No Quarter to Witches

I’ve posted before about curing feminism.  I suggested we men form a company designed to kidnap and ship feminists to the wilds of Afghanistan where we’d secretly monitor them (to keep them from coming to any real harm) for a matter of months.  Being extracted from the conveniences of modern society, which in many cases is designed to perpetuate the myth of equality and artificially catapult the feminist to levels of power she would never attain on her own, she would eventually learn to submit; not to any particular man mind you, but to the feminine spirit itself.

All joking aside however, I’m convinced that physical opposition is one of the only ways to cure the feminist (short of a direct heart-changing miracle from God).

Let’s take a step back for a moment to see how tragic this situation really is.  When I direct my ire at “the feminist”, modern women will likely read it and cheer along.  A feminist, in their mind, is some skin-headed, flannel-wearing, lesbian, who wears combat boots and burns bras.  They don’t realize that they, themselves, are likely feminists.  I’ve experienced this phenomenon time and again:  the loud-mouthed “girl-power” Republican woman is swearing and acting belligerent in public, forcefully debating men, and is always quick to challenge a man in any trial.  If it’s suggested in her presence that this or that color is a “girl’s color” or that this or that sort of gun is a “girl’s gun” … or any of that sort of language … she’s immediately set off, becomes defensive, and gets belligerent.

She is a neo-feminist and doesn’t even realize it.

But here’s the tragedy of it all:

Government schools and popular culture, along with the support of all governing authorities including the church, have combined to create a formidable machine designed to, among other things, systematically “break” girls.  By “break” I mean:  damage them.  To maim them.  To corrupt their passions from true femininity towards the brutal notion of masculine equality.

I imagine a slaughter house for chickens (appropriate since modern hipsters call women “chicks”).  Young girls are lumped by the thousands onto cold conveyor belts and wound through a labyrinth of horrifying tunnels, where they’re eventually dumped into a slaughter bin called “higher education”.  They simmer and cure until they’re processed and sent out of the factory, plucked and fully-feminist.  Ready for consumption.

And oh how short and miserable their lives will be.

Which brings me back to the notion of their cure:

I pray these women find husbands who will beat the literal hell out of them.  That’s the only way they’ll have a chance at happiness.  You see, when so treated, they’ll have two options.  They either give up their indoctrination and submit to being women, or they continue to rebel as their mother Eve did in the Garden.  They’ll get the police involved, run to the open arms of other feminists in battered-women’s shelters, and have long cries with their girl-power club.

Find a man that would beat a woman for the right reasons in today’s world though?  Better off looking for gold at the end of rainbows.  There are plenty of cowardly, weak men who would abuse women (or children, or animals, or even inanimate objects) out of selfish hatred, self-pity (or some other sinful disposition).  But few, if any at all, would be willing to beat their feminist wives as a method of strong-armed discipleship.  So it’s unlikely the feminist can be rescued this way.

I’ll never be the CEO of a multimillion dollar company payed by husbands around the world to kidnap their feminist wives and send them for tours in Afghanistan.  And feminists will likely never find husbands with enough foresight to beat them into submission.

Instead, what will happen (and what does happen every day) is these unhappy creatures party life away trying to earn “careers” on the plantation while thinking, in the backs of their minds, they’ll have a baby once they’ve become successful.  Then they hit age 30 (or so), discover they’re not as successful as they want, have no marriage prospects, and now their doctor is telling them they have a limited amount of time left to have children.

So they search for some weak-willed man, who by this time in his life is so lonely and desperate for sex he’ll put up with a feminist witch just to appease his baser nature, and the two are married.  They spend the rest of their lives in a state of misery.

If they happen to bring children into the world, then the feminist witch mother who has not submitted, never will, and yet, cannot figure out why she’s so miserable, fills her daughter’s head with the same nonsense.  She ships her off to the slaughter house and the cycle begins all over again.

This has to end.

Anyone know how to fly a C-130, and are you interested in starting a company with me?

This entry was posted in General and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to No Quarter to Witches

  1. rogerunited says:

    I assume you’ve been out meeting women, recently?

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Going back to college this semester, I’m being hit with it more than usual.

      • rogerunited says:

        Oooo, college chicks. Young, hot, nubile, stupid, very tempting. Maybe feminism’s not sooo bad. I can fix her!

        Speaking as a married man, women are a pain in the rib!

        Matthew 19:10-12
        10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

        11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

        12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

        Hmmm, tough choice.
        Good luck!

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        Honestly, feminism is incredibly unattractive.

        One feminist I have in mind, a few days back, raised her hand and tried to lecture the teacher about the subject matter (she did well in government school, so she must be very intelligent, don’t cha know?)…and a negro couple sitting behind me directed profanity in her direction for it…

        Here, my instincts were in conflict. I wanted to turn around and deck that negro for daring to publicly speak about a white woman that way, but on the other hand, she’s such a feminist harpy that I hoped (at least a little) that she’d get what she deserved at the hands of these monsters.

        I hate the devil for putting me in a position like that.

      • rogerunited says:

        Feminists want to be treated like men, let them take care of themselves, ya know, like men.

        I just read this and thought of this post, even more apropos to this comment.

  2. Yes, provocative but you’re probably right.

    Many Feminists are Malthusian and so their evil cult doesn’t care if a population doesn’t have enough children to sustain itself. The masculine will to control and mold one’s surroundings to one’s own desire only comes from the followers of Christ in European civilization.


  3. Fr. John+ says:

    As Christ said, ‘Let the dead bury the dead; you, follow me.’
    You could talk to the harpy in private, and probably have her turn on you- you two being ‘equal’ and all… or you could let the Nig have his say to her. Or you could pray for her, visibly and often. Sovereign Grace does work wonders!

  4. Hēlr Rok says:

    Id like to know where you find the scriptural justification (explicit or implicit) for beating ones wife for any reason (apart from committing a crime). Yeah, you may succeed in breaking the girl back into femininity, but can you honestly advocate that policy under the blessing of the Almighty.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      I’d rather risk Hell than bow knee to modernist sensibilities.

      • Hēlr Rok says:

        How informative. “Thanks”

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        It was just as informative as your exegetical case against wife-beating.

        Your question seemed to presuppose a modern, politically-correct ethic; then you feign incredulity at someone who rejects it.

        But why is the modern, PC ethic to be presupposed rather than the ethical norms of old Europe?

      • Hēlr Rok says:

        I was not making a case against wife-beating. I was simply asking for your reasoning in supporting it and “feigning incredulity” at your unwillingness to answer a simple question. I will admit that I am biased against the practice, but I am willing to hear you out if you will bother to speak.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Helr Rok”

      I was simply asking for your reasoning in supporting it and “feigning incredulity” at your unwillingness to answer a simple question

      You must have missed the blogpost at the top of the page. L.O.L…

      • Hēlr Rok says:

        Mr. Shotgun only justifies wife-beating on the basis of its outcome. The ends justify the means. Attainment of the desired results however, do not automatically moralize the actions used to achieve them, regardless of the intentions of the actor.

        Why do we physically discipline children? Because children, especially young children, do not know better. They are inexperienced at controlling their emotions and are still in the process of developing their mental faculties. It has been rare in my experience to encounter a child that you can successfully reason with about altering their behavior towards established authority. Thus we beat our young because physical pain is the only “reasoning” they will understand for a time. Assuming however, that I am correct in Mr. Shotgun’s use of the term “beat”, rarely do we thrash our children within an inch of their life. That is a last resort tactic we employ to give them a taste of what they will suffer if they continue down this path (reference the Mosaic law for the punishment of a disobedient young adult who has refused time after time to modify his behavior!)

        Marriages however, are quite different from a parent-child relationship. There is a hierarchy this is true. The husband is the head of the wife. He calls the shots, but this does not make the wife slave. She is admonished to serve with the attitude of one (just as a man is admonished to serve the LORD, which he is really bad at I must add) but that does not make her one. The marriage is a partnership and should be treated like one. The woman is not some juvenile delinquent that needs to be taught a lesson. She is an adult that is capable of thinking for herself and is capable of being reasoned with. She may be deluded and brainwashed by the culture and it will take time before she comes around, perhaps her whole life, but it is out of line to employ physical measures.

        Suppose the husband is the irresponsible and immature, deluded one. What would you suggest then? Is the wife then to beat the husband straight?

        The minute you give leeway for husbands to break out the whip on their wives, you open the door wide for domestic violence. What’s to stop a husband from cracking his woman’s brow open for simply expressing her opinion; NOT rebelling against his decision, but simply providing her own assessment of whatever issue is being discussed.

        Feel free to point out where I’m wrong. I’m certainly make no claims to perfect knowledge.

  5. shotgunwildatheart says:

    Looks like we have a modernist here, who is unable to think outside the bounds his government school placed him in.

    Good day to you sir, and may you find a blog that better represents your biases.

    • Hēlr Rok says:

      Fyi, i happen to homeschooled.

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        You and I have different worldviews, whatever the case.

        Who are you, the state, or some priest, to tell a man what he can and can’t do within the confines of his own family?

        You have no justification to say that he lacks authority there.

        If you can find a politically-correct way of curing feminism, then I bid ye all the luck in the world at implementing your cure.

    • Hēlr Rok says:

      I am far more interested in the Almighty’s way, regardless of the political standing, and that is what gives me, the priest, and the community the right to interfere…when a man transgresses His law. I have yet to receive convincing evidence that God teaches us to treat our lifetime mates like animals. I was always under the assumption that’s what separated us from them. It has to stop somewhere. Where does the husband’s authority end? Does he have the right to kill his wife for disobedience? Are Christians to start taking lessons from radical Islam now?

  6. civil rights apostate says:

    Paul told husbands not to be harsh with their wives. I believe in child spanking all right, but wife spanking has no Biblical mandate, unless she was committing adultery or something like that.

  7. Elle says:

    Wow. I suppose you would claim that I am one of those “neo-feminists” who stands united with conservative men against the institution of feminism, while also voicing her opinion (especially in her household). Yet I do not swear and I certainly do not pick fights in public. At 23 years-old, I am a college graduate so, of course, I must face the inevitable beatings of my future husband.

    Forgive me for believing that my education would be a boon to my future husband and children. Forgive me for doing my best to better myself for my children’s upbringing. Conservative Christians have been the champions of education and learning for centuries; not every educated woman is a nightmare for her husband. While many women know that they do not match male strength and hierarchal ranking, their passions are equal. In other words, they care just as deeply for the current struggles and future trials that await their families. Can you really begrudge women the right to voice their concerns? Opinions in favor of violent submission will only alienate conservative women.

    P.S. It is statistically true that women who are college graduates marry later in life. However, in my personal experience, several of my friends (as well as multiple acquaintances) have gotten married during their undergraduate years. Conservative women, who are educated, only hold back from marriage when there are no suiters who match their standards. For myself, my standards are basic: he must be a stable, moral, God-fearing Christian who can exercise fidelity and leadership in the marriage. It’s unfortunate how few men meet that requirement.

  8. Takeaguess says:

    How convenient. A theory that can never be tested.

    • Here’s a thought for you … (and I am just *taking a guess* here…)

      I bet you’d enjoy being corrected by your husband. You might even daydream about that sort of thing.

      At any-rate, if a neo-feminist scorns correction and refuses to submit …then no man worth his salt would have anything to do with her in the first place.

  9. Elle says:

    Tones of sadism will never be present in a Christian marriage. My parents have a marriage that sits on the shoulders of those that are marred with emotional disfunction. Communication – verbal – is key. If a woman fears her husband (i.e. beatings), she will never truly be comfortable with him. Communication will suffer. I do not believe that you desire a marriage that is a farce – which is what an abusive marriage is.

    Whether you are a man who has had his heart broken or a man with little experience, I hope that you re-evaluate your feelings. You write well and I am in agreement with much of what you say. I have to wonder about the company of conservative women you find yourself in contact with. Either they are incredibly coarse and you have reached your wits end on how to appeal to their delicate sensibilities. Or, perhaps assertive women are too intimidating?

  10. Elle says:

    Does an “outspoken” woman deserve to be beaten by her husband? Just as the pen has its advantages to the sword, words would suffice instead. By the way, what, specifically, is a beating? Punches to the upper body or spankings to the lower? Can’t adults communicate better than that?

    The movie, “The Long Hot Summer,” comes to mind. Regardless of its theme, the two relationships between Jody and his wife Eula and Jody’s sister Clara and Ben Quick are portrayed at opposite ends in the beginning. Jody is “weak,” and is not a leader even though he has a compliant wife. On the other hand, Ben Quick is an arrogant and ambitious man who sees Clara as the means to satisfy his baser needs. His uncaring feelings are obvious to her.

    Long story short, by the end of the movie the characters have reached a balance. Jody finds his confidence, and is the “man of the house” again. And Ben Quick acknowledges that Clara has more to contribute to a union (while still being a traditional woman).

    Of course there’s more to the movie than that, but I appreciated the balance that was found through communication and character growth. There were many times Ben’s character could have beaten Clara for “sassing” him, but it would not have made for a healthy conclusion.

  11. Elle says:

    I’d like to add one more thought. In response to:

    “Let’s take a step back for a moment to see how tragic this situation really is. When I direct my ire at “the feminist”, modern women will likely read it and cheer along….They don’t realize that they, themselves, are likely feminists.”

    Assumptions are tricky things. It’s too easy to catastrophize about the state of male-female relations. I have never understood that defeatist attitude that will rear its ugly head from time to time.

    • I can’t have you running slip-shod around my blog, interpreting everything I say in the worst possible light.

      I’m sorry Elle, but you either need to loosen up a bit, or carry your business elsewhere.

      • Elle says:

        I’m sorry it’s coming across that way. You write very well, obviously from your heart, and I’m glad I came across your blog. As I’ve said before, this particular post struck me, to use Fr. John’s own term, as “extreme.” I wanted to dig deeper to get a more precise definition. Perhaps you meant it to make a point and I took it too literally.

  12. Fr. John+ says:

    What Elle and that HellrRock dude both miss, is that Patriarchy – not equality- is the biblical norm. Sarah called Abraham her LORD. In the LXX, I believe the word is the same as for God- KYRIOS. Of course, Shotgun, the same obedience mantra applies to a Layman and a Priest/Bishop…”All of you must be willing to obey completely those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So when you oppose the authorities, you are opposing those whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.” [ Rom. 13:1-2] But we won’t go there in this post! LOL

    Islam (for the record) is merely the perverted form of Biblical headship. But Modern Evan-jelly-goo “Xtianity’ is the ANTITHESIS of that worldview. So, which is ‘closer’? Which is (or should be) more ‘typical’ of a Bible-believing Xtian in satanic America? And why do modern synagogues of Satan, have people dress like whores and sluts, or slobs and auto mechanics, listening to rock concert noise, rather than the Psalms of God, and attired as befits visiting a King? What is WRONG with American Xtians, IOW?

    And which needs to be repented of, before God will shine His face on us, for DENYING THE ROLES WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN? As Priest/Lay, Christian/Atheist, men/women, straight/gay, white/black, adult/child, European/Pagan? (all of which pairs I have noted, have a hierarchical contrast inherent in them, for assessing the Biblical Worldview) Believe it or not, the Muslim/Near east view IS closer to the Biblical one- both geographically, as well as sexually- role wise, that is. I mean, when was the last time you saw a woman with her head covered in an Evangelical Church? (Granted, burqua’s are over the top… but…)

    And that’s what gets these types’ panties all in a twist. KNOWING (as they do, because they are ‘homeschooled’ or ‘Christian college grads’) that YHWH God’s Law states, that women are to a) SUBMIT and b) OBEY, they blather on as if they were a White man’s equal… when they are not!

    “For Eve disobeyed FIRST.” St. Paul lays the crime squarely at the mensturous feet of the female, and the reference to ‘bloody rags’ in Is 64:6 is that of a female uncleanness, so heinous was the disobedience on woman’s part, that a prophet of God had to use that analogy. Granted, Men are sinners too, but ‘EVE DISOBEYED FIRST.’

    So, your analogy of ‘wife beating’- while extreme, has a concomitant clause in the marriage covenant, which we agreed my wife would submit to, when we were married, almost a quarter century ago. ‘To love, honor, and OBEY.’

    That one phrase, stricken and hated by the Feminazi’s and the Girly-men out there today, is the first line of defense a Christian White Man has, to keep his wife ‘in submission’ in a godly fashion.

    If neither “Elle” [She who must be obeyed- the Burrough’s reference is apt!] or Rocker aren’t willing to go there, you don’t need to waste time talking to them. Their minds are closed, and they are pnevma-los.

    • To your first paragraph,

      There are conceptions of ecclesiology where I’d gladly submit to the authority of a bishop. At any-rate, I’m in full agreement with you here.

      The the second paragraph,

      “Evangelly goo” … HA! I like that. And I think what you suggest is exactly what we need to do – look at the whims of the modern world and compare them to ancient whims, then decide which we’ll accept. (There is no question which).

      Third paragraph,

      I’ve often enraged zealous neo-cons by suggesting that what’s wrong with Islam isn’t its “politically incorrect” aspects (although, their culture is manifested in twisted ways), rather, it’s the ridiculous theology we should be critiquing. On another quick note – really conservative Presbyterians, especially those who practice a strict Regulative Principle, are having their women wear head coverings in service again. It’s a small but growing contingent.


      Totally agree… and to the feminist who reads that and takes it in the worst possible light, it bears repeating that “not being equal” to men (in a hierarchical sense) is nothing to cry about. As a matter of fact, it affords far more dignity and honor to you as women than you’d get in an egalitarian society.

      As to the rest … amen and amen..

    • Elle says:

      To Fr. John:

      “Patriarchy – not equality- is the biblical norm.”
      – I agree and accept this as truth.

      “Islam (for the record) is merely the perverted form of Biblical headship. But Modern Evan-jelly-goo “Xtianity’ is the ANTITHESIS of that worldview.”
      – Personally, I have observed that Christian men treat their wives much better than Muslims (especially in regard to fidelity and companionship). I understand your point though.

      “So, your analogy of ‘wife beating’- while extreme, has a concomitant clause in the marriage covenant, which we agreed my wife would submit to, when we were married, almost a quarter century ago. ‘To love, honor, and OBEY.’”
      – Again, I agree. Any frustration/confusion voiced in my previous posts is from the use of the word “beating.”

  13. Fr. John+ says:

    Seems Makow is on a Patriarchy kick recently, too.

  14. private says:

    Shotgun, you are a deeply disturbed person. Maybe, if you hear this enough from enough people, you might consider getting help. Please, do get help.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s