Monday, May 16, 2016

"Real Men support Donald Trump!"

My first article for The Stream was posted yesterday.  ("The Spiritual Dangers of a Trump Presidency.")  (Later note: 5000 Facebook shares so far!)  Someone calling himself The Bechtloff, showing a picture of a hand with a gun, responded (typically for a Trump supporter) by questioning my masculity:

"Trump called a woman a bimbo so you should instead allow a woman who has covered up for her husband's rapes to become President. Because those are the two choices whether you like them or not.

"I'm guessing David never served in the military, or even just worked construction, anything where he was around real men and exposed to locker room talk or he wouldn't be clutching his pearls like a little old church lady. I'm not electing a pastor I'm electing a President. 

"You're concerned about how the outside world sees the church? Well maybe if there was a bit of masculinity, of the kind Trump represents (at least in a raw unsanctified form) then maybe young men wouldn't be avoiding the church like the plague. 

"But I'm likely wasting my keystrokes here. David is clearly yet another low-T male that makes up the so called leadership of the increasingly feminized Evangelical culture."

Here's my response: 

On the contrary, Bechtloff, my father was a General Contractor and I grew up in construction. He was also a "real man" who never felt the need to curse, deride others, sabatoge former employees, sleep with other mens' wives, promise to torture enemies and kill civilians (he served in the army), or throw hissy fits whenever someone asked him a tough question. He was a real man, a gentleman, a man of truth and honor, whom I found reading the Bible with his wife every morning at six, and who lived out that Gospel by loving all those around him.
And yes, I have been around locker-room morality and worse.  I fought against forced prostitution in Snake Alley in Taiwan, where men thought a lot like Donald Trump, and girls were kept in virtual cages to service forty men a day.  
The greatest presidents, who won independence, kept the Union together, defeated the Nazis and the Communists, were also gentlemen, men of character not megalomaniacs who feel the need to brag about themselves all the time, who never stooped to Trump's sub-juvenile tactics and were not so full of themselves.  
I do not see Donald Trump as a strong man, Bechtloff. I see him as a coward and weakling, who bullies, lies, sleeps around, roars, and thumps the table because he hasn't got a clue what it means to be a real man -- yes, like Jesus Christ, the greatest and strongest man who ever lived. Please do read The Trump Bible:Why no Christian Should Vote for Donald Trump (or better yet, the original, which also has a lot to say about selfish, megalomanical "leaders" like Donald Trump), and rethink your approach to true masculinity, sir.


M.S. said...

"where men thought a lot like Donald Trump, and girls were kept in virtual cages to service forty men a day."

Because forcing women into prostitution is CLEARLY something Trump is in favor of, right David?

Couple quick things:

1. Lincoln and FDR were both horrible presidents with horrible character. Only horrible people drag their countries into unjustified wars in which hundreds of thousands or millions die. For the same reason Wilson was horrible.
2. Modern-day Western Christianity DOES have a feminization problem. If you want proof of this, read the books "The Church Impotent" by Leon Podles (1999) or "Why Men Hate Going To Church" by David Murrow. (2005/2011). The average Sunday worship service in a Church in America is 61% female and the men there are more feminine than average. The Bechtloff is totally right about this point.
3. No "coward" would ever call for a ban on Muslim immigration or bring up Bill's rapes and accuse Hillary of being an enabler.

I've been trying to figure out why so many Evangelical (and also some Catholic) leaders detest Trump and the reasons they give don't add up to me. So I think it's largely because of two things:

-Trump will not let Israeli interests dominate U.S. foreign policy and this is unacceptable to the average passionately/irrationaly pro-Israel Evangelical leader.
-Feminization of Christianity in the West says that men are supposed to be "nice guys", meaning no Alphas like Trump allowed. I mean look at you David, you're whining and moaning about Trump calling people "liar" or "crazy", just like a woman would. Pathetic. If a person is a liar, you call them a liar. It's that simple. And Ted Cruz lies like a rug.

Luckily, the average GOP voter sees more sensibly than cuckservatives like yourself, and has chosen to leave your "Trump Bible" unread (zero reviews on Amazon LOL) and Lyin' Ted in the dust.

David B Marshall said...

Yes, MS, Trump thinks exactly like those men: use women for sex, then ditch them. The only differences are that he is rich and they are poor, and he seems to have much less shame about his philosophy than some of the men hovering in dark allies.

Whether or not Trump has directly forced women into prostitution, I don't know. His ties to the mob seem unusually tight.

Are you actually saying the Civil War and World War II were the fault of Lincoln and FDR, respectively?

I don't deny that modern Christianity is too feminine. But Donald Trump is not my model of a "real man." He's the polar opposite, in fact.

I don't see that Trump's habit of shooting from the hip or verbally attacking his enemies makes him less of a coward. His cowardice consists in his unwillingness to face his own lies, sins, and the absurdity of his self-worship, and also of course running away from Megyn Kelly.

My article explains some of the reasons why I detest Donald Trump. (A second article will give more.) It would be more charitable and fair for you to listen to the reasons we actually give, and suppose for the moment that we might be sincere.

And Trump does more whining than any ten women I know. "The GOP has not been fair to me! Megyn Kelly was not nice! My subordinate wouldn't use her connection to that bank on my behalf,so I'm so happy she got divorced and I'll do my best to keep her from getting another job!" Vampy, catty, yellow-haired little bitch.

Since Trump supporters spend all their time calling far better men "losers" because among their brilliant accomplishments, they lost a presidential election, you might as well carve that word on Trump's gravestone, right now.

David B Marshall said...

You seem to have a sadly weak concept of what a real man looks like, MS.

Let me list a few I admire. These men are not all talk and bombast. Read up on their lives, and compare those lives to that of Donald Trump:

Ronald Reagan

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Paul Brand

William Wilberforce

Richard Wurmbrand

John Wesley

Teddy Roosevelt

Blaise Pascal

Matteo Ricci

Louis Zamperini

James Legge

Johannes Kepler

Don Richardson

King Alfred

Charles Colson

John Adams

Yes, Abraham Lincoln

St. Paul

Jesus Christ

I'm not nearly so impressed by the likes of Mohammed, or Alexander the Great, or Napoleon, though their claims to genuine masculinity would seem to put that of D Trump deeply into shadow, if that's your type.

M.S. said...

David: in modern-day ultra-PC America, where any deviation from "all religions are equal" is considered heresy, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration is brave. Calling out the Clintons on their body count and Bill's rapes is also brave. So whatever you want to say about Trump, he is no coward.

Verbally attacking people is in some situations morally proper. As long as the attacks are truthful. Call a spade a spade. Saint John The Baptist called the Jewish authorities a "brood of vipers", didn't he?

"Are you actually saying the Civil War and World War II were the fault of Lincoln and FDR, respectively?"

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with that has either swallowed too much toxic public school propaganda or was raised REALLY far North. For Lincoln's crimes, see "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo (2002); for FDR's crimes, see "Day Of Deceit" by Robert Stinett (1999) or for a more abbreviated version: "Rethinking The Good War" by Laurence Vance (entire text can be found on Not only did FDR know Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, his administration provoked Japan into attacking.

I voted for Trump in my state's primary for the following reasons:
-I want illegal immigrants deported and restrictions on legal immigration; nobody likes an Anti-White.
-Globalization (free trade agreements and H1-B abuse) is bad for the native-born American middle class and it needs to stop
-American foreign policy has recently caused us to fight wars that deeply harm America's well-being; we should not attempt to "democratize" the Middle East
-I understand that manmade global warming is a hoax
-Islam and feminism are both simply evil and need to be fought against
-even though I'm more Pro-Life than Trump, I think that he'd be a more effective fighter against abortion than Ted Cruz could be.

In short, I seem him as someone who could deliver good results if he were President on the issues that matter. Because of that, I really don't care if he makes a menstrual remark about Megyn Kelly. I don't care if he says things like "part of my beauty is that I'm very rich". I don't care that his first 2 marriages failed. That's his problem, not mine. I simply do not care. No one does.

David B Marshall said...

Brave? What did Trump risk? Criticism? He likes to be criticized -- it puts him and his schtick front-and-center. He's a self-promoter, and demagoguery is what he sells.

Islam is pernicious: I agree about that. But banning all Muslims is just a stupid promise, which he knows full well he neither can nor would implement. What, all Kurds? That's why it's demogoguery.

Dilorenzo doesn't seem to get very good reviews as to his scholarship, even from scholars who agree with some of his criticisms of Lincoln:

Trump, an "effective fighter against abortion?" How many abortions do you suppose all the women whom he brags about having affairs with, have had?

Lots of us do care, and care deeply, about the fact that millions of Americans are prepared to put nuclear weapons in the hands of a man who sulks, lies, cheats, damns, hates, and justifies bribing politicians for his own purposes, killing the innocent, and puts himself in the place of God. You won't succeed, but I'm deeply saddened that so many people seem to care so little about the moral character of those you choose to lead the country.

M.S. said...

" a man who sulks, lies, cheats, damns, hates, and justifies bribing politicians for his own purposes, killing the innocent, and puts himself in the place of God."

That's quite an accurate description of Abraham Lincoln. Who you claim to admire. Who you listed as a "real man". So we know that everything you're claiming about "moral character being important" is a ridiculous joke and only confirms my suspicious that the #NeverTrump crowd, not just you but also cucks like Matt Walsh and Wintery Knight, detests him for some other reason. American Evangelical Christianity is run by clueless low-T chumps who let women and leftists set the rules for them. No wonder so few masculine men want anything to do with it.

David B Marshall said...

I've already pointed out that your source for Lincoln is accused, even by scholars who dislike Lincoln, of taking facts out of context and getting many just wrong. So your weird attack on a great man is not only off-topic and irrational (if you don't like people who commit those sins, why support Trump?) it appears to be based on some dubious history.

Lincoln had how many wives?

Did he brag about his affairs with married women?

Did he run casinos and strip joints?

Did he praise the virtue of getting revenge? (Quote?)

Did he praise the virtue of killing civilians? (Quote? Though of course, in every war some are killed.)

Was every one of his public statements so laced with lies that even fact-checkers had to throw up their hands and say, "We can't count them all?"

Did Lincoln brag not only about firing a subordinate who wouldn't make a bank contact for him, but brag about keeping her from getting another job, and rejoice that her husband ran off on her?

I wouldn't step on Donald Trump in the street, for fear of getting my shoes dirty.

Yeah, I only despise him because I'm so enamored with leftism and feminism. You evidently have all the critical thinking skills, and research talent, of your captain. I've been fighting the left since I was 15 years old, and wrote my second published piece, denouncing Chairman Mao. (Also a "real man" who slept around and thought his personal cult of personality was better than the evil "establishment", offing millions along the way.)

That's called ad hominem. The facts are what they are, and Donald Trump is a low-life, and a horse's ass' idea of masculinity.

M.S. said...

You've never read Thomas DiLorenzo's book on Lincoln. You have no bloody clue whether what DiLorenzo says is wrong, mostly right, or right on the money. And by the way, as someone who owns a paper copy of the book, it's right on the money. By the way, since you accuse Donald Trump of wanting to wage war on civilians, Chapter 7 of the book is all about Lincoln and the North's wars against Southern non-combatants, regardless of if they owned slaves. Bottom line? Read the book for yourself; you'll see how Lincoln is guilty of many of the things you attack Trump for.

You may not be a leftist or a feminist but you are most definitely a neocon and a cuckservative. Which is almost as bad. If you don't know what a "cuckservative" is, read the book of the same name written by Vox Day and John Red Eagle last year.

Regarding "Trump's moral character": all humans are morally flawed, including you and I. Has Trump made some bad mistakes in his past? Most definitely. So have you. I voted for Trump because I agree with the large majority of the policies he's advocating, and especially because he's the first GOP candidate in a long time who can reverse the Third World Invasion of America that's been happening since 1965. It's sad that you're incapable of seeing past a couple of "mean, cruel" (read: totally accurate) words that Trump said, or the failure of his marriage, in order to get at the merit of his policy ideas.

David B Marshall said...

MS: Why should I believe you, over professional scholars who are open to Dilorenzo's argument, yet find it faulty? I have no prima facia reason to find it credible enough to bother reading. And I don't see that anything I say about Donald Trump requires that I read revisionist confederate histories to continue maintaining it.

I have read one of Vox Day's books. They're entertaining, and get some things right, but he has his limits as a thinker:

No, Trump's slimes are not "totally accurate." In fact, the man is an endless and compulsive liar, as I show in The Trump Bible. As, of course, is H Clinton. America is in deep trouble, either way.

M.S. said...

Don't give me that. You just dislike the idea of Lincoln as tyrant and villain, so you search around for a couple of sentences written by two-bit hacks opposing DiLorenzo, and then act like this is "proof" that TRL is not credible. How would you like it if I did the same to you? "Some scholars and historians (Clyde Wilson, Walter Williams, etc.) think DiLorenzo is right therefore he is right and you are wrong, checkmate Marshall." You know whose words DiLorenzo quotes throughout his book? Lincoln's own words. And if you won't listen to DiLorenzo, surely you'll listen to the man you call great:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Lincoln-Douglas Debate on September 18, 1858 in Charleston, Illinois)

"Vox Day has his limits as a thinker"

What type of idiotic argument is this? "I can refute Cuckservative because I noticed some flaws in The Irrational Atheist"? No wonder no one read your Trump Bible if that's the level of skill you possess.

Of course Trump's slimes are accurate. He called Ted Cruz a liar because he is a liar. He called Rosie O'Donnell a fat disgusting slob because that's exactly what she is. He called Bernie Sanders crazy because the old man clearly has a few screws loose. It's completely ridiculous to claim those three criticisms are inaccurate.