignoring their lawful duty to their masculine role, then, naturally, perfectly, no protection is offered to a prideful, immodest, disordered women who tries to fill the masculine role. The demonic is given free reign to attack her. This not only means physical protection, but also the spiritual protection of day-to-day life, where a masculine man, fulfilling his Lawful Duty to his wife, is the Gracing Tool of her Sanctification.

This is why women in traditional marriages are far less crazy and much more humble after childbirth. See how perfectly everything aligns with Truth?

OK, I'll spitball here:

She wants everyone to know she's a CEO: she wants it to be known she's successful and powerful. This is, traditionally, a masculine role.

Trying to take over the masculine role is considered to be a woman's natural inclination of her - via original sin - disordered will. She needs a masculine man to make her submit in humility and be correctly-ordered.

This woman never found that man, probably due to her other spiritual defects. Pride is an obvious one. "I want a man who loves me for me!" "I shouldn't have to compromise!" You get the idea.

As such, her Primary Wound is her rejection as an eligible partner by the traditional men of her society. It's a sin of Pride, the First Sin.

This is how the demons gain control over her: they will pick at that wound.

She will spout Feminist ideas. She will vote to marginalize or destroy them. She will verbally-berate them, and poison other women against them. She will import dangerous and violent men, then attack the men who try and point out that their difference in moral values makes them dangerous and violent.

All because she can't heal that primary wound.

All she'd need to do is pray, look into herself, and understand her need, to practice humility, and reconcile with God's Natural Law by reforming her behaviour to his will.

But she can't. So, when the Demonic works around her, it creates exactly what you see here: the very type of man she'd be warned was dangerous to an unaccompanied woman attacks her.

Now, God can't use Evil for Good Ends. He can, however, offer us a chance for Personal Sanctification in response to the Evil.

If she could deny her Free Will - admit that she was wrong - then she'd be enlightened. She'd confess and say "I was warned, and they were right," and this act of humility might lead her on a path to either a masculine man, or, more likely, accepting a life of solitude as rightfully-earned penance.

Unfortunately, she's in sway to the Demonic. It's clear in her reaction. She can't respond to an Evil act with Good, she responds with further evil in response to her Primary Wound. She saves her vitriol not for her attacker, but for the traditional men of her society. She has gained no grace of personal insight from what happened.

This is how you know she's on the side of the Adversary. I can't finally-condemn her - that's God's Right - so if she ever was compelled by God - her heart softened - to repent and ask for the forgiveness of Christ, we are tasked to fully-forgive her, but we're allowed to rebuke her and reproach her until that day, and if that involves men suspecting she doesn't have ears to hear and eyes to see, and, as such, know not to waste their time trying to convert her - which, as Jesus says, is our Right under the Law - then they can shake the dust from their feet at her, and seek the company of those who can.

Until then, she's just a voice in the storm outside the Ark.

Steel yourself: with society so disordered, it's soon going to get much, much worse and there will be some brutally-hard decisions to make about who you protect and who you don't. You will need to learn to be able to differentiate between those who serve the Truth from those who don't.

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:13 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Think about Noah and his Family on the Ark. They had to hear the screams of everyone drowning outside, begging to be let on; women screaming for them at least take their babies.
They didn't: they prayed and bore their emotional suffering for God, to obey his Will. No-one else is to be let on.

Perhaps he couldn't hear their screams over the noise of millions of species of land-dwelling animals which were somehow on that boat too? Unless they all took naps at the same time?
But seriously,

Quote: (06-07-2018 09:01 AM)Horus Wrote:  

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:54 AM)Sandstorm Wrote:  

All joking aside though.... if I actually did see this myself....

I would lean back, plump up a cushion, open a tinnie and watch the whole thing unfold before my very eyes!

Might even get a little chubby while I'm at it!

To me, these "6 foot men" are useful idiots - they will correct the behavior of our women for us, and when they've done that......... we will kill them.

There's a difference between not intervening in such a situation for any of the many reasons listed above, and actually enjoying watching it. If you enjoy watching a women being beaten up by a man, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Yeah, the difference is, I'm not a hypocrite. If you're saying you would sit there and NOT enjoy it, then you obviously find the scene disturbing. If you find it disturbing and yet choose not to help her for fear of the consequences, then you are a coward.

I however, for all of the reasons already stated here by many, would indeed enjoy watching this scene play out. It would bring me pleasure to see this women getting her just desserts, to watch her having to lie in the bed she's made.

She is openly hostile to me, so fuck her. Let the attacker give her a taste of her own medicine, the fuck do I care? It's just a bit of sport to me, like watching a bullfight or a Christian getting thrown to the lions.

   

Quote: (06-07-2018 04:57 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The thing is this - we are perfectly willing to solve the London crime problem.

But the measures taken of mass deportation, closing of mosques and curtailing of Islam, tens of thousands of arrests, enforcement of sound borders - all those steps would be attacked constantly by brainwashed bitter-bitches like her.

She wants us to deal with the consequences of diversity while turning up the diversity even higher - also blaming us for all the problems of diversity.

We can do one or the other, but not both.

We are choosing to let you enjoy the enrichment - and it has barely begun.

The sad thing is that it wouldn't even take specifically "curtailing Islam" to solve this, all it would take would be evenhandedly enforcing Britain's already Orwellian hate speech laws against "radicals" - which apparently make up the majority - and they would mostly be deported or in jail anyway. They wouldn't know which way was up if they were all getting the Tommy Robinson treatment.

I agree with investment bro. If i see unethical violent altercations go down i have to jump in as a gut reaction despite not being that great at fighting or being small just because i'm all about honor. Yes i know that is dumb. I actually fucked up my shoulder super bad stoping two big huge mutherfuckers from fighting,but hey......best head throw ever.....(seriously how often do you get to head throw somebody with their back turned to you....perfect opportunity to justify crazy shit like that...so worth the landing with his fat ass on my shoulder because it was so funny and everybody was silent as I walked away glad i survived. I had tendonitis from my wrist to bicep to shoulder for weeks and don't regret it...)

what the fuck is the point have having "martial training" like a lot of guys here advocate if you won't use it to protect a woman or any weaker person.

I understand the "chivalry no way" sentiment and its probably good because this will means people are questioning the extreme liberal rhetoric.

gotta stand up for the little man.

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:53 PM)Sandstorm Wrote:  

...
Yeah, the difference is, I'm not a hypocrite. If you're saying you would sit there and NOT enjoy it, then you obviously find the scene disturbing. If you find it disturbing and yet choose not to help her for fear of the consequences, then you are a coward.
...

Anyone who believes this is a terminal shut-in or at best a 1st world urbanite who's relationship with the concept of danger and suffering peaked at "lost my wifi for several hours due to ongoing maintenance".

Weak sauce.

It's the kind of tough-guy shit I used to peddle when I was a teenager. The reality is that a psychologically healthy person does not enjoy human suffering under any pretext, but recognises that non-intervention is sometimes necessary. This is not cowardice. This is called being a man and having to make the hard calls. Wanting to help. Being capable of helping. But accepting that in the grand scheme of things it's not the right thing to do.

As for the guys saying they'd jump in, well largely by their own admission they're telling us they'd do it out of a kneejerk reaction. Again, this is a childish manifestation of a failure to consider the wider implications at play. Any punk kid can throw hands. Becoming a man and more importantly a patriarch involves knowing when not to throw hands.

If you would jump in without considering the implications, or worse, believe that you would enjoy the show, then I hope you're a young man because these attitudes among older men are evidence of an inexcusable lack of life experience.

I said I would beat an Arab if he beat on a young woman with feminity intact, but actually only if his back was turned and I had a clean shot at the back of his head because the inbred savages tend to carry knives, axes, etc.

Clean sucker punch boom no problem, but would not actually fight because (like all fights) you could be killed/disfigured etc quite easily.

Quote: (06-08-2018 12:02 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

I said I would beat an Arab if he beat on a young woman with feminity intact, but actually only if his back was turned and I had a clean shot at the back of his head because the inbred savages tend to carry knives, axes, etc.

Clean sucker punch boom no problem, but would not actually fight because (like all fights) you could be killed/disfigured etc quite easily.

Then he hits the ground and his suicide vest goes off. Now you got ball Bering's lodged in your guts. Bad idea.

Aloha!

What part of strong independent woman does she not understand?

Quote: (06-08-2018 12:20 AM)Kona Wrote:  

Quote: (06-08-2018 12:02 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  

I said I would beat an Arab if he beat on a young woman with feminity intact, but actually only if his back was turned and I had a clean shot at the back of his head because the inbred savages tend to carry knives, axes, etc.

Clean sucker punch boom no problem, but would not actually fight because (like all fights) you could be killed/disfigured etc quite easily.

Then he hits the ground and his suicide vest goes off. Now you got ball Bering's lodged in your guts. Bad idea.

Aloha!

Yeah I guess it's "boom you're fucked"

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:13 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:02 AM)Matt3B Wrote:  

Whatever her votes were in whatever elections, do you want to think of yourself as a man by watching some short middle aged woman get threatened physically by some 6 foot idiot whilst doing nothing?

For the Catholics:

Look, I get the instinct. A very, very hard realisation I came to last year - it was the persistent, recurring message of the year - was that not everyone will be saved, so to get yourself right with God. However seemingly-unfair, or painful, or horrific that realisation is to bear, it just simply is the fact: the world is deeply-disordered by people's choices.

Under terms of the Natural Law: it stems from the same place I was sensing last year, that dysfunctional actions guarantee dysfunctional results. If you extrapolate that to demonology - the idea that you will be continually-wounded by demonic forces in a manner that guarantees to keep wounding you, driving your behaviour further away from God, then this all seems perfectly-logical.

Think about Noah and his Family on the Ark. They had to hear the screams of everyone drowning outside, begging to be let on; women screaming for them at least take their babies.

They didn't: they prayed and bore their emotional suffering for God, to obey his Will. No-one else is to be let on.

See also Abraham pleading God down for the sake of the righteous men in Sodom. Compassion is not always God's Will. What cost you incur under the Law, must be repaid.

Spiritual Protect requires Obedience to the Law, as such, you will be compelled to protect the truly-innocent and righteous. You see these stories all the time: note that the heroic men are always traditionally-masculine (fulfilling their assigned duty under the Law).

In a Godless City, with the men of the city ignoring their lawful duty to their masculine role, then, naturally, perfectly, no protection is offered to a prideful, immodest, disordered women who tries to fill the masculine role. The demonic is given free reign to attack her. This not only means physical protection, but also the spiritual protection of day-to-day life, where a masculine man, fulfilling his Lawful Duty to his wife, is the Gracing Tool of her Sanctification.

This is why women in traditional marriages are far less crazy and much more humble after childbirth. See how perfectly everything aligns with Truth?

OK, I'll spitball here:

She wants everyone to know she's a CEO: she wants it to be known she's successful and powerful. This is, traditionally, a masculine role.

Trying to take over the masculine role is considered to be a woman's natural inclination of her - via original sin - disordered will. She needs a masculine man to make her submit in humility and be correctly-ordered.

This woman never found that man, probably due to her other spiritual defects. Pride is an obvious one. "I want a man who loves me for me!" "I shouldn't have to compromise!" You get the idea.

As such, her Primary Wound is her rejection as an eligible partner by the traditional men of her society. It's a sin of Pride, the First Sin.

This is how the demons gain control over her: they will pick at that wound.

She will spout Feminist ideas. She will vote to marginalize or destroy them. She will verbally-berate them, and poison other women against them. She will import dangerous and violent men, then attack the men who try and point out that their difference in moral values makes them dangerous and violent.

All because she can't heal that primary wound.

All she'd need to do is pray, look into herself, and understand her need, to practice humility, and reconcile with God's Natural Law by reforming her behaviour to his will.

But she can't. So, when the Demonic works around her, it creates exactly what you see here: the very type of man she'd be warned was dangerous to an unaccompanied woman attacks her.

Now, God can't use Evil for Good Ends. He can, however, offer us a chance for Personal Sanctification in response to the Evil.

If she could deny her Free Will - admit that she was wrong - then she'd be enlightened. She'd confess and say "I was warned, and they were right," and this act of humility might lead her on a path to either a masculine man, or, more likely, accepting a life of solitude as rightfully-earned penance.

Unfortunately, she's in sway to the Demonic. It's clear in her reaction. She can't respond to an Evil act with Good, she responds with further evil in response to her Primary Wound. She saves her vitriol not for her attacker, but for the traditional men of her society. She has gained no grace of personal insight from what happened.

This is how you know she's on the side of the Adversary. I can't finally-condemn her - that's God's Right - so if she ever was compelled by God - her heart softened - to repent and ask for the forgiveness of Christ, we are tasked to fully-forgive her, but we're allowed to rebuke her and reproach her until that day, and if that involves men suspecting she doesn't have ears to hear and eyes to see, and, as such, know not to waste their time trying to convert her - which, as Jesus says, is our Right under the Law - then they can shake the dust from their feet at her, and seek the company of those who can.

Until then, she's just a voice in the storm outside the Ark.

Steel yourself: with society so disordered, it's soon going to get much, much worse and there will be some brutally-hard decisions to make about who you protect and who you don't. You will need to learn to be able to differentiate between those who serve the Truth from those who don't.

This is interesting. Is this representative of Catholic thought (or some variation I presume since there are many types of Catholic thought).

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:35 AM)remarkable vigour Wrote:  

Quote: (06-07-2018 08:02 AM)Matt3B Wrote:  

I've got to say, I'm despairing at some of the replies in this thread.

If you're at the scene and see somebody weaker getting bullied by someone bigger for no reason, and you don't want to help, you are a coward. She's right in that regard.

Sure, you want to look after yourself and protect yourself. I get that. But you can't come on this forum and say "fuck that woman, she is nothing to me" and then also bemoan the state of the west and hold desires to move out east where people would stick up for her.

We live in communities. We protect one another in the face of danger, and we all want that for the communities we live in. We don't want thugs walking around threatening people and having the rest of the community cower in the face of danger. That's not a strong community.

Whatever her votes were in whatever elections, do you want to think of yourself as a man by watching some short middle aged woman get threatened physically by some 6 foot idiot whilst doing nothing?

My friend recently witnessed some woman who is selling the Big Issue magazine outside of a supermarket get physically threatened by a homeless guy who was literally frothing at the mouth in rage. She was looking around for help and everybody kept their heads down. It's sad and pathetic. Would you have stepped in there to help?

Carry on despairing.

London is a shithole, not a community so why should I do anything to prop it up, I'd rather dance in the flames as the whole edifice burns down.

As has already been proved by her social media history this cunt got what she deserved.

And this is the only way we will ever get change. If women want to import hordes of undesirables then getting agro on the tube is part and parcel of that. As Londons muslim mayor has pointed out terrorism is part of living in a big city. I no longer care.

Anyway, she wouldn't have dropped her knickers for you

Women like to say the personal is the political. It is for them, and that's unfortunate for us.

We all knew the kind of girl in high school who would date crazy thugs, then would come in with a black eye (or worse). Then we'd heard about how she and her idiot friends were astounded -- astounded! -- that a violent thug would commit violence on one of them. I mean, who would have thought?

This woman is the "sophisticated" adult version of those low-intelligence high school girls. She votes to bring in a violent class of people, then acts surprised that they're violent.

If you ever wondered why women didn't get voting rights early on, you have your answer right here. Men saw this for what it was in the old days. Too many women can't see the larger picture when it comes to the personal, the political, or both.

***

PS: I love the media's deceptive use of the word "Asians" here. Proves the media is really out to obscure the truth, not tell it. This is why we now have the moronic abbreviation "STI" instead of "STD" or "VD." I wonder at this point how many reporters believe their own bullshit?

Is there a photo of this Asian or is it an "Asian"?