On Punching Women

Many women deserve to be punched, and do not get punched, but punching a woman indicates loss of control and weakness. You should avoid getting into fights except where you can bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and you should always be able to bring overwhelming supremacy to bear on a woman. If you have overwhelming supremacy, you can pin the opponent, and either put a painful submission hold on them, or whack him part of the body where it is safe to do so without likelihood of causing injury.

I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.

Part of being able to control what kind of fights you get into is to be well prepared for a terrible, destructive, and uncontrolled fight where you cannot bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and I am always prepared for such a fight. I am trained in unarmed combat, and when going into an unpredictable situation carry the most dangerous concealed weapon legally permitted, but the reason to be prepared for such a fight is not to get into such a fight and win, but to be able to better get out of such a fight by offering your opponent a safer path, offering your opponent a dignified way out of such a fight. One prepares for such a fight in order to better obtain your opponents cooperation in staying out of such fights, not to fight and win them, for even if you win, seldom profitable. Even if you win, you lose. Having the potential to do your adversary great harm is often profitable. Actually exercising that potential is rarely profitable.

Jesus said “resist not evil”, but we cannot take this literally, because if evil smells that you are a soft target, evil will be on to you like a dingo on a baby. We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion, and pointing at our inability to attain salvation by personal virtue in a fallen world. Literal application of the Sermon on the Mount would be suicidal in a fallen world. We apply it by always being willing to do what it takes to find the path that does not involve terrible and destructive combat. But it takes two to make peace, only one to make war, and to find the peaceful path requires the ability to dissuade your opponent from the path of combat.

White knights are evil men – a man who white knights another man’s woman is a man who will spread hateful lies about his friend behind his friend’s back to sow discord and anger between friends. A man who white knights another man’s woman also engages in every kind of depraved and cowardly evil.  When you punch a woman, no matter how much she deserves it, you show weakness and loss of frame, and weakness attracts evil. Deal with a misbehaving woman with firmness and strength, you will have no problems. Deal with her from weakness, white knights will materialize like flies on rotting meat.

38 Responses to “On Punching Women”

  1. […] On Punching Women […]

  2. Koanic says:

    > Jesus said “resist not evil”,

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation

    > We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion

    No, it dampens the culture of honor dueling by submitting the aggressor’s personal insults to the community for judgment, instead of personally enforcing one’s own justice, which renders murky who’s at fault.

    • peppermint says:

      ((Jesus)) was a gommie, and the destruction of personal honor in favor of ((community judgement)) is an early form of gommieism, like forbidding men from seeing whores instead of stuffing whores into convents.

      • Koanic says:

        It does not destroy personal honor. King David had plenty of honor, but he did not revenge personal insults. Those were avenged by God and his son. He revenged insults against his ambassadors, for example, with genocide.

        Idiots in bars fight on their own account, each being right in his own eyes. This is not honor.

        • jay says:

          He revenged insults against his ambassadors, for example, with genocide.

          What’s the evidence for that? Remember that he spares the innocent.

          Genocide only occurs because there is no better alternative as in the Amalekites and Canaanites that were likely polluted with DNA that the Nephillim were in possession of(explaining the existence of Raphites or giants in Canaan).

          Likewise it didn’t ever apply to any other people of which the kill order only targeted the males.

          • Koanic says:

            In the case of Naboth, David intended only the males, but those were Israelites. In the case of the Ammonites, he killed everyone he found in the towns, due to the insult to the ambassadors.

            > genocide only occurs because there is no better alternative

            False. Your “war crimes” notion of morality doesn’t exist in the Old Testament. Achan son of Zerah sinned, and his little girls paid the price.

            • jay says:

              ”False. Your “war crimes” notion of morality doesn’t exist in the Old Testament. Achan son of Zerah sinned, and his little girls paid the price.”

              Its called preventing spiritual contamination. Therefore cities were put under Herem and everything in it was to be destroyed:
              http://www.tektonics.org/af/achanbrachan.php

              Its not the normative rule of war

              ”In the case of the Ammonites, he killed everyone he found in the towns, due to the insult to the ambassadors.”

              Citation please.

              • Koanic says:

                > Citation please.

                No. If you don’t know where in the Bible that is, you shouldn’t be discussing it.

                • jay says:

                  Exactly there is no such passage in the bible the Ammonites were put to forced labor after Joab captures the capital city they retreated to (2 Samuel 10) Earlier they defeated their allies.

                  In regards to the Midianites all males and guilty females were killed and the virgin women and girls were distributed as part of the spoils of war.

                • jay says:

                  Actually its (1 Chronicles 20).

                • Koanic says:

                  You’re wrong, and using a garbage translation. I’ve already had this debate with another Churchian, and am not interested in repeating it. The KJV version is correct – the city dwellers were killed. It is the same as when Gideon taught the men of Succoth with thorns and briars of the wilderness. Don’t ask a cute question if you want to make a point, just spit it out.

                  In fact, I’ve done this much more extensively, and completely won, at Vox Populi, with much smarter churchians than you. Nothing hinges on the Ammonite example.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  at 14:13

                  I am sick and tired of Churchian scum using bad translations. That is why I bought both a Hebrew Bible and a Vulgate, nearly thirty years ago.

                  People should learn Biblical Languages, like Hebrew and Latin or shut the f… up.

                  Otherwise I will call every cleric of their heretical movement a SEITHMADHR.

                • peppermint says:

                  KJV is Divinely inspired and has the King’s authority, based on texts no one has access to. You can’t do better than that, even if you read the languages of the child mutilators, the child fuckers, or the empire that devoured its nation.

                • jim says:

                  You can tell a tree by its fruit.

                • jay says:

                  ”The KJV version is correct – the city dwellers were killed. ”

                  With Pickaxes, Saws and Axes are work tools never is it used in battle in the OT in every other case in battle since they had more efficient and better weapons like swords, spears and javelins.

                  The cities of Canaan were put to the sword as are the Amalekites. Since they were under Herem. There is no use of work tools to kill them. Plus the Ammonites were still alive to pay tribute.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are dumb. Special executions for special insults. Killing everyone in cities != killing everyone. Your slave labor scenario makes zero sense.

                • jay says:

                  I will retract my earlier comment.

                  ”In fact, I’ve done this much more extensively, and completely won, at Vox Populi, with much smarter churchians than you. Nothing hinges on the Ammonite example.”

                  What article?

                • Koanic says:

                  Good man. You should learn advanced Googling:

                  site:voxday.blogspot.com ammonite koanic

                • Koanic says:

                  Oog en Hand, you should’ve spent less time learning dead languages and more time reading the Bible, because making a false accusations of witchcraft is not something anyone holy in the Bible would do.

                  Your quotes elsewhere reveal your true nature:

                  https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/faith-of-the-future-6/
                  > Jesus was a demon-possessed sorceror.
                  > male witch (seithmadhr)
                  > Jesus was a seithmadhr.

                • jay says:

                  Was there any Ammonites left alive after the reprisal?

                  Because this genocide as you state is systematic
                  ”That is how David dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns. ”

                • jay says:

                  However if the genocide was really done. Then there would be no Ammonites in the future which the biblical narrative rejects.

            • jay says:

              ”False. Your “war crimes” notion of morality doesn’t exist in the Old Testament. Achan son of Zerah sinned, and his little girls paid the price.”

              As I linked Achan was under Herem(the ban) due to him taking some of the spoil for himself rather than devoting it to God.

              Therefore he and everyone belonging to him is devoted to destruction.

        • peppermint says:

          Right, you just have to be the homosexual and insult low class men for having honor, because it’s so much better to ask the bartender to kick you and the guy who insulted you out than it is to formally smack him.

          The destruction of honor makes women go for the men who have honor, who are lower class than the men you insult, which is why you do it.

          • Koanic says:

            You are incoherent.

            Here is an example of a man who fights in bars, who has honor:

            http://wpri.com/2017/10/26/web-extra-extended-interview-with-cj-nordstrom/

            He is willing to make peace with an obnoxious twerp by shaking hands, and doesn’t attack until the other guy shoves him to kick it off. As a result, the police force watches his house to prevent Hell’s Angels retaliation.

            “Turn the other cheek” is an invitation to brawl as equals, rather than throwing the first punch. The man with honor is not the one throwing the first punch because he feels “disrespected”. That is the nigger thing to do.

  3. saltymint says:

    “Those who have swords and know how to use them but keep them sheathed.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWYrAU5mmXE?t=7m40s

    7:40 to 8:50

    • Glenfilthie says:

      I thought I read a passage in either John or Luke, where the disciples are taking inventory and find they only have two swords among them – and Jesus says ‘it’s enough’…

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    In some places Laying a hand to some cunned stunt will get you sued for assault, a la Juan Ghomeshi. I have seen falsely accused of it and put through the wringer too.
    I advise you truly – if you have an unstable cunned stunt on your hands- dump it and walk away.

  5. Rape says:

    Happy Valentine’s day Jim.

  6. Alrenous says:

    “Upon the whole of this passage, from Matthew 5:38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life.”

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-38.htm

    “Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind.”

    If we are to assume there hasn’t simply been some error, then it would appear to be an overly forceful way of saying not to unnecessarily escalate.

    “As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this.”

    Which bad habit, I think we must agree, is an incredibly Jewish thing to do.

    It may also be an early attempt at social engineering, unfortunately designed such as to scupper itself even if it’s possible.
    Normally, having to bear a slap on the face is a sign of low status. But, if instead, one can retaliate but one does not, it’s a sign of high status, much as a parent does not retaliate against the feeble slaps of their toddler. The slapper is revealed as petty and lacking in self-control, or at least as willingly acting as if they are.

    “Meek” in the original means someone who has a sword but keeps it sheathed. Has the capacity for violence but manages not to use it. Realize that escalation has no end; choosing to return the insult is tantamount to choosing to draw your gun and fire it. Visualize it vividly, and the desire to retaliate will fade.

    Here’s the scupper: it’s stated as a new rule. Instead of being about a choice, it’s a new non-choice, which makes everyone who adheres to it act as if they’re low status.

    Alternatively, either Jesus or his ghostwriter is not, in fact, infallible, and this whole thing is just sort of a bad idea.

    Finally there’s the Alan Watts theory that this is about being passive aggressive. I once freaked the hell out of my neighbours by cleaning. Specifically I cleared the sidewalks of branches after a bad storm. Similarly, if you’re obliged to carry a government message one mile, but instead insist on carrying it two.

  7. R7 Rocket says:

    This is the Best Valentine’s Day Advice!

  8. Torben Undiwill says:

    “I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.”
    Cool story, bro.

  9. Alf says:

    Incidentally I punched my woman recently for the first time since we’ve been together. It had all the predictable consequences: she stopped making drama and apologised.

    I am very lucky to have my woman and consider her 1 in a million, but even she needs male violence every blue moon. Awalt.

    • yewotm8 says:

      I always thought that women should never be struck with a closed fist and never be struck in the face. My mother would tell me “never hit women” but I realized that surely there were some exceptions. I think the ideal is to pin her down and give her firm slaps on the ass. That will make her feel the most submissive.

  10. On a more abstract note I am not that sure the loss of control and frame implies weakness. I see people getting enraged and shouting the hair off someone (usually of lower rank) who promptly gets intimidated and submits. We even fake anger to kids to scare them and teach a lesson. Always being in control of your behavior with regard to someone, I am not sure that suggests higher status. Higher status people can afford to lose their shit and get really mad at an underling. Faking anger is reinforcing higher status. Fake tantrums are the classic way for a princess to scare and control servants. Now for men tantrums are not such a good idea, but masculine chimpouts clearly exist. Not saying punches are a good idea but e.g. on the verbal level if you lose control, and yell expletives and she gets scared, who is the boss? Why would that be a weakness?

    • jim says:

      pedestalization.

      If there is no doubt about relative status, no problem. If it is in doubt, have to keep control and hold frame.

  11. […] opened the week with a special romantic Valentine’s Day reflection on punching women. That’s pretty provocative, so I’ll let Jim explain […]

Leave a Reply