Mass Killing by Sexually Frustrated Young Man in California

[Anatol]

Hello,

If this is true, great!! I wish to be sure though, what do you mean by PATRIARCHY? What this means to me {(and most of the non-Occidental world 20 years ago)} is no women's education except home-schooling, no women's jobs, no women's sports. They learn to be perfect house-wives from their mothers and families and are watched closely as they are growing up, especially by the father.

If we try to nail down all the details, I am sure we will find some details on which we disagree. This shouldn't matter as long as we agree on broad principles.

Above all, patriarchy means that men take responsibility for society. And this requires that women are not given authority over men. In turn, this means that women's suffrage, women priests, and other such cases where women dictate rules to men are unacceptable. I am not that concerned about jobs and sports because in a patriarchal society, women would naturally be feminine and would naturally prefer feminine roles anyway. I remember hitchhiking in the 1980s and being picked up by a lesbian lumberjack who was more masculine than most men I know. She was a freak of nature, that's all, and I don't have a problem letting her do her thing as long as she doesn't have the power to influence society.

I homeschooled my 2 kids, a boy and a girl, and got to see how they develop naturally without modern propaganda being force-fed to them. I did not educate them any differently, but my daughter naturally preferred cooking and feminine activities. I don't think a great deal of regulation is required for men and women to do what is natural for them.

Hello,

I don't feel you're a Christian. I'm not saying this out of malice or offense. Simply stating facts.

Any sort of education for women beyond learning the Bible and rudimentary home-schooling, is definitely not patriarchal thinking. It becomes a man in a woman's body if it starts learning more than a home-schooled 9th-standard education. Women's sports/women's jobs, these are absolutely disgusting, particularly the former. And lead to problems in the long-term, because ALL women start wanting to do them and be like men. It will ALWAYS happen. It has happened. It will happen. In 1972, the STUPID American men decided to give 'equal-funding' for everything to women in schools and colleges, etc.. The results have been cataclysmic for men and women in U.S.A. and now the world.

I will give more details later as to why this phenomenon starts in society. There is a deep need of CLEANSING and de-brainwashing among western men's minds. Lot of them have no idea how patriarchal, religious societies are supposed to be, especially in U.S.A.

Note: Much of the problem is also that American men tend to be very very arrogant. This is why U.S.A. continually gets the life beaten out of it. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. And ALWAYS, there will be 50,000 U.S.A. men jumping up and down about how the U.S.A. won these wars. It's laughable. And this same arrogance comes when trying to dispel notions about superiority in culture/thinking. U.S.A. is the strongest empire in history and of course that will lead to arrogance but with American men, it's on a grand scale and collective as a group. Whereas in previous empires, there were arrogant rulers, arrogant subjects, arrogant slaves, etc. But NEVER was the entire nation arrogant. And ultimately, this same arrogance of 'NO DECISION WE EVER MAKE CAN BE WRONG', has quickly reduced the male population here to servitude and made strange, half-men/half-things out of the females. Even Rome wasn't so stupid.

Keep reading my posts, boys. I'm not saying this to be haughty or presumptuous. On the contrary, I wish I never had to come confront this despicable feminism. Hence, I'm trying to help you but EGO must be subdued if that help is to occur.

[fschmidt]

I don't feel you're a Christian.

Of course not. I said right here "Note that I am not Christian".

Any sort of education for women beyond learning the Bible and rudimentary home-schooling, is definitely not patriarchal thinking. It becomes a man in a woman's body if it starts learning more than a home-schooled 9th-standard education.

How can a woman homeschool her kids if she herself isn't educated?

[Anatol]

I don't feel you're a Christian.

Of course not. I said right here "Note that I am not Christian".

Any sort of education for women beyond learning the Bible and rudimentary home-schooling, is definitely not patriarchal thinking. It becomes a man in a woman's body if it starts learning more than a home-schooled 9th-standard education.

How can a woman homeschool her kids if she herself isn't educated?

Hello,

I don't feel you're a true patriarchal male is what I meant.

Home-schooling is passed from mother to daughter. That daughter will pass it on to her daughter, etc. So it was for 5,000 years.

[fschmidt]

I don't feel you're a true patriarchal male is what I meant.

Okay, then I return to my original question, what do you plan to do for patriarchy?

Home-schooling is passed from mother to daughter. That daughter will pass it on to her daughter, etc. So it was for 5,000 years.

What about home-schooling sons? Sure, in an optimal society there would be good school to send him to. But we don't live in an optimal society, so in many places, home-schooling your son is the best option. I am lucky that I work from home, so I could do it. But I want my daughter to be able to home-school her sons if necessary.

[Anatol]

I don't feel you're a true patriarchal male is what I meant.

Okay, then I return to my original question, what do you plan to do for patriarchy?

Home-schooling is passed from mother to daughter. That daughter will pass it on to her daughter, etc. So it was for 5,000 years.

What about home-schooling sons? Sure, in an optimal society there would be good school to send him to. But we don't live in an optimal society, so in many places, home-schooling your son is the best option. I am lucky that I work from home, so I could do it. But I want my daughter to be able to home-school her sons if necessary.

Hello,

I plan to PRAY at the moment, that Islam will somehow take over much of the Middle-East. There are many nations such as Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., where the people want to be Muslims. But the security-forces aided by the C.I.A. there, help the tyrants who are puppets of the western governments, suppress the people from being Muslim and do not follow Islam themselves. If somehow the people can gain power there, I'm certain that in battle against the rest of the world, DIVINE victory will be Islam's, since it's the ONLY main faith left that is anti-feminist. Anyone anti-feminist is on the side of highest truth, and where there is truth, there is victory in the end.

I suppose home-schooling sons is okay. But if the system outside is not allright then that option becomes much better, as you stated, Sir.

[fschmidt]

I plan to PRAY at the moment, that Islam will somehow take over much of the Middle-East. There are many nations such as Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., where the people want to be Muslims. But the security-forces aided by the C.I.A. there, help the tyrants who are puppets of the western governments, suppress the people from being Muslim and do not follow Islam themselves. If somehow the people can gain power there, I'm certain that in battle against the rest of the world, DIVINE victory will be Islam's, since it's the ONLY main faith left that is anti-feminist. Anyone anti-feminist is on the side of highest truth, and where there is truth, there is victory in the end.

If you think Islam is the best solution, then why don't you move to a Muslim country?

[Anatol]

I plan to PRAY at the moment, that Islam will somehow take over much of the Middle-East. There are many nations such as Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., where the people want to be Muslims. But the security-forces aided by the C.I.A. there, help the tyrants who are puppets of the western governments, suppress the people from being Muslim and do not follow Islam themselves. If somehow the people can gain power there, I'm certain that in battle against the rest of the world, DIVINE victory will be Islam's, since it's the ONLY main faith left that is anti-feminist. Anyone anti-feminist is on the side of highest truth, and where there is truth, there is victory in the end.

If you think Islam is the best solution, then why don't you move to a Muslim country?

Hello,

The only TRUE Muslim countries now are where the U.S.A. has been unable to control the governments. Which are: Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. ALL of these are dangerous to be in right now and the language, work, etc. will be another issue.

[publicduende]

Hello,

The only TRUE Muslim countries now are where the U.S.A. has been unable to control the governments. Which are: Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. ALL of these are dangerous to be in right now and the language, work, etc. will be another issue.

Agree. In fact the Islam as we know it is basically an invention of British/US intelligence. They are the ones who fomented radical Islam since the 70s, and not for spiritual/religious reasons, but only in the hope to subtract the politics of those countries from the Soviet sphere of influence. It seemed to work well with Khomeini ousting the Shia in Iran, or Taleban taking over, etc. It's usually the same story: a crazy fringe is suddenly empowered to overthrow relatively more moderate and populist government.

I consider the last example of real, cultured and progressive Islam that of the Shia of Persia, or better still the reign of Suleyman I at the peak of the Ottoman empire.

[Cornfed]

Agree. In fact the Islam as we know it is basically an invention of British/US intelligence.

Yeah, that is my impression as well. I can't see anyone really taking it seriously for much longer now. It seems more like a unifying thing for disparate communities, a bit like Catholicism, but not something that is going to last as a serious force.

[Anatol]

Hello,

The only TRUE Muslim countries now are where the U.S.A. has been unable to control the governments. Which are: Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. ALL of these are dangerous to be in right now and the language, work, etc. will be another issue.

Agree. In fact the Islam as we know it is basically an invention of British/US intelligence. They are the ones who fomented radical Islam since the 70s, and not for spiritual/religious reasons, but only in the hope to subtract the politics of those countries from the Soviet sphere of influence. It seemed to work well with Khomeini ousting the Shia in Iran, or Taleban taking over, etc. It's usually the same story: a crazy fringe is suddenly empowered to overthrow relatively more moderate and populist government.

I consider the last example of real, cultured and progressive Islam that of the Shia of Persia, or better still the reign of Suleyman I at the peak of the Ottoman empire.

Hello,

I don't know what you're talking about! REAL Islam is in Afghanistan/Syria/Iraq/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. The 'Islam' of the Shah was NOT Islam! It wasn't anything actually. He was just a puppet and didn't care about religion at all.

Suleiman I, Mehmet II, Murad, etc. of the Ottoman Kalifate were indeed Muslims. But they were the moderate Muslims, as opposed to the Wahaabis in Saudi Arabia. BOTH the Ottoman Empire and Wahaabis are indeed true Muslims, but just as Eastern Orthodox Christians in Russia tend to be somewhat more strict about certain things and differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, the same characteristic occurs in Islam:

WAHAABHI Islam {(Pure Islam, as advocated by The Prophet Muhammed)}: One cannot sing, one cannot draw, one cannot listen to music, one cannot see anything but the eyes of women in public. There are some other rules as well that are quite stringent. Such as being asphyxiated in camel's skin in the desert for certain crimes. The Islamic system of banking is followed very methodically.

Ottoman Kalifate/Ummayad/Abaasid Dynasties/Mughal Empire/The Great Khanates of the Mongols: ALL are Muslim as well. Difference being, they didn't follow the strict interpretations in the Koran. There are certain contradictions in the Koran, just like in the Bible {(because all religious texts are written over a large period of time and by different men)}, and a 'milder' version of Islam can certainly be found in the Koran and Hadeeth.

Presently in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria, etc., they are closer to WAHAABHI Islam and follow the Sharia about 85%. In the rest of the U.S.A. puppet-government nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, etc., most of the people want to follow WAHAABHI Islam or at least a strict Shariah-based Islam.

I don't know why you said that 'RADICAL ISLAM' is a creation of the Western governments. It has ALWAYS existed and always will. It is PURE Islam and PURE Islam is probably the strictest religion possible. There are such stringent sects in Christianity or sects derived from Christianity as well, such as Puritans, Quakers, Amish, Freemasons in Russia.

[Cornfed]

I can only base my judgment on Islamic communities in the West and students from Islamic countries, and my impression is that Islam is weak.

[Anatol]

I can only base my judgment on Islamic communities in the West and students from Islamic countries, and my impression is that Islam is weak.

Hello,

You are very right!! Those students and the Muslims in the Western nations are not Muslims. No TRUE Muslim will ever even step into U.S.A. or a Western nation now. Feminism is the arch-enemy of Islam {(feminism is the arch-enemy of normal Christianity as well)} and the way that the 3-letter word {(it is another word for procreation)} is displayed so openly in the Western nations means that these Muslims in Western nations are hypocrites. There is only one reason immigrants come to U.S.A. or to Western nations. That is for money. 40 years ago, this was acceptable because there was no feminism in mainstream society, so most of the world's cultures were much more similar than dissimilar. The differences were mostly technological. However, the situation has drastically changed the last 15 years.

[publicduende]

Hello,

I don't know what you're talking about! REAL Islam is in Afghanistan/Syria/Iraq/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. The 'Islam' of the Shah was NOT Islam! It wasn't anything actually. He was just a puppet and didn't care about religion at all.

Suleiman I, Mehmet II, Murad, etc. of the Ottoman Kalifate were indeed Muslims. But they were the moderate Muslims, as opposed to the Wahaabis in Saudi Arabia. BOTH the Ottoman Empire and Wahaabis are indeed true Muslims, but just as Eastern Orthodox Christians in Russia tend to be somewhat more strict about certain things and differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, the same characteristic occurs in Islam:

WAHAABHI Islam {(Pure Islam, as advocated by The Prophet Muhammed)}: One cannot sing, one cannot draw, one cannot listen to music, one cannot see anything but the eyes of women in public. There are some other rules as well that are quite stringent. Such as being asphyxiated in camel's skin in the desert for certain crimes. The Islamic system of banking is followed very methodically.

Ottoman Kalifate/Ummayad/Abaasid Dynasties/Mughal Empire/The Great Khanates of the Mongols: ALL are Muslim as well. Difference being, they didn't follow the strict interpretations in the Koran. There are certain contradictions in the Koran, just like in the Bible {(because all religious texts are written over a large period of time and by different men)}, and a 'milder' version of Islam can certainly be found in the Koran and Hadeeth.

Presently in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria, etc., they are closer to WAHAABHI Islam and follow the Sharia about 85%. In the rest of the U.S.A. puppet-government nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, etc., most of the people want to follow WAHAABHI Islam or at least a strict Shariah-based Islam.

I don't know why you said that 'RADICAL ISLAM' is a creation of the Western governments. It has ALWAYS existed and always will. It is PURE Islam and PURE Islam is probably the strictest religion possible. There are such stringent sects in Christianity or sects derived from Christianity as well, such as Puritans, Quakers, Amish, Freemasons in Russia.

So you seem to think fundamentalist Islam is the original version of Islam because it's more radical. Nothing father from the truth. Islam was already progressive and moderate during the Ottoman empire. British and US played the fringe radical Islam movements like fiddlers to ensure they would be active anti-Soviet agents. Why do you think the Brits courted the Shia about the oil deals and, failing that, they helped the corrupted high cleric junta of Khomeini rise to power? Why do you think CIA paid Obama bin Laden and the militias that would rather regroup as the Talibans, to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?

If you advocate the more retrograde Islam because you believe it would "make it right" by putting women where they belong and reassert some sort of patriarchal power, then you're the deluded one dude.

[Anatol]

Hello,

I don't know what you're talking about! REAL Islam is in Afghanistan/Syria/Iraq/parts of Pakistan/parts of Africa. The 'Islam' of the Shah was NOT Islam! It wasn't anything actually. He was just a puppet and didn't care about religion at all.

Suleiman I, Mehmet II, Murad, etc. of the Ottoman Kalifate were indeed Muslims. But they were the moderate Muslims, as opposed to the Wahaabis in Saudi Arabia. BOTH the Ottoman Empire and Wahaabis are indeed true Muslims, but just as Eastern Orthodox Christians in Russia tend to be somewhat more strict about certain things and differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, the same characteristic occurs in Islam:

WAHAABHI Islam {(Pure Islam, as advocated by The Prophet Muhammed)}: One cannot sing, one cannot draw, one cannot listen to music, one cannot see anything but the eyes of women in public. There are some other rules as well that are quite stringent. Such as being asphyxiated in camel's skin in the desert for certain crimes. The Islamic system of banking is followed very methodically.

Ottoman Kalifate/Ummayad/Abaasid Dynasties/Mughal Empire/The Great Khanates of the Mongols: ALL are Muslim as well. Difference being, they didn't follow the strict interpretations in the Koran. There are certain contradictions in the Koran, just like in the Bible {(because all religious texts are written over a large period of time and by different men)}, and a 'milder' version of Islam can certainly be found in the Koran and Hadeeth.

Presently in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria, etc., they are closer to WAHAABHI Islam and follow the Sharia about 85%. In the rest of the U.S.A. puppet-government nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, etc., most of the people want to follow WAHAABHI Islam or at least a strict Shariah-based Islam.

I don't know why you said that 'RADICAL ISLAM' is a creation of the Western governments. It has ALWAYS existed and always will. It is PURE Islam and PURE Islam is probably the strictest religion possible. There are such stringent sects in Christianity or sects derived from Christianity as well, such as Puritans, Quakers, Amish, Freemasons in Russia.

So you seem to think fundamentalist Islam is the original version of Islam because it's more radical. Nothing father from the truth. Islam was already progressive and moderate during the Ottoman empire. British and US played the fringe radical Islam movements like fiddlers to ensure they would be active anti-Soviet agents. Why do you think the Brits courted the Shia about the oil deals and, failing that, they helped the corrupted high cleric junta of Khomeini rise to power? Why do you think CIA paid Obama bin Laden and the militias that would rather regroup as the Talibans, to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?

If you advocate the more retrograde Islam because you believe it would "make it right" by putting women where they belong and reassert some sort of patriarchal power, then you're the deluded one dude.

Hello,

I totally disagree. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[publicduende]

Hello,

I totally disagree. We'll have to agree to disagree.

It depends on what side of history you are on, for one reason or another. This is like the endless (and rather scholarly) debate within the Christian/Catholic community, whether true Christianity is closer to the teachings of the Bible (same root as traditional Islam) or that of the Gospel.

From your posts, I had the impression that you are somewhat advocating traditional Islam to grow stronger and act as a counterbalance against the social degeneration promoted by the "godless" market economy of the Anglo powers that be. That is a very good point. Yet, a moderate and progressive Islam that puts God, morals and individual dignity and freedoms in a healthy balance, would suffice. Nobody would benefits from being ruled by fringe fundamentalists who will lock women in their bedrooms to restore patriarchal domination at all costs.