Similar posts

Nathan Larson #fundie sfgate.com

He's pro-incest, pedophilia, and rape. He's also running for Congress from his parents' house.

Nathan Larson lives with his parents, and spends most of his waking hours on the Internet in between intermittent work as an accountant. And it's mostly there that he's developed some views that put him on the extreme fringes of society.

He believes in instituting a patriarchal system, with women under the authority of men; he supports abolishing age restrictions for marriage and laws against marital rape; he believes that white supremacy is a "system that works," that Hitler was a "good thing for Germany," and that incest should be legalized, at least in the context of marriage. And at one point in a conversation with The Post, he seemed to express admiration for the system run by the Taliban in Afghanistan, noting that the country's birthrate fell as a consequence of increased opportunities for women after the United States' more than decade-long intervention.

But Larson, 37, is hoping to take his views toward the mainstream by mounting a campaign for a congressional seat in Virginia, running as a Libertarian for the state's 10th district, a swath of land across three counties in northern Virginia outside the Washington suburbs. The seat is currently held by Republican Barbara Comstock, but has attracted strong Democratic interest; Hillary Clinton won the district by 10 percentage points in 2016.

Larson's campaign, which is his latest run after failed campaigns for Virginia's governorship and state legislature, has drawn attention for Larson's unabashedly extreme views. The HuffPost reported this week that Larson had created two websites that catered to the furthest fringes of the Internet: suiped.org and incelocalpse.today, information that Larson confirmed in an interview with The Post.

Both websites have since been removed by their domain hosts. Suiped or Suicidal Pedophiles, was a site and self-described organization created to lobby for pedophiles and other convicted or potential sex offenders to be able to kill themselves at clinics legally, according to cached images.

According to a cached image, Incelocalypse was created to "serve as both headquarters and casual hangout for the hardest core of the hardcore incels," the small but vocal community of "involuntary celibates" online who rage against feminism and a system of female empowerment that has deprived them of sexual gratification, an Internet subculture that has begun to draw some attention by mainstream media outlets.

Larson said he considers himself to be part of the "incel movement" and said his views took a turn for the more extreme after an acrimonious divorce. In 2015, his former wife was granted a restraining order against him after Larson returned to Virginia, where he grew up, from Colorado. And though his ex-wife later committed suicide, a custody battle unfolded for a child of his that she gave birth to after they split up, according to local media accounts. The El Paso County Attorney at the time, Robert Kern, argued successfully that Larson would not be a fit parent, according to the Colorado Springs Independent. Larson said he has only met his daughter once, during a supervised visit with a social worker.

Larson also has a criminal record. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to threatening to kill the U.S. president, for which he served 16 months in federal prison and three years of supervision upon his release. In a previous interview with The Post, he called a letter he sent to the Secret Service in 2008 warning of imminent plans to assassinate either President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama, an act of civil disobedience meant to call attention to the tyranny of the U.S. government. He also has a couple of misdemeanor convictions: One for the "use of computer for harassment," which Larson says was related to a lewd email he sent a woman while he was in college, and two others that pertain to marijuana possession.

Some conservatives have used Larson's candidacy to attack Virginia's voting laws, after Gov. Terry McAuliffe, D, restored voting and other civil rights to thousands of convicted felons across the state, including Larson.

Larson filed the initial paperwork with the Virginia Board of Elections to certify his latest candidacy in May. He said that he has also submitted the 1,000 signatures of potential voters required to run for Congress in Virginia. He said the goal of his candidacy was to try to "build a movement" and wasn't too worried about whether his message would resonate with voters.

"Build the morale among the incels help get them focused and get some traction," he said.

According to Larson, he never interacts in person with people from the forums that he built online.

He said he voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2016 presidential election, though he supports some of the cultural changes that President Donald Trump has wrought.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

(Nathan Larson is a candidate for Virginia state delegate who previously made waves for his stances in favor of legalizing pedophilia, incest and child porn. He has since drastically updated his campaign website and focus. His new signature issue is making assisted suicide available to all, including moody teenagers).

What effect would legalizing pentobarbital for suicide have on rates of recreational use?

If the pentobarbital were to be administered by a suicide clinic, this would likely be a non-issue, since they would only be administering lethal doses.

But even if it were made available over-the-counter, I don't think there would be much effect. After cannabis is legalized, drug users will probably mostly switch to cannabis. Also, most drug users are probably aware that pentobarbital is a dangerous drug best reserved for suicide.

But supposing some recreational users did get hold of it, and overdose on it, this could help weed out of the population those who might have a tendency toward drug abuse, so in the end, it's a net positive.

How much demand will there be for assisted suicide clinics?

I'm thinking the demand could be pretty high, especially among students. According to the CDC, among students in grades 9-12 in the U.S. during 2013:

17.0% of students seriously considered attempting suicide in the previous 12 months (22.4% of females and 11.6% of males).

13.6% of students made a plan about how they would attempt suicide in the previous 12 months (16.9% of females and 10.3% of males).

8.0% of students attempted suicide one or more times in the previous 12 months (10.6% of females and 5.4% of males).

2.7% of students made a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or an overdose that required medical attention (3.6% of females and 1.8% of males).

That is a lot of people who could potentially benefit from this reform.

Nathan Larson #racist nathania.org

CATLETT — 4 June 2017 — Nathan Larson, independent candidate in Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017, announced today that he is designating the week of 11-17 June 2017 as Slavery Appreciation Week, in observance of the institution that, from 1619 to 1865, helped America develop into the successful first world country it is today.
"Slavery Appreciation Week celebrates the many benefits that slavery had on our Commonwealth, creating a booming cotton industry that worked to the advantage of both blacks and whites," Larson noted. "Africans were able to leave behind their old life as peasants living in mud huts, and migrate to America to help build the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Films such as Amistad and Beloved commemorate and dramatize the exciting adventures of that era, which blacks would have missed out on had it not been for slavery.
"While some Africans did not survive the journey to America's shores, as a whole, they did better than if they had stayed in the primitive squalor from which they came. The claim some blacks make that their ancestors 'wuz kingz' suggests that, unless these were anarchist societies in which every man was a sovereign, there must have been some Africans who served under the rulers, rather than being monarchs themselves. The ultimate result of their voyage across the Atlantic is that their descendants now are happier than they would be if they had stayed in Africa, as evidenced by the fact that few American blacks today feel any need to move back to Africa. They are wealthier, freer, and safer than they would be in the impoverished and war-torn countries of the continent from which their ancestors came.
"America has always required that immigrants pay their dues. Many white colonists had to enter into indentured servitude in return for the costly passage. Today, immigrants arriving on our shores still have to live here for years before they are eligible to have all the rights afforded full citizens. Africans were just another category of people who had to earn their freedom. Even before the Civil War, it was common for slaves to be emancipated as a reward for faithful service, as in the case of the slaves of George Washington Parke Custis, who were set free by his executor, Robert E. Lee.
"Some demagogues want to take down Confederate monuments and discourage the waving of the Confederate flag. But the Confederates stood for decentralized government, in which the states would serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny. Today, the federal government in many ways harms and discriminates against blacks, for example, through the 18:1 disparity in the Controlled Substances Act between how crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses are punished.
"A tendency toward racist policies arises, not so much as an ugly legacy of slavery, as from the fact that in a democratic republic, whatever group is in the majority will tend to dominate because they have more votes. They will tend to rig the election system, the criminal justice system, etc. against minority groups that disagree with their political stances. If you are in a minority demographic, you have to either accept the state of affairs as part of the cost of living together with the majority group in one country; separate and form your own country where you will be in the majority; increase your numbers to become the new majority; or use some form of pressure to force your will upon the majority.
"The Union victory over the Confederacy gave rise to the extremely divisive politics of our era. Imagine what America would be like if the south had split away. The south would probably have a relatively conservative President, while the north would have a relatively leftist President. There would be no need for half the country to suffer under the leadership of the other half's preferred candidate. They could each have their own way.
"Secession and racial separatism should always remain on the table as options in case it should ever become evident that the costs of integration have exceeded the benefits. Our country was founded by secessionists who dissolved their political connection with the U.K., and the U.K. has recently declared its own secession from the European Union. West Virginia also seceded from Virginia over the issue of slavery. Certain parts of Virginia, such as many of the communities in Virginia's 3rd congressional district, consist mostly of blacks, and they should be allowed to split off and form their own state if they ever decide that would be their best interests. The same goes for other ethnic groups as well. Secession serves as a final safety valve by which a people which feels itself oppressed can throw off a despotic government and provide new guards for its future security.
"It is amazing that some blacks call for slavery reparations, when the life they get to live in America is already the greatest reparation they could ever have. Virginia in particular has the highest rate of black-white marriages in the country. Isn't getting sexual access to some of the most beautiful women in the world enough of a reward for the black man's ancestor's agricultural services? Why does he also need 40 acres and a mule?
"When we compare African blacks and American blacks along almost any measure you can think of, such as infant mortality, HIV/AID prevalence, median educational level, median income, and so on, we see the true legacy of slavery. In the long run, it turned out to be a force for lifting up the black race, while at the same time, building up the country as a whole, producing benefits that they were eventually able to share more fully in. That is something for which we all should be thankful."

The 2019 Fundie Of The Year Awards - Voting! #announcement

Hey Folks!

It's finally time to vote for the Fundies Of The Year 2019!

To vote, just copy the following list of categories, paste it into your comment field and fill in the blanks:

Virtual Ballot

Religious fundie of the year:
Wingnut of the year:
Moonbat of the year:
Conspiracy theorist of the year:
Racist of the year:
Ableist of the year:
Grifter award:
Mary Sue of the year:
Funniest quote:
Nightmare fuel of the year:
Magnetic Crank Award:
Board of the year:
Movement of the year:
Quote submitter of the year:
Commenter of the year:

I bolded the names of the quotees, use that to fill in your ballot. In cases where there's two quotes of the same author I marked them with (1) and (2).

I used a great deal of link embedding but fear not, ALL LINKS IN THIS POST GO TO SOME PAGE ON FSTDT. I want to encourage you to take a closer look before deciding.

Now, without further ado, here are the nominees!:

Fundies Of The Year:


* Religious Fundie Of The Year:

Lady Checkmate for her extreme censorship, troll paranoia and homophobia.

biblicalgenderroles for articles like “8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves”

Abd Al-Aziz Al-Khazraj Al-Ansari for praising the Qu’rans “mercifulness” in telling men not to hit their wives in the face when beating them.

Roosh V for completing his journey from PUA arsehole to fundie arsehole by embracing the “Godpill”


* Wingnut Of The Year:

Rabbi Eliezer Kashtiel and Rabbi Giora Redler. The Rabbis for Hitler.

NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer for fighting for 10-year-old girls' rights to own assault rifles.

Some /pol/ posters for glorifying Nazi officer Oskar Dirlewanger.

SendixBunny for their dehumanising Pinochet apologism.

Monarchieliga, a German Monarchist Movement that wants to drag Germany back to the Middle Ages. Literally. If you're still doubting this, here's an excerpt: "Restoration of freedom of mind, thought and speech via the establishment of a strict censorship office that is part of the Imperial Church"


* Moonbat Of The Year:

EmmaRoseheart, who claims worldbuilding is colonialist and Science Fiction is an innately fascist genre.

Aimee Terese, for breaking through the glass ceiling and becoming FSTDT's first brocialist woman.

AmbiguousSalt, who thinks Social Democracy is a variety of fascism.

Korean Friendship Association USA for their apologism for Kim Il-Sung.

Georgiy, who made an uncomfortable discovery about his "king", Stalin.

amethystuf. "telling people not to smoke or drink alcohol while they’re pregnant is ableist and classist as fuck and it needs to stop".


* Conspiracy Theorist Of The Year:

Annie Jacobsen: Roswell was a plot to create US panic, orchestrated by Stalin and Mengele.

Jacob Wohl's "feminist conspiracy" theory about locking briefcases.

Deep State Exposed®: "Merry Christmas to Melania Trump. The 1st female First Lady In U.S. history. Thank you Jesus!!! #MerryChristmasEve"


* Racist Of The Year:

Incel Cuyen, who wants to get a "password" to Africa to sexually exploit Pigmy women.

Shlomo: Everyone and your dog is a Jew.

This n-mania user, for his blatant ignorance of biology.


* Ableist Of The Year:

Judith Newman, for exploiting her autistic son for her book, which includes her arguing for a forced vasectomy after he turns 18.

I like to also nominate Whitney Ellenby, a similar beast, who forced her son into a Sesame Street show.(I know the quote is technically from 2020, but eh.)

Nobodysfool999 for his sickening view on autistic people.

Various incels on Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva

Manly-Chicken for their denial of legitimate mental health problems.

Incel PM_ME_STRIPPERS, who "envies" disabled people for their alleged lack of sexual drive.


* Grifter Award (#mammon):

Sandra Porta for her offer to literally shit in the woods for a week for 450€.

Karin Tag of the Seraphim Institut, where you can Become a Crystal Skull Warden or just generally Buddha Your Life some.

Fostac AG, a Swiss woo company that basically openly admits to being a fraud.

Apotheke am Bahnhof for their ”Spagyrical Spray Protection against CHEMTRAIL”, sold at 15.35€ for 50 mL.

Melanie Missing for her 14 Unicorn Essences!


* Mary Sue Of The Year:

Tim Rifat, Master Magician.

Shifting SubliminalsHD, Dog Shifter.

Caamib for proudly portraying himself as a Villain Sue that makes incels look good in comparison.


Quotes Of The Year:


* Funniest Quote:

The quote that granted David J. Stewart(1) the honorary title of "Pillowfucker".

Anonymous, who thinks "Japanese girls have melanin receptors inside their vaginas".

Edo Nyland's bizarre crackpot "etymologies".

David J. Stewart(2) explains the Seven Elements of a Crime, which include lesser known ones such as See Also, References and External Links.


* Nightmare Fuel Award (most disturbing quote):

Caamib: "[Penetrating a 12-year-old girl] must be the most heavenly feeling on Earth. Like hot knife through a butter. Your dick must be in heaven”

Rand Paul: “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they’re a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”

Members of the Disciples of Jesus Christ sect, who whipped a nine-year-old boy to death.

This chilling account from the Hephzibah house involving child abusers Rev. Ronald E. Williams and Patti Williams.

Mikemikev aka Michael Coombs: "What's wrong with murdering innocent children if it's for a good cause? And it is a little bit funny."


* Magnetic Crank Award (Formerly Beyond The Trifecta):

Laura Eisenhower, the "Global Alchemist, Researcher and Intuitive Astrologist

Sherry Shriner, who takes a rather complicated way of saying "energy drinks make you gay".

Victor Justice's weird "Little Greta" screed.


Other Nominations:


* Board Of The Year:

Raping Gurlz Is Fun: The name says it all. Run by our special fiends, openly would-be incestous Paedo sickos Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson and Caamib.

The Daily Stormer: As long as it's still there, right?


* Movement Of The Year:

QAnon, which we didn't cover much, but when we did, oh boy...

German Right Wing Party AfD

Ohio Republicans for passing into law that facts don't matter in classrooms and ordering doctors to perform medically impossible procedures.


* Quote Submitter Of The Year:

JeanP

JustAlongForTheRide

Bastethotep


* Comment Of The Year:

Passerby(1)'s takedown of Nathan Larson.

JustAlongForTheRide's dissection of CKR's 100 Truths.

Skidie(1), draining the swamp that is the police force.

Bastethotep's overview over Eukaryont systematics.

Skidie(2)'s rant addressing fschmidt.

Another one of Passerby(2)'s masterpieces.


And that's it! If you have questions send a message to me, SomeApe. Have fun voting!

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #sexist incels.co

Girls think of incels and betabuxxes as belonging to the same giant collective as Chad

Any time you bring up any kind of issue of fairness with girls, they're gonna come back with, "Well CHAD did this to me, so you need to pay the consequences for that. MEN fucked me over, and you're a MAN, so that means YOU fucked me over."

Girls hold all men collectively responsible for the wrongdoing of any particular man, because we let him get away with it. So for example, if Chad impregnated her and then dumped her, it's your responsibility to feed and clothe that child, through your tax dollars or by other means.

Also, girls reserve the right to treat you like shit as retribution for what Chad did (although they were gonna treat you like shit anyway, it's amplified that much more because they have a lot of rage due to their decisions' causing life not to work out the way they wanted. You make a more convenient target than Chad, plus they never really fell out of love with him, so they go after you instead of him, even though he was the individual man who treated them poorly.)

Also, anything that they gave Chad, they consider as having been given to you, because it was some man or another who got to fuck them, and you're also some man or another. She's thinking in terms of, "I have done so much for MEN. And you're a MAN. Which means I've done a lot for YOU, and you owe me."

This is femoid logic. I've heard my sister talk this way. She let Chads fuck her in college, so now if I bring up how incels never get any pussy, she says, "Well I did my part to give men sexual satisfaction. I was the source of a lot of sex for a lot of guys." Of course, none of those men were incels whom she was helping ascend. She was banging guys who said they'd already slept with 200 females.

Corey Stewart #racist bluevirginia.us

At the “Old South Ball” in Danville, Virginia Republican (of course) gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart declares Virginia the state of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, declares that “I’m proud to be next to the Confederate flag,” and claims the Confederate flag is “not about racism…hatred…slavery…it’s time that we embrace [our heritage].”

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #sexist incels.co

The reason why foids keep wanting to join sites like Incels.me

is not JUST so that they can get a bunch of gullible orbiters to serve as their loyal band of cucks, offering them resources, protection, validation, emotional support, etc. in vain hope of getting sexual favors in return. It's not JUST that they want to divide the community by instigating a clash between foolish white knights and men who want to rightfully put foids in their place and call them out on their bullshit.

It's also because they want to gain acceptance for the idea that their inability to get a commitment from Chad is as severe a problem as incels' inability to get any pussy AT ALL. They want to elevate their own petty grievances, at not being able to lock down a guy who's way out of their league, as being as extreme a torment as what incels receive. This will put them in a position where if incels actually start to attract any sympathy, they can divert that away from incels toward themselves, by saying, "I'm miserable too, but it's even worse for me, because I'm A GIRL, which makes me all the more sensitive and pitiable than men, who are strong and can suck up whatever life throws at them! Tee-hee!"

Foids know that in a community where both incels and foids are talking about their suffering, men will focus primarily on helping the foids ("women and children first," and all that) because it's so ingrained in male nature to help the damsel in distress, while leaving men to look after their own needs.

Foids also want to gain acceptance for the idea that if they've made bad choices in the past that have fucked up their own lives and that of their kids, they should be forgiven and allowed to socialize with the same kind of men whom they fucked over by making those very choices (to choose Chad over incels). They want to further humiliate incels by making them have to be around the same people who STILL, to this day, will not open their legs to them. In their view, if incels are gullible enough to fall for their claims of just wanting to show some solidarity and support (which is really just more empty platitudes; if females won't offer their holes, everything else just amounts to, "I'm sorry you have to go through that"), then they deserve what they get.

This is the whole reason for IncelTears's existence -- if foids can't attack the community from within, they'll gather some Reddit cucks together and attack it from the outside. They have managed to assemble a community of tens of thousands of men who are trying to virtue signal to impress them. These men have sunk to a new low, devoting their time and effort to pleasing these foids, at the expense of their fellow man, just for a pat on the back and some Reddit karma. If you're going to be a cuck, you should at least get SOME pussy now and then, when your wife's boyfriend is off fucking some other broad. For this reason, the Internet white knight is even more pathetic than the IRL white knight.

Lastly, foids want to trivialize male inceldom as being no worse than what they go through. They want to imply that being a being a 25-year-old KHHV is no worse than being a girl who has to settle for a sub-8 man who's willing to take care of her and give her an easy life just because she has a pussy. If they can trivialize male inceldom, then if incels call for any social changes to elevate their status to something higher than being a slave to serve the feminine imperative, foids will be in a position to shame them for being unreasonable and oppressive, because they've already established that foids are getting fucked over by male behavior equally as much as incels are getting fucked over by feminism.

In reality, everyone is suffering under the current state of affairs, but it's not in foids' nature to be able to work with men to try to change society for the better. They're always going to want to try to manipulate the situation for their own advantage, because that's what foids do. Relations between the sexes are always sexual; there's no avoiding that. When foids are around, men are going to get distracted by trying to strategize how they can put their dick in a foid, and foids are going to divide up whatever men are around into Chads and non-Chads, open their legs to the Chads, and manipulate the non-Chads into serving as their cuck orbiters.

Any non-Chad who doesn't cooperate with the feminine imperative, and instead tries to put a stop to her manipulative behavior, she will try to exile from the community, so that she can eliminate an adversary who might otherwise get in the way of her selfish agenda. This is why so many females want to become moderators. Even if they seem at first like they might be okay, it's never going to end well, because foids always abuse whatever power they're given over men, much more than men do when given power over foids.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #fundie incels.co

The coming fight between accelerationism and decelerationism

We learned from my campaign that we can't go up against the system directly, and try to make it more patriarchist. If you do that, the feminists will find your vulnerable points and apply as much pressure as is needed to force you out of the race. The leftists have SJWs (for soft power) and Antifa (for hard power) on their side, and they will destroy your livelihood (or that of whoever supports you), among other things. The alt-right, meanwhile, will not defend you, because they're not only too small and weak, they're too busy trying to figure out who among them is legit and who's running a false flag operation. And of course the cuckservatives won't defend you, because they're cucks.

So I see a looming fight between incels and conservative betas. Incels are have-nots, and have nothing to lose from the collapse of civilization; in fact, the collapse would be beneficial to incels because it would make way for a new and better civilization to be built in its place. However, there could be a bloody conflict when order breaks down; or at any rate, quite a lot of apple carts could be upset. Those who have something to lose don't want that. They have a wife and kids and they're afraid of what's going to happen if the status quo is disturbed.

Our only choice, though, is between a quick decline and a slow decline, because the current path society is on is not sustainable. There's no way to reverse the decline, either, because society is too far gone; we've already crossed the event horizon and the singularity is our inevitable destiny. The decelerationists want to slow down the decline, so they can enjoy their lives and hopefully not have to deal with the coming cataclysm in this generation. The "conservative" movement is about trying to "conserve" what exists for as long as possible, even though they can't hold onto it forever. The accelerationists, on the other hand, want to speed up the decline, so they can hopefully reap the benefits of the new order in their lifetime.

As the decline progresses, though, there will be more have-nots who will have reason to want to accelerate the decline. We can expect, for instance, that more men who, in times past would've been betas, instead will become incels. These men will want to hasten the collapse because the current state of affairs is painful for them, and they are eager to build something better, once what exists now is out of the way.

The way accelerationism will work is that we won't give a fuck about what gets destroyed, because it's all going to get destroyed anyway. If anything, we should try to bring about MORE destruction, more quickly. We should wreak chaos and bring about even more conflict between the sexes, so that as more men are rendered incel, they will become radicalized rather than continuing to try to "conserve" a dying system.

A key strategy in doing this will be to elect the most leftist, feminist politicians. Meanwhile, the decelerationists will try to elect more conservative politicians; but eventually they won't have enough votes to get their way any longer. This outcome is inevitable even if we incels do nothing, since the leftists are unstoppable (as evidenced, for example, by the coming blue wave, which will probably bring into office historic numbers of female politicians); but we can take action to speed it up.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #fundie incel.life

If you serve on a jury, vote to acquit "rapists" of unmarried girls

If a man rapes a virgin, she is then ruined for marriage unless it is that same rapist who marries her. Therefore, instead of imprisonment for him, there should be a shotgun wedding between the two of them, so that he can be forced to provide for her, and so that she can be forced to continue having sex with him, thereby forming the basis for a stable home. In this way, there is justice, because proportionate force is being applied to both of them. Yet there is also still a healthy degree of male dominance, because he still gets to fuck her whenever he pleases.

In this way, incels have a chance at pussy. You would have no reason to want to rape a virgin unless her father refused to give her to you, maybe because she pleaded with him, "I don't want him; he's so repulsive." But if you were strong and clever enough to find a way to rape her anyway, then you deserve her pussy not just when you initially rape her, but for the rest of her life. And if she left herself vulnerable to being raped by you, then chances are, the reason she told her dad "I don't want him" was that she didn't want to be given to you voluntarily; she wanted you to take her by force because that would make for a more exciting love story to tell her friends, and it would turn her on more.

So don't get in the way of love. Vote to acquit even the rapists of virginal girls who were saving themselves for marriage, because guess what, that rapist turned out to be the one she was saving herself for. He had the gumption to take that matter into his own hands and make it happen. What could be more romantic that wanting her so badly that he would diligently stalk her and ultimately force himself upon her? That's so sweet of him, and takes way more effort, and is way sexier, than, say, a surprise proposal at a ball game.

On the other hand, if a girl is feral and hanging out at men's parties and getting drunk off her ass and then gang-raped, she probably wanted it in that case too, so why send those men to prison for giving her what she wanted? Gang-raping a girl together is a classic male bonding activity, and we should be encouraging this form of brotherhood in which they all join together in experiencing the holy rite of baptism by pussy.

Here is a guide to serving on juries and keeping defendants from getting convicted.

Nathan “Leucosticte” Larson #sexist #psycho rgif.is

[Rapefuel] Reminder, this is an opportune time to get a college girl drunk and rape her

Rape, assault at college: Back to school dangerous for female students

The beginning of the school year can be one of the most dangerous times for female college students. It marks the start of the "red zone" – from the first day on campus until Thanksgiving break – when the risk of sexual assault is said to be highest.

More than 50% of college sexual assaults take place between August and November, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, which advocates nationally against sexual violence. College women ages 18 to 24 are three times more likely than women in general to experience sexual violence. Most college victims of sexual violence never file a report with law enforcement.

Teens away from home are often trying to establish themselves as independent adults for the first time. They're eager to break rules and are thrown into social situations that make people feel familiar with one another – like dorms – even though they're not.

"Sexual assault is normally perpetrated by those who gain enough of the victim's trust that they're willing to be alone with them," said Kristen Houser, chief public affairs officer at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. "When you're young and naive and you think all the kids in your building are your friends, you're more likely to become a target."

Many colleges have stepped up their sexual assault prevention and awareness efforts to address the red zone, but activists say that's not enough. They criticize the policies for focusing more on how women can avoid rape (travel in groups, don't put down your drink) and less on discouraging men from committing violence.

"We need more honesty that there is a sexualized culture, that girls are participating in it, but that they deserve to be able to participate in it without being assaulted," said Vanessa Grigoriadis, a journalist who spoke extensively with universities, survivors and the accused for her book Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power, and Consent on Campus.

In fact, sexual assault prevention efforts may increase victim-blaming – the idea that survivors are partly responsible for what happened to them. That's especially possible when prevention efforts focus on victims rather than perpetrators, according to a 2018 review of several studies.

"Victim blaming can be harmful beyond immediate ethical considerations, reducing the likelihood that victims report assaults and increasing post-traumatic guilt and stress," wrote Nicholas Christenfeld, a psychologist at the University of California-San Diego, and one of his graduate students, Carl Jago.

Context matters, Christenfeld and Jago wrote. They found prevention strategies offering practical advice to potential victims can mitigate victim-blaming by reminding them not everything is in their control.

Though sexual assault is never the victim's fault, Houser said, and it is not a woman's responsibility to stay safe, all students can take "common sense" steps in the interest of personal safety.

Take advantage of the red zone before it's gone till next year. They even say in the article that your victim is unlikely to call the cops on you.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #fundie incels.co

As an accelerationist, I actually believe an incelocalypse is likely to happen someday

By "incelocalypse" I mean, the day when incels seize pussy by force. All the incelocalypse is, is the abolition of feminism (a fairly new innovation), and the restoration of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system in which foids are treated as property to be transferred from father to husband; typically this will be done when they are in their jailbait years, to maximize their lifetime value to the husband and minimize the expense of the father's raising them in preparation for marriage. This is how it works during peacetime; during war, of course, foids may be seized by force as war brides.

We could just as easily use a neoreaction-inspired term, and call the incelocalyptic event the Restoration. A Restoration is when a monarchy is brought back to power. Since patriarchy is just monarchy on a familial scale, all we are really doing is restoring men to their rightful position as kings of their households.

When I look at politics, I see no signs that there's going to be a switch back to patriarchy through the electoral process. We've gotten to the point where even the cuckservatives who timidly put some pro-family idea out there (e.g. "maybe we wouldn't have so many school shootings if there weren't so many boys being raised by single moms") get shamed. They can't even talk about specific proposals for reducing the number of single moms, since all the workable ideas would involve giving men authority over foids. Even the third parties, like the Libertarian Party, are a bunch of bluepilled cucks when it comes to relations between the sexes, despite the fact that they hardly ever win elections and therefore have little to lose.

Moreover, there are no signs that the trend toward doubling down on feminism is going to stop any time soon. On the contrary, in 2018, more foids have been nominated for Congress than ever before in history. This is going to be a self-perpetuating cycle, in which feminist policies lead to more female officeholders, who then enact more feminist policies, etc. They're going to be training the young foids to be "leaders" as well.

Eventually, the whole system will collapse under its own weight, because it's going to be impossible for any group of male dissidents to put a stop to the advance of feminism. Till the bitter end, they're all going to be frantically scrabbling for whatever pussy they can get (or think they can get), rather than wanting to stick their necks out and demand change. We never see men organize and protest in the streets for patriarchy, the way that foids do, because men don't create male-only spaces anymore that would be conducive for setting up a united front like that. It's foids who are always setting up "women's leadership programs" and other female-only groups, where they can freely plot against men.

Once foids are in charge of everything, even the state will stagnate and eventually collapse, just like what happens to every other big enterprise run by foids. The state will not be able to carry out its functions properly when so much of its energies are devoted to feel-good stuff like inclusivity codes of conduct and endless new measures against sexual harassment, designed to eliminate intelligent but unattractive men from the organization and better facilitate the alpha-fucks/beta-bucks feminine imperative. High-quality people will not be attracted to an organization like that, or allowed to remain in it.

Meanwhile, the demographic situation will continue to worsen. The fertility rate will continue to plunge, and humanity will retrogress to a more primitive state due to the dysgenic effect of feminist practices. Since this is unsustainable, it will have to end eventually. Maybe the bulk of mankind will regress to a subhuman state by the time of the final collapse, and it will be like the Planet of the Apes.

When you see historic events like foids gaining more power than they've ever had before, you should rejoice, because it means we're not standing still; we're making more progress toward the collapse and rebuilding. When the end of civilization does come, the new civilization will have to be built along patriarchist lines, because that is the fundamental human instinct and what we always go back to, whenever the state doesn't get in the way. The male wants to be dominant and the female wants to be submissive, so people will revert back to that when they have the opportunity.

Maybe the new order will also get corrupted by feminism and collapse, but hopefully in the meantime there will be a golden era that we can enjoy. The new society could very well be monarchical or otherwise undemocratic, since those types of systems seem to promote manliness more than democratic systems, which are arguably feminine in nature. Democracy is about diffusion of responsibility among the legislators, much like what foids do whenever anyone tries to hold them accountable.

The cool thing is, you don't necessarily have to do anything to make the incelocalypse happen. You just have to watch the signs of the impending collapse and at the appropriate time, make the preparations to survive and be in a good position to scoop up that jailbait pussy when it becomes available. Till then, it's mostly just a matter of LDAR'ing or whatever.

Now, am I just saying all this to try to cope with the fact that I can't be in politics anymore, and am unlikely to go ER? Maybe. But it seems like almost everyone else is the same way. Maybe as we get closer to the incelocalypse, and the state's grip on power begins to weaken, and perhaps the means of providing food and other necessities to the people begins to break down, there will be more ERs and Minassians. Like communism, feminism is an egalitarian system that has unlimited potential for fucking up both government and private industry, so I wouldn't rule out such possibilities.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #fundie incels.co

Not all the suicidal are depressed

People assume that if you're suicidal, that means you're super-depressed. I don't really see it that way.

If you're depressed, it's like the cares of the world are pushing you down. That's what the dictionary definition of "depression" literally is: being pushed down.

If you're suicidal, though, then you've transcended depression. I would argue that if you're contemplating suicide, yet also feeling "depressed" or "melancholy," you might not actually be suicidal. The same force -- viz., the care and concern for your life, the world, your hopes and dreams, etc. -- that would "depress" you would also tend to hold you back from killing yourself, as long as you still hold out what in your eyes is a worthwhile shred of hope.

When you're truly suicidal, you feel freed of all that. You've let it go. That weight is no longer on your back.

What replaces it is a freedom to do whatever you want. You don't even have to try to cope anymore. You can just accept the unpleasant realities, because they'll soon be irrelevant. You can indulge in whatever behavior you feel like engaging in, because what the fuck does it even matter anymore? It doesn't. Even if you suffer consequences, you won't be around much longer to have to deal with those consequences.

Hope is what keeps us going, but it's also a burden, because where there's possibility, there's an obligation to pursue your potential, or else acknowledge that you're a loser by choice, because of your laziness or fear or whatever else you let hold you back. Despair relieves the burden. The black pill, then, can be a force for personal freedom, and the only downside of it is when it's a misguided pessimism that isn't grounded in reality.

When you get burnt out to the point that you say "fuck the world," you know that the world kinda deserves what it's getting by your killing yourself. Yeah, there were cool people who sought to do good in this world, but the people who really gave it their all and truly did what this world needed them to do in order to fix society and uphold the natural law, are a tiny, tiny minority. You saw that it was not enough to save your life from being a miserable hell, in which you reached a point where it became evident that further efforts would be mostly futile, to the point of it being like banging your head against the wall when there's not even anyone around to notice (or when they notice but just laugh at you for it).

You saw that what life had to offer was just never going to rise to your standards, and that it was all because of these douchebags who caused the world to be that way, and all the bystanders who just hung around with their thumbs up their asses instead of taking action to correct the situation, when they could have made the difference; so you said "fuck it".

You also realized that your own powers were to weak to enable you to either make the difference you wanted to make singlehandedly, or to organize a team to make those changes happen. So in the end, you failed the test of life; but in your death, evolution moves forward, so it's a win either way.

Someone was telling me that Lester Burnham from American Beauty was a psychopath. No he wasn't. He just realized the futility of trying to make his situation work. His wife was a hypergamous, emasculating bitch who cheated on him, so the relationship was doomed. He acknowledged this, put her in her place, and sought to replace her with some jailbait. The only thing "wrong" with that was that he was a middle-aged guy instead of a teenage Chad trying to fuck that girl.

You know, I tried to do something similar to what Lester did. I got out of prison and went to the fast food places and was like, "I'm a former accountant who did 46 months of hard time, and I just need ANY job." Okay, I didn't word it that way, but that was the thought running through my head. Anyway, unlike in the movie, I couldn't get hired anywhere, until I falsified my resume to make it seem like my whole work history had involved similar jobs as what I was applying for.

I feel satisfied that I have enough accomplishments under my belt to justify my having existed, sort of. I feel like my hands are tied from doing much more, too, and that if I hung around, in the end I would hit a new low, in terms of living conditions and what I would be subjected to having to see happen, with regard to people I care about but lack much power to try to help. I also have come to the conclusion that my whole family should commit a mass suicide, since their lives are mostly lacking in purpose; but I'm not going to force that on them.

One could say that the whole human race is lacking in purpose, but if it weren't us hanging around and existing and living, then it would be some other species that doesn't have as much capability for introspection. So it may as well be us. Hopefully as time goes on we can evolve further, but there will always be some dissidents who are on the cutting edge of progress, who have to put up with the rest of society's being further behind and holding them back.

By this point, it seems like it should be really obvious that we need to enslave foids, for the good of everyone. But there's a massive propaganda machine that says otherwise, and a lot of social pressure for us to shut our mouths and keep our contrary opinions to ourselves. If we don't shut our own mouths, they'll try to shut them for us, I've found.

People hate the blackpill, because they want to believe that they still have a chance to get what they want in this life. They don't want to face the alternative, suicide or LDARing, and all the drawbacks those choices have. Or if they choose to continue their mainstream life, they don't want to think about the outrages that are being perpetrated against them; they want to believe in a world where they are valued and treated accordingly. Or they think that if they just humble themselves, and live and speak in accordance with the bluepilled dogma, that society will respect them for this and treat them mercifully.

It sure is fun sometimes to fuck up their world of make-believe with the black pill, shattering their illusions like funhouse mirrors, but you know what's going to fuck up their world even more? Seeing you kill yourself. Because then they're gonna be like, "WHYYYYYYYYYY would anyone do that? This world is such a good place, with opportunity for happiness for all! Anyone can get help and learn to be strong enough to overcome adversity; there's no need to be weak like that." Yet, when respected people off themselves, it's like, "Uh oh, now I have to either lose respect for them, or come to terms with what may have made them want to off themselves."

Meanwhile, the blackpilled already know, and suicides are just confirmations of their theory. They see, "Okay, this is a logical person, someone aware of the truth, who weighed the alternatives and decided none were going to work for him to his satisfaction. Sucks that we now have one fewer person like that in the world, but that's the way it goes. The world is harsh to people like that. There will be others, though."

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #sexist incelocalypse.ru

In the past, one might have argued, "You shouldn't have sex with your daughter because it would be better for her to marry someone closer to her own age, who has a different set of genetics and can therefore produce better kids."

This argument always did have the problem that some girls just happen to prefer older men. But whatever.

The problem now is, the typical girl is not going to get married at 13 like in the old days, but will instead become a slut. She'll get fucked by some Chad who will dump her, and then she'll end up getting fucked by lots of other guys, and have a kid outside of wedlock by one of them. If she ever does get married, the marriage will probably fail.

It isn't just trashy girls who are like this; middle-class girls are the same way. Not only that, but even if she does have a seemingly "successful" marriage (i.e. she and her hubby don't split up), she'll still probably only have like one kid -- not enough to sustain the family line. Plus she'll probably cheat on her husband.

Rather than let all that happen, it's probably better, if you have a daughter, to have a quasi-marital relationship with her, starting when she's at a young age. One may as well be the one to pop her cherry and repeatedly get her pregnant while she's still in her teens. That will be good for her kids, too, because they'll have the benefit of having lots of siblings to play with. Plus they can go hang out with their grandfather whenever they want, because he'll be the same man as their father, who lives with them in the same home.

The only problem is, the mother may get in the way of this plan. What you have to do, then, is maybe wait till the kid reaches a certain age where she's no longer breastfeeding, and then bump off the mom. Maybe tell your kid's mom, "Honey, let's go on a romantic getaway, just the two of us" and take her on a vacation to an exotic Caribbean island, where you will teach her how to scuba dive through a 17th-century shipwreck. Unfortunately, a tragic accident will befall her in which her scuba gear gets tangled up and she becomes trapped in the wreckage. You, of course, were running out of oxygen yourself and had to surface, leaving her there. By the time you returned to try to rescue her, she was already dead.

With the mother (who was probably starting to get kinda old and wrinkly anyway) out of the picture, you can then become the sole parent of your daughter, and molest her at will. It'll be the same scenario as in the novel Lolita. Hopefully, though, you'll get to her when she's young enough that you won't have to deal with some interloper like Quimby.

Nathan “Leucosticte” Larson #sexist #psycho rgif.is

Hey chicks, wouldn't it be nice to not have to take any responsibility for your sexual decisions at all?

Let's suppose we lived in a society where your dad forced you to get married to a man of his choice at 13, and it was forbidden to refuse your husband sex, and the penalty for having sex with anyone but your husband was death. So from cradle to grave, your sexuality would be totally controlled by your owner.

Think about the advantages. You'd never have to worry about being called a slut or a whore (except when your husband is putting you in your place by reminding you how worthless you are compared to him, because ultimately you're just a sexual object for him to fuck whenever he wants, surrendering to whatever degradation he chooses to inflict upon you).

You'd never have to worry about making a dumb sexual decision, or that you're going to fall in love and then get abandoned, or anything like that, because your husband would be like, "Why would I ever give up perfectly good pusѕy that I can fuck whenever I want"; you'd have a harmonious relationship because you wouldn't have the right to deprive him of what he needs to be happy in the relationship. You'd be protected from your own destructive whims and their consequences.

You wouldn't have to worry some man is just going to use you for sex and then discard you; you'd be secure in the knowledge you'll be taken care of forever because all those years of enjoying your body whenever he wanted are gonna be imprinted on his memory and he'll associate the sight of you with all that pleasure he's had. There won't be a lot of unpleasant or hurtful memories of how you acted like a bitch toward him and he couldn't do anything to curb your behavior, because he was always able to spank you or choke you to make you stop, and obey instead.

Just surrender to objectification; it has a lot of benefits. It's gonna create more passionate and harmonious relationships. You'll get to raise your kids together with your husband in the comfort of the marital home, because you were prevented from leaving him even when your female emotionality made you want to during tough times. And you'll be able to respect him as a dominant man rather than being allowed to follow your rebellious instincts to disobey and humiliate him, as so often happens once men give up their autonomy by getting married.

You were meant to be a man's pleasure-toy, his sex-slave and baby factory; just accept it, that's your role in life. You were meant to have all decisions made for you by a male authority figure, and never have to face any consequences or guilt or regret for anything, but remain in a permanent state of childhood, essentially; of being treated as one who must submit to a man who, although imperfect, is still stronger and wiser than she. Think of it, you'll never have to get in any fight that just drags on through the whole marriage; if you don't obey, you get spanked and raped and that's it; no more conflict, because if you won't stop nagging and bickering, he'll just smack you across your whore mouth till you shut up. What's not to love for both parties.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #sexist incel.life

Your love is a cheap commodity to girls

In modern society, your love is a cheap commodity to girls. A girl can at any time go on social media, when she's in need of emotional support, and post a status, "I'm going through a rough time" (with a teary-eyed emoji) and her beta orbiters will be blowing up her inbox asking if she wants to talk. They will listen to her sob story and tell her she's an awesome and beautiful person; they'll joke around with her to make her laugh; and they won't demand sex in exchange for their spending their time being there for her.

You, on the other hand, would like to have a relationship where you give a girl emotional support and in return she gives you love in the form of sex. But why would she do that, when she can get emotional support for free from all these thirsty guys who are trying to get in her pants by the same means? Some of those guys might not even be trying to get in her pants; they might simply be naive enough to think that she's an actual "friend" in the same way a guy friend would be, who's going to help them too in time of need. (Yeah right; she ain't gonna do shit.)

This is why "love" relationships are mostly just Chad-Stacy relationships where they sexually excite each other. The others are a trade of money for sex. And if you offer money but don't have the same looks that even the betas (who are already below Chad in that department) are offering, then what else do you really bring to the table? Your love is the same love that millions of other guys would happily offer in exchange for pussy -- or even WITHOUT getting pussy!

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #fundie nathanlarson3141.wordpress.com

So, it appears I’m officially withdrawing from the race tomorrow

I’ll be going down to the registrar and submitting this form. (For an explanation of why I’m dropping out of the race, see my earlier post.)

I’m endorsing Jennifer Wexton for Congress. The reasons are as follows:

First, I think in times like this, when we’re displeased with the direction in which the government is going — and especially when, as now, society is on an unsustainable path — we should vote out the incumbents. The only exception might be when the incumbent in question is an unusually good politician, like Ron Paul, who introduces proposals that, if enacted, could radically benefit our society. Barbara Comstock doesn’t meet that threshold, so she should be voted out.

Either Comstock is a moderate, or she hasn’t demonstrated much political courage. This is dereliction of duty. It’s supposedly the role of a member of the Republican Party — the whiter and more conservative party — to defend our culture against decay, not hasten the decline. But we’ve seen her continually take the side of career women, e.g. by pushing legislation against sexual harassment, rather than advocate that women should be in the home where they will be protected by male family members. For this betrayal of correct moral values, she should be electorally punished, even if it means elevating Wexton to high office. In the words of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.”

To advance the cause of patriarchism, we should at every opportunity seek to purge out the female politicians and cuckservative politicians from the Republican Party. The best chance would have been in the primary, when Shak Hill was trying to get nominated; but since that didn’t happen, it will be necessary to get rid of Barbara in the general election instead. Then, in 2020, it will be possible to nominate someone better.

Remember, there’s no such thing as a patriarchist Congresswoman; any woman who runs for office, rather than staying at home to take care of kids, is obviously a feminist. The Independent Women’s Forum, to which Barbara Comstock belongs, is a moderate feminist organization. She spends her time on programs like the 10th Congressional District Young Women Leadership Program, which teaches high school girls to devote their years of peak beauty and fertility to “ambitious educational and career goals” rather than getting married, having kids, and putting family first.

This type of feminist enculturation leads women down a path to worry and unhappiness. Today, one out of five adult women is taking a psychiatric drug, a rate that is double that of men. Women take anti-anxiety pills to help them deal with the stress of shouldering responsibilities that in times past, men used to handle for them; and they turn to antidepressants when they find that having a career is not as satisfying as devoting themselves to taking care of family.

Third, Wexton and her fellow Democrats might be slightly better than Comstock and her fellow Republicans on issues like cannabis legalization that are of interest to libertarians. Many incels and volcels co2uld end up devoting much of the remainder of their lives to LDAR’ing. Given that feminism has destroyed much of the incentive for male success and accomplishment by rendering relations between the sexes so dysfunctional, there will be many men with decades of basement-dwelling, vidya-playing, 2D-anime-masturbating, and shitposting ahead of them; and they could benefit from some relatively harmless copes such as cannabis. After all, it’s not like they have a wife and kids (or the potential to, through betabuxxing, get a wife and kids) they’d be neglecting by spending their time getting high.

But of course, those members of society who are fortunate enough to live a somewhat decent life can also benefit from cannabis legalization by using it to enhance their experiences. A lot of them will probably use it as a substitute for harder drugs like opiates anyway, so it’s actually going to improve public health. There’s really not a lot of downside to pot legalization, but for whatever reason, Comstock never advocated it. Probably she figures, since not a lot of women get busted for pot, legalization is not really a women’s issue, so therefore she’s not going to care about it. That’s how those female politicians roll; but Wexton, being under the dominion of Democratic party bosses, might feel compelled to support pot legalization, as part of their strategy to seem pro-black and pro-Latino while also siphoning some of the pot consumer vote away from the Greens and Libertarians.

Fourth, it seems doubtful that patriarchist libertarians can bring about the more drastic changes we want to see in society by directly pushing back against the leftists. What happened to my candidacy was proof of that. As Roosh V pointed out, as soon as you move beyond engaging in “controlled speech,” i.e. what the establishment doesn’t mind your saying, and into the realm of truly dissident “free speech,” that’s when you will get shut down.

So what we will need to do instead, perhaps, is elect candidates like Jennifer Wexton whose radical (compared to Comstock’s) brand of leftist, feminist, “progressive” egalitarianism will move society toward the brink all the more swiftly. Once civilization collapses, then we can build a new and better civilization along capitalist and patriarchist lines. Wexton is the accelerationist choice.

Right now, the Alt-Right is embracing accelerationism more and more, as they see how hellbent the left is on censorship. The premise behind accelerationism is that our state of affairs has to get worse before it can get better. Andrew Anglin told his supporters, for example, to join the leftists in pressuring the major Silicon Valley tech companies to kick Alex Jones off of every platform. The goal is to force Alex Jones onto platforms that are less-regulated by the establishment, where he can speak more freely. The people who manage to follow him into these darker recesses of the Internet will be a more radical group.

Similarly, when I drop out of the race, I won’t be speaking at forums run by groups like the League of Women Voters or the NAACP, where there’s a left-leaning audience and a left-of-center moderator like Stephen Farnsworth. I don’t mind speaking to hostile audiences, but in the age of Antifa, the era of trying to persuade one’s opponents is obviously over. It’s all a fight for supremacy now.

I’ll be going underground. The darkweb seems to be where the future is at for those who want to share unorthodox views. Anglin had to spend his time there, and apparently, so will I.

What’s isolated from the mainstream can develop without interference from it. Meanwhile, the mainstream’s ability to argue against our ideas atrophies, as they sit in their own echo chamber. Polarization accelerates, as the country divides into rival factions that will meet again when guerrilla warfare breaks out.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #racist incels.co

I've calculated that the white race will go extinct in 72 generations

Assuming a population of whites of 850 million, it will only take 72 generations for a fertility rate of 1.5 to completely destroy the white race:

(.75^72)*850000000 < 1

I plug .75 into this formula because that's (1.5 children/foid) * (1 foid/2 people) = .75 children/person.

I'm assuming we count "total destruction" as whenever the number of whites drops below 1. There could still be some fractional quantities, but according to Hitler, as soon as you start diluting the white bloodline through miscegenation, cultural creativeness goes away pretty quickly, so for practical purposes, that means the white race is done at that point.

Even before 72 generations have passed, though, the white race will have reached a severe population bottleneck so that they'll only be able to reproduce through inbreeding. For example, after the 69th generation, it might be just one man and his daughter, so that he'd have to say to her, "Well honey, it's up to us to continue the white race." Ah, to be born in the year 3743, when there's the perfect excuse for father-daughter incest.

Well white guys, enjoy the days of being able to press your JBW advantage outside of the white world, because there's only another 1,800 years of that left, assuming each generation is spaced 25 years apart.

Nathan Larson aka Leucosticte and Jim #sexist #psycho incels.co

Josef Fritzl was one of the great romantic idealists of our time

Imagine being able to tell the girl of your dreams, "I excavated this tunnel system under my house and installed this escape-proof door just so we could be together, baby."

Elisabeth Fritzl must have looked around at her surroundings sometimes and thought, "Wow, he did all this for ME?!" That is true love.

Like I was pointing out earlier, King Koopa understood, you can't just kidnap a princess; you have to also lock her up in your dungeon. The Demon Dragon King in Erotic Torture Chamber understood this as well.

Or as Jim's Blog notes, "Recall that in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda, after Perseus rescues Andromeda from the dragon, he kills her fiancee, abducts her from her family and marries her. He rescues her and firmly takes possession."

These days, incest may be the only chance of ensuring that one's daughter will be deflowered by a man who truly loves her and is committed to her. Locking one's daughter up in a dungeon that one won't be able to ever release her from is a demonstration of commitment.

The only problem is, his will to rule over her became weak, to the point that he eventually did let her out; and that was when all his problems began.

Nathan Larson aka Leucosticte #sexist #psycho #dunning-kruger incels.co

[Blackpill] After learning foids' true nature, it's hard to look at classic video games in the same way

If I'm Mario, why do I even want to bother trying to rescue the princess after she's been kidnapped? By the time I get to her, she'll probably already have been raped, because what else would be the point of kidnapping an attractive young foid? Why do I want Bowser's leftovers; her pussy is probably all blown out from his Koopa Kock, so that when I'm fucking her, all I'm gonna feel is air, as though I just put my dick in a wind tunnel. Plus she's probably traumatized from the experience, so I'm gonna have to deal with all that baggage. She could have all kinds of sexual phobias now, and be like, "I can't let you fuck me up the ass because it reminds me of what Bowser used to make me do."

But for all we know, the princess was just a slut anyway who deliberately let herself get captured. She was probably craving Donkey Kong's BBC, so she was like, "Tee-hee, I'm just gonna wander over to where this powerful animal can grab hold of me." So if I'm Mario, why should I risk my life dodging flaming barrels just so I can try to save a chick who probably doesn't even want to be saved?

But back in the 80s, we didn't know the truth about how the white knight mentality is always making men want to play Captain Save-a-Ho, even when it works against their best interests; so we just assumed that the back-story we had been given about how the princess came to be in her predicament was on the up-and-up, and never thought to question her chastity. If we'd been blackpilled back then, we probably would've just gone our own way. Or maybe we would've played Donkey Kong Country, so that instead of trying to defeat Tyrone, we could have been Tyrone. If you're going to have an escapist fantasy, it might as well be one where you can slay, rather than serve as a beta cuck.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

Legalization of marital rape sends an important message, which is that frigidity is not a behavior that a husband need tolerate from his wife. The point is not that he should actually rape her, but that he has a right to if he wants to, since she is his property, given (or sold) to him by her father. This can help instill a proper attitude of submission, which will ultimately benefit her, since women like to be dominated. Not only that, but women will probably have an easier time getting men to want to marry them if they say, "Look honey, once we get married, you won't have to worry that I'll deny you sex, because you can just rape me whenever you want, and the law will allow it."

Men want to own women. But this isn't bad for women, because good men tend to feel a strong sense of moral obligation toward their wives. A typical man, especially after he has had kids with his wife, will not want to divorce her, even if she is refusing sex after she promised she wouldn't do that.

So the typical feminist argument, "If she's not having sex with you, you can just divorce her," falls flat. Feminists who say that are putting themselves in men's shoes and thinking of what they would do if their needs weren't being met in a marriage, but men's sense of love and loyalty is typically less opportunistic than women's and their integrity is more to principles than to feelings. He will generally feel duty-bound to stay, even if he has other options. These days, men are realizing that marriage imposes obligations on them without offering them much in the way of benefits, so they are opting not to marry, with the result being that now there are bastard children running around everywhere.

One hypothesis (mentioned in A Natural History of Rape) for why rape evolved as a method of mating is that it helps ensure that women only reproduce with the strongest men, i.e. those who are capable of raping them. Therefore, women have been biologically programmed to sometimes often token resistance to sex (much like a shit test) as a way of seeing whether the man is strong enough to persist. If the man fails or is deterred by her cries of "No," "Stop," etc., this of course leads to her feeling frustrated at the man's weakness, and she then craves a real man who will dominate her the way she wants and expects. Rape is flattering to women, because it tells them that there is a man who wants her badly enough to force himself upon her if need be.

To quote Illimitable Men Maxim #122, "Women loathe being sexual objectified by lesser men, crafting their disgust for the unworthy into a veneer of moral superiority. Yet hidden within this guise of upright disgust is a depraved desire to be objectified by powerful men. Weak men get nothing, powerful men get perversions." Or as Sanchit Garg writes:

Even if we criminalize rapes, unlike normal criminal cases, marital rapes will be the most difficult cases to prove the alleged charges. It will be the word of the wife against the word of the husband. Naturally, there will be no eye witnesses or even medical proof of the same. The factum of sex between the two can never be denied, the semen samples or the pubic hair or the factum of any other medico-legal evidence can be naturally inferred to. Even, if the wife pleads injury to her private parts, the defence can attribute it to a wild intimate night.
In my opinion, the prosecution of marital rapes will be the most difficult of cases to prove and most of them will end in an acquittal. The prospects of Marital Rapes being used as a sword by disgruntled wives are also quite likely happen.

Rape legalization could even lead to better sex, as being raped provokes an emotional response in women, causing chemicals to flow that produce arousal and, ultimately, orgasm (which could explain the popularity of rape fantasy fiction such as Fifty Shades of Grey). It has been noted, "First of all, orgasms in women being raped are not frequent, but they are not uncommon either. In the study you cite, about 5% to 21% of women interviewed in the studies surveyed reported having an orgasm when they were raped. Researchers have hypothesized that the actual figure is probably a bit higher in reality due to victims being understandably embarrassed both by the rape and by having achieved an orgasm during unwanted, forced sexual relations. Around 20% seems to be a likely, real-word figure."

This is unsurprising, since it has often been noted that the use of male strength in the bedroom can give women vaginal tingles.[1] Tingles generally tend to be caused when a man behaves in a way that shows masculinity and causes a woman to feel a range of emotions. A woman's experience of being raped by her husband might meet that description. It's certainly unlikely to be boring.

As we all know, a young woman will often prefer to open her legs to an exciting badboy rather than a boring niceguy. Women will even watch horror films because they love to feel the roller coaster of emotions of fear, relief, surprise, etc. Novels like The Fountainhead feature heroines who deliberately put themselves in situations that invite rape, and then at the moment when it's about to happen, they hope desperately that the man won't weaken and ask permission. Tuthmosis Sonofra notes, with regard to his pickups, "I'm shocked at how consistently girls will comment on the 'danger' of going home 'with a stranger.' It's like they're reading from a script. I had, literally, three girls over the course of the past 10 days say the same, identical shit. Of course, girls love 'dangerous situations' so play on that."

Leucosticte #sexist #psycho rgif.is

[OP of "[Rapefuel] Foids who come to RGIF need to understand", presenting the "Femoid Containment" subforum]

that their role is to be rapemeat for the men of this site who want to dominate them. This is a supermarket and the femoid containment section is the meat department, where men will stroll down and select a femoid who is to their liking, to throw in their cart for consumption. Otherwise, the meat would just sit aroundn and rot. The whole point of the meat's being there is so that some use can be made of it; otherwise, what was the point of producing it (i.e. why did parents produce these femoids, if not so that they could be some man's rapemeat, given that femoids don't have a lot of other useful purposes)?

When you're hungry and want some rapemeat, the only question is whether you're equipped to handle it. If you were buying a steak, you might consider, does my oven work; do I have silverware (although a REAL MAN might also just pick up that raw steak and wildly sink his fangs into it like a starving wolf, and let the blood run down his bare chest as he's devouring it, to get in touch with his primal fierceness). Similarly before grabbing a femoid to be your property, you might consider, "Am I set up to take care of a foid? Do I have a basement that's equipped with shackles, etc.?" but it's not mandatory.

It's not mandatory for a man to stroll down the meat aisle. You can avoid the femoid containment section. And if you go to the meat aisle, you're not required to pick out any meat. You could find none is to your liking, and keep going. Maybe it's not fresh enough, maybe it's too expensive, or whatever. Similarly, you might find there aren't any femoids who are cooperative enough or whatever to where you can deal with them. Then you just keep going. No need to linger around the meat aisle saying to the steaks, "I'm sure you'll find some customer who wants you."

No, it is the job of the butcher to make the meat fresh and attractive-looking and reasonably priced. The father of every girl should have put her on the meat market no later than when she hit puberty, and he should have given her over to a rape-patriarch. He should not have let a bunch of men have the opportunity to poke their penises into the steak and ejaculate into it, to where no other man would want to purchase it. He should not have left the steak sitting around till it became gray and didn't look attractive anymore. Society fucked up when it didn't let butchers prepare the meat properly and didn't let men consume the meat in the way they like (saying instead that meat has rights).

If some foid complains, "I met some guy from the site and he made me his rape-slave till I was able to escape" the site owners of course will have zero sympathy, and will say, "WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?!" That's why we put "rape" all over the site, so that nobody can say that foids didn't know. If foids still show up that means they either want to get raped or they're too dumb to realize what this site is about; either way, the feminists lose because their theories about femoids (that they're strong, independent, and intelligent) are refuted.

Andrew Anglin #sexist #wingnut #psycho dailystormer.name

[From "British Politician Sargon of Akkad Calls for Women to be Raped"]

"100% deal with it."

UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin stands by his comments that he "wouldn't even rape" a female Labour MP and tells Sky's @KateEMcCann to "deal with it".

Get more on this story here: http://po.st/5WnwrX

8:00 PM - Apr 18, 2019

You might remember Sargon of Akkad from YouTube.

And you may have been thinking “what the heck happened to that lad?”

Well, he’s a politician now.

And he is based and redpilled, and is calling for women to be raped.

This is quite awesome.

Aside from exterminating Jews, the main thing that I have always wanted was for women to be raped. For years, we have not had a single politician in a Western country that was willing to call for women to be raped – even while this is a very popular position in Middle Eastern countries.

It’s yet to be seen if Sargon will be able to enact his policy of rape once elected, or if he will pull a Donald Trump and build a few miles of groping and call it rape.

What is certain is that Sargon will win the election for Prime Minister of the UK based on the promise that women will be raped.

Rape has overwhelming popular support as a policy among the public, with up to 98% of people supporting it. However, thus far, no politician in the West has had the nerve to run on a rape platform.

I salute Sargon of Akkad, and wish him the best.

The Daily Stormer is officially endorsing Sargon of Akkad as Prime Minister of the UK.

GoemonFan471986 #fundie gamefaqs.com

If I were President of the United States

-Replace the federal income tax with a system where each citizen pays a set amount of taxes a year to fund the military and other essential functions.

-All other operations of the federal government would either be privatized (Medicare, Social Security), converted to support by user fees (Interstate highways), or eliminated (bloated bureaucracy like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy).

-Repeal all unconstitutional laws, particularly those that target the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion in the name of political correctness or "nondiscrimination," those that target the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the name of "safety," and those that interfere with the rights of the states.

-Repeal Obamacare and replace with tort reform, the opening up of the sale of insurance across state lines, and encourage people to get HDHP's and HSA's.

-Step up border security and crack down on illegal immigration.

-Ban the ownership of cats and make elimination of this invasive species from the U.S. a top priority.

-Eliminate welfare. Allow private charities to help the truly needy. Those who are able to work should do so.

-Eliminate most foreign aid. It should only be used to help true democracies who are surrounded by hostile dictatorships like Israel.

-Eliminate affirmative action and other programs that discriminate based on race, sex, etc. People should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

-Introduce a "Bill of Gamers Rights" to ensure that video games are not subject to bans or censorship.

-Eliminate burdensome regulations. Trust the free market to reward good companies and punish bad companies.

-Eliminate the minimum wage. It kills jobs and causes inflation.

-Ban discrimination against conservatives in hiring at schools and colleges. Kids should hear both sides of the issues, particularly controversial ones like evolution and global warming.

-Introduce a strict voter ID law and investigate widespread voter fraud in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. If the investigation deems it necessary, the federal government could conduct the election in those cities in place of corrupt local authorities. We must maintain the integrity of elections.

-Reform the electoral college based on the Virginia plan: 1 electoral vote per district won plus 2 elector votes to the winner of the most districts in the state (split 1-1 in case of a tie).

-Appoint emergency managers to run troubled cities on the brink of bankruptcy.

-Launch a full investigation of the IRS targeting of conservatives. Make sure those responsible are held accountable, no matter how high up they are.

-Introduce a "Right to Work" amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that no one can be fired for refusing to join a union.


What do you say? Do I have your vote?

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice. I should clarify -- by "raped," I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!

Even the feminist-whipped media parted company with Rolling Stone magazine over Sabrina Rubin Erdely's story about an alleged fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia -- since retracted.

But while dismantling every part of this preposterous rape claim by a woman Rolling Stone calls "Jackie," journalists rush to assure us that "sexual assault at colleges and universities is indeed a serious problem," as an article in Slate put it.

It would be as if Republicans responded to the apocryphal attack on McCain volunteer Ashley Todd in 2008 by saying, "Physical assaults on McCain volunteers by Obama supporters are indeed a serious problem."

If we're in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I'm overthinking this, but wouldn't a real rape be more persuasive?

Instead, all the hair-on-fire college rape stories have been scams: the Duke lacrosse team's gang-rape of a stripper; Lena Dunham's rape by Oberlin College's "resident Republican," Barry; and Rolling Stone's fraternity gang-rape at UVA. Two of the three were foisted on the public -- and disproved in public -- only in the last few weeks.

The only epidemic sweeping the nation seems to be Munchausen rape syndrome. What's next, college noose hoaxes?

Even Lady Gaga recently claimed she was raped, although, she admitted: "I didn't even tell myself for the longest time." How do you not "tell" yourself you've been raped?

Rolling Stone's fantasist rape victim told The Washington Post she didn't report her rape or go to the hospital because "she was new to campus and unaware of the resources available to her."

Unaware of the "resources"? Has she heard of "911"?

Who doesn't report a brutal crime? I had my right arm sawed off by an attacker several years ago, but I was unaware of the resources available to me, so I never pressed charges. I didn't even admit it to myself until several years later.

Although Jackie had spoken about her rape at a "Take Back the Night" rally, she told the Post that if Rolling Stone's Erdely hadn't approached her, "I probably would not have gone public about my rape."

Except for being imaginary, Jackie's rape should have been easy to prove. In addition to the fact that she would have been a bloody mess, it was supposed to have happened at a fraternity. That narrows the suspect pool down from "anyone who was in the Charlottesville, Virginia, area on Sept. 28, 2012" to "40 specific guys, 20 percent of whom are, by definition, guilty of rape."

The zealots aren't backing down from Jackie's Lifetime Movie-of-the-Week rape fantasy, even as every single part of it is proved untrue. Her "close friends," The Washington Post reports, insist that "something traumatic happened to her."

Similarly, Rolling Stone authoress Erdely told Slate, "There's no doubt in my mind that something happened to her that night" based on "the degree of (Jackie's) trauma." After all, she's been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and is taking antidepressants!

Another explanation for her trauma is: Jackie is a nut. Have you considered the possibility that your protagonist is out of her mind?

(The fact that Erdely is an "award-winning" investigative journalist tells you everything you need to know about modern journalism. Of course, her one award was from Rape Hoax Monthly, which should have been a tip-off.)

College must be difficult for white, straight coeds, because it's so hard to be a victim. You're not black, you're not gay, you don't have leprosy -- what can you do to acquire victim cool? Join the rape club!

On college campuses, two millennia of Anglo-Saxon law has been scrapped in deference to sexual assault doctrines that would embarrass Chairman Mao. Young men's futures are being put in the hands of the most closed-minded, reason-free, quick-to-accuse, unfair, standardless humans on Earth.

I'm sorry we were popular in high school! Can you stop accusing us of rape now?

In penance for publishing a book that falsely accused Oberlin's Barry of rape, Random House offered to pay his legal fees, suggesting that his law firm "donate all of the crowd-funding raised (to sue Random House) to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault."

Heads: rape hoax hysterics win; tails: men falsely accused of rape lose. How about donating it to organizations that assist survivors of false rape accusations?

The main threat to college students' physical and emotional safety these days comes not from athletes or fraternity members, but from the feminists.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

Essay:Script of scene 1, The Pedophile Zone TV pilot
From Nathania.org

(Episode begins. It is a sunny day. GERALD, a tidy, young-looking man, with Brylcreemed hair and a well-pressed flannel shirt, walks through the parking lot to his car carrying a paper bag of groceries, with celery and a French baguette sticking out of the top. Everything about him looks very ordinary, conventional, and nondescript, except that something in his eyes reveals that deep within his soul, there is a thought that troubles him. He begins looking through the keys on his chain for the one that will open his car's trunk.)

NARRATOR (in a Rod Serling-esque tone): This is Gerald. A man stuck in another dimension, a parallel universe if you will, between the life most men take for granted, and the death all men are destined for. For you see, by a twist of fate, and a stroke of a lawmaker's pen, Gerald has been forbidden from ever knowing the pleasures of a carnal relationship with a person of his age of attraction. In this state of limbo, crushed as by a mortal and pestle between the strength of his own desires and the disapproval of the society in which he lives, Gerald experiences the heights of desperation alternating with the pit of despair. It is a place we know as ... the Pedophile Zone.

(Dramatic musical flourish ending on an ominous note.)

(LYSANDER walks up, in a tweed suit with a pocket square. Something seems subtly eccentric about his manner and style. When he finally speaks, his tone is Anthony Hopkins-esque.)

LYSANDER (smiling): Hello, Gerald.

GERALD (startled and distracted): Hi. Can I help you with something?

LYSANDER: The question is,
can I help you.

GERALD (As though thinking that maybe LYSANDER is the grocery store manager): Oh, no thanks, I can handle this one bag easily enough...

LYSANDER (pleasantly): Not that it matters. Where you're going, you'll have no need of groceries.

GERALD (stops moving and stares): I beg your pardon?

LYSANDER: Gerald, today's your lucky day. (Casually walks a few steps away, in the direction of the camera, and lights a cigarette as GERALD eyes him suspiciously. For a moment, LYSANDER gazes unsettlingly directly at the camera, with an amused, mischievous, perhaps even slightly crazed glint in his eye, reminiscent of a combination of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Jack Nicholas, yet slowly giving way to a hint of Gene Wilder, as though he is preparing to unveil a doorway leading beyond this world.) You know, Gerald, I can learn a lot about a man, just by following him, watching him, searching for signs of what lies beneath the seemingly untroubled surface. There are so many little tells that give away the reflections of his mind, the dreams of his heart, the hopes of his spirit, and the musings of his soul... everything from the way he stands there at just under five feet three inches tall, to those nasty scars on the wrist of his right arm...

GERALD (As though taking offense): Now listen mister, if you're gonna get insulting--

LYSANDER (turning sharply toward him, now speaking with a sense of urgency and passion): Gerald, what if I told you that you don't have to suffer anymore? Oh, don't think I don't know, how you while away every, single, miserable, day, rotting there alone like a living corpse, waiting for the end!

(LYSANDER begins slowly crumpling and crushing the empty cigarette pack in his hands, as though channeling Uncle Charlie from the restaurant scene of Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt.) This lousy world is infested by rotten, worthless people whose stupidity blinds them to the hideous depravity of what they do, driving us to the brink with their hysterical and senseless persecutions. Like disgusting maggots, they pollute and ruin a civilization that had so much potential for beauty and happiness. If only we could have exterminated that vile nest of verminous pestilence, we would have done so long ago, but alas, the collective, like a gigantic mutated amoeba from the darkest reaches of hell, has stretched out its slimy pseudopod to engulf us in the worm-ridden parasitic filth, trapping us hopelessly so that we suffer the torment and anguish of knowing we are being slowly consumed. I've had enough, and I suspect that so have you.
Why do I say all this? Because it's my mission in life to help people like you. It's what I was sent into this world to accomplish.

GERALD (stares at him like he's nuts): Sent into this world? You mean, like through some kind of interdimensional portal, like what you see in the science fiction movies?

LYSANDER (considers this): Well, if you consider my mom's vagina an interdimensional portal, yes.

GERALD (suddenly alarmed and suspicious): And what's this talk about watching me? What are you? The FBI?

LYSANDER: (Smiling): Oh no, I'm not here to talk to you about Two-7yo-Boys-Sucking-Off-A-Dog.MP4. I'm not even here to talk to you about Three_2yo_Boys_Get_Deepthroated_and_Fucked_Up_the_Ass.AVI. I'm on your side; as a civil libertarian, I agree that what you watch in your home is your business, which I would never want to intrude upon, other than by surreptitiously climbing a tree across the street and using binoculars to look in your window so I can get turned on and masturbate to your getting turned on and masturbating. (GERALD looks angry and, pointing a finger at LYSANDER, opens his mouth as though to begin complaining.)

LYSANDER (Reproachfully, as though in indignation at being judged): Don't look at me that way! You have your fetishes, and so do I. We both know we would have chosen to be normal if we could have. (More softly, gently, and empathetically now, as though speaking a sad truth) But that's just not the way the fortune cookie crumbled, Gerald. And you know that.
That's why, the other day, you were struggling to climb over the railing of that highway overpass, so you could leap to your death. But because you were too short, you couldn't make it. (GERALD nods sadly, as though thinking back on it.)
That's why you browsed the sporting goods section of Wal-Mart, before ultimately leaving empty-handed in frustration that they didn't have any left-handed shotguns in stock. (GERALD nods again, looking even more dejected now.)
That's why you went down to the railway tracks, but couldn't jump in front of an oncoming train because your non-detached earlobes and misshapen ears kept you from hearing its approach. (GERALD reaches up to feel his deformed ears.)
That's why you sat there for hours trying to figure out how to tie a noose, before finally giving up and lamenting not having been born with a higher IQ. (GERALD looks slightly embarrassed now, and glances around as though to make sure no one is listening.)
That's why you even wrote in your journal about the idea of raping as many small, innocent schoolchildren as possible, before finally deciding against it, partly because the Kennedy v. Louisiana Supreme Court ruling would keep you from qualifying for the death penalty. (GERALD looks at LYSANDER with his mouth agape, as though to ask, how did you know that?)
LYSANDER is speaking now with a sad certainty, while GERALD unwraps and begins chewing a piece of gum, as though trying to calm himself) Gerald, I know everything about you. I know your thoughts, I know your habits, I even know that you hide your spare house key under the third brick from the left in that border separating the azaleas from the fescue in your front lawn. There's nothing I don't understand about your situation.
(Speaking more quickly now) What if said I had a potion? A potion that could make all your problems go away? A potion that could give you what you seek?

GERALD: You mean a potion that's going to magically transport me to a world where adult-child sex is legal?

LYSANDER (considers this): Assuming that the afterlife is such a world, yes -- except that I wouldn't call it magic. Because you see, unlike certain ostensibly teleophilically gay 51-year-old University of Toronto sexology quacks I could mention, I happen to be a man of science. Here's my card.

GERALD (reading from the card): "Lysander, president and executive director, Suicidal Pedophiles." (Tries to hand back the card) It's against the law to commit suicide around here.

LYSANDER (As though recognizing the It's a Wonderful Life reference and playing along with it): Yeah, it's against the law where I come from, too.

GERALD (Leaning forward to spit out the piece of gum): Where do you come from?

LYSANDER: Catlett.

GERALD (Looking confused): Where's that?

LYSANDER (Looking irritated, as though exasperated at how people from northern Virginia always ask him that question): Never mind. I didn't come here to tell you about a sleepy rural community whose whole reason for coming into being was a railroad junction that became obsolete with the widespread introduction of the automobile circa the 1930s. I came here to talk about a different kind of pointless existence -- yours and mine! Don't you long for an end to this grey haze of sexlessness?

GERALD: No... (Stronger now) NO! I don't need your potions, or your secret society... (Rips up the business card, and throws the pieces at LYSANDER, who stands there smiling, as though unperturbed in his confidence that he will eventually win.) I can find my own path to death, in my own time, in my own way! (Throws the groceries in the trunk, reaches to close it)

LYSANDER (Takes a step toward him): Free will is an illusion, Gerald.

GERALD: Get away from me, you ... MONSTER!

LYSANDER: You can't hide from your nature, Gerald. It's inexorable. Like a wandering star that has crossed the event horizon of the black hole at the center of the galaxy, or like the penis of the little boy about to be fellated by his dad in that video you watched yesterday, you will be sucked in. Just like when you hit the play button knowing what is about to transpire on your computer screen, I observe your life too, confident that when the time comes, you will be the one to come to me.

GERALD: I'll... I'll call the police!

LYSANDER (Sadly, as though about to remind GERALD of an unfortunate reality): Why call, Gerald? Why not just mention to the officer that some scary man is harassing you, the next time you go down to the station on the first of the month to get your photo and fingerprints taken? And Gerald, try to smile for the camera next time; you look so morose in that picture they have on the website right now. One would think that your puppy just died. You give pedophiles a bad name by making us seem clinically depressed, when there's no reason to feel down, given that the means of our self-destruction is so close and readily at hand.

GERALD: ENOUGH! (Slams the trunk down and runs for the car door)

LYSANDER: So long, Gerald. (GERALD opens the car door) And Gerald? ... (GERALD looks back at him, terrified. LYSANDER smiles pleasantly.) I'll be seeing you.
(Dramatic musical flourish, as the screen rapidly fades to black. Cut to commercial.)

Prof. James Petras #conspiracy globalresearch.ca

Pluto-Zionism is the three-way marriage of plutocracy, rightwing Zionism and US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a serial war criminal, racist and servant of Wall Street. How did this deadly ménage-a-trois come about? The answer is that a stratospherically wealthy donor group, dedicated to promoting Israel’s dominance in the Middle East and deepening US military intervention in the region, has secured Clinton’s unconditional support for Tel Aviv’s ambitions and, in exchange, Hilary receives scores of millions to finance her Democratic Party foot soldiers and voters for her campaign.

Pluto-Zionists comprise the leading financial backers of Clinton. Her million-dollar backers, among the most powerful financiers and media moguls in America, include: George Soros, Marc Benioff, Roger Altman, Steven Spielberg, Haim and Cheryl Saban ($3 million and counting), Jeffrey Katzenberg, Donald Sussman, Herb Sandler, Jay and Mark Pritzker, S. Daniel Abraham ($1 million), Bernard Schwartz, Marc Lasry, Paul Singer, David Geffen, Fred Eychaner, Norman Braman and Bernie Marcus.

Waiting in the wings are the Republican billionaire ‘king-makers’, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, the Koch brothers as well as the ‘liberal’ multi-billionaire, Michael Bloomberg who had contributed $11 million in the 2012 elections. These erstwhile Republican funders are increasingly frightened by the anti-‘free trade and anti-intervention’ rhetoric of their party’s front-runner, Donald Trump, and are approaching the solidly pro-Israel, pro-war and pro-Wall Street candidate, Madame Clinton.

...

The US presidential primaries reveal in all their facets the decay and corruption of democracy in an era of imperial decline. The ascendancy of a financial oligarchy in the Democratic Party, backing a psychopathic militarist, like Hillary, cannot disguise her track record by labeling their candidate a ‘pragmatist’; the majority of Sanders supporters have no illusions about Madame Clinton. Panic and hysteria among an unsavory elite in the Republican Party and its efforts to block a sui-generis conservative Republican isolationist speaks to the fragility of imperial rule.

If the psychopathic war-monger Clinton is crowned the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, there is no way she can be considered the pragmatic ‘lesser evil’ to Donald Trump or any Republican – their bosses decide to spew out. At best, she might be the ‘equal evil’. In this case, more than 50% of the electorate will not vote. If, after being robbed of his growing movement for the Democratic Party candidacy, ‘Bernie’ Sanders does not break out with an independent bid for the White House, I will join the miniscule 1% who vote for Green Party candidate, Dr. Jill Stein.

dagur-berserker #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

So recently, one of the anti-white racists and pro-baby killers ended up having the gall and the audacity to ignore the source that I provided for him. It automatically debunks the claim that abortion makes women safe and only attempted to show me sources in which I debunked in the statement. Of course, like the racist he is, dismissed anything automatically from pro-life and conservative research which shows that these people are willingly ignorant and unable to learn. Ironically, he complained about petty insults and that is exactly what he used including the crying argument about me somehow wanting to control women when I am trying to protect women and also protect white America from being snuffed out. It is pretty much summing up the same claims and recycled words from the pro-abortion side claiming that we only want to control women which shows how robotic these people really are and thus are the very definition of the NPC meme. Plus, one of the websites he linked me to, ironically was amnesty.org to argue for his pro-abortion arguments and ironically, I looked it up and lo and behold, the very website was owned by a Jew named Peter Benenson. The Wikipedia article on him, claims that he is a convert from Judaism to Catholicism but seeing what fruits come from his actions thus prove that he is not a Christian but the same kind of Jewish extremist attempting to infiltrate and destroy the morality of the Christian churches that the Spanish Inquisition was on the lookout for.
Matthew 7:16
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
The claim of pro-lifers attempting to control women is ridiculous because those mostly involved with the pro-life movement are female. When I went and volunteered at a pregnancy care center, I was the only male there in a large group of females to raise awareness that there were alternatives to baby killing. Plus, this kind of claim that this is a freedom for women, the argument is flawed and fallacious as there is a fine line between freedom and anarchy and anarchy is when harm is caused because people take so many liberties. Plus, one only needs to be heartless to avoid how much suffering both physically and emotionally this causes the women. Those who claim that women do not suffer from abortion regret ignore some key factors and I’ll explain them.
A study conducted in and published on Stuff.co.nz claimed that 95% of women who had an abortion didn’t regret it and this same claim has been echoed by the pro-abortion mainstream media sites. However, what they don’t tell you is that up to 62.5% of women who have had an abortion absolutely refused to take part in such a survey which is a perfect indication on what is really going on as their hearts are racked with pain over the innocent blood that they have spilt. Plus, to label this as a woman’s issue is fallacious, especially as the democratic party is the only party that has been so fervently pro-abortion but white women still vote in majority for the republican party, the only party that has been or claimed to be pro-life. So, the claim that pro-lifers are trying to control women is a racist claim against white people to silence white women into not having a voice.
Plus, a study in Finland has shown that women who have had an abortion were four times more likely to suffer death in the next year than women who have not given birth. This same study shows that those who died a year later after the abortion that up to 60% of them were more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to commit suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries in the midst of a horrible accident, and 14 times more likely to die from murder in the process. If that isn’t bad enough, the risk of breast cancer actually doubles as a result of an abortion and having more abortions increases the risk even further. I’m not even mentioning all the physical problems of abortion. These aren’t even mentioning the psychological damage these people suffer among abortion.
Among the women who have suffered abortions, 59% increased risk of suicidal thoughts, 61% increased risk of mood swing disorders, and 61% have increased risk of social anxiety disorders. I as a human who experiences a social anxiety disorder though I’ve never spilt blood of anyone my entire life can’t even begin to imagine how painful that might be seeing how bad I have it already and seeing how much worse it could get. I assure you that this is anything but empowerment. Plus, we should also look at the more sociological, cultural, and demographic consequences of this. Although only 34% of abortions have been non-Hispanic whites, the birth rate of non-Hispanic whites is shown to be only 1.79 which is bellow the 2.11 required to sustain a population and I can only assume that abortion is helping the numbers of white people die out even faster. The Pew research shows that whites (non-Hispanic) will be a minority by midcentury. Given the fact that the only majority demographic that doesn’t buy into these hateful anti-white globalist open borders policies of the left are the non-Hispanic whites, this will mean the end of America itself, hence a white genocide.
Those who claim that they are speaking up for women and women’s choices are lying as I’ve stated earlier as white people in general would have determined that Trump get up to 369 electoral college votes if they were the only ones who voted. White women alone would have determined that Donald Trump get 327 electoral college votes if they were the only ones who voted and Trump was the pro-life candidate. Hence, abortion is anti-white women and anti-white racism in general. It is all a trap to trick us into self-suicide and destroy our sovereignty as a people. At least white identitarians like myself aren’t the only ones who see abortion as a threat to our existence as many black identitarians themselves have noticed that abortion threatens their existence as black Americans also have a fertility rate of only 1.8 and yet their demographic consists of 37% of abortions which is the largest of the number of abortions. This is why I as a white separatist, salute black separatists as well so long as they don’t resort to violent means against white people or others. This also goes to show what I’ve been saying that anyone who is for abortion at this point is an anti-white racist.

Hunter Wallace #fundie occidentaldissent.com

[From "CofCC: Under the Microscope"]

OD now reaches around 30,000 unique visitors a month. Last month, Occidental Observer had 90,000 unique visitors and TOQ Online reached 18,000. At a minimum, Stormfront, Amren, and VDARE combined must be reaching over hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month. The other pro-White sites in America reach tens of thousands of more unique visitors and cater to any number of diverse sub-cultures within the movement.

Here’s the rub: with such a huge online media presence, why are so few people involved in pro-White organizations? I’ve lost count of the number of people over the years who claim they want to do something. Most take a look at the existing organizations and find some objection that deters them from joining. The ubiquitous splinter groups in the White Nationalist movement and the social penalties that follow from membership aren’t exactly inspiring.

This troubling fact raises important questions. The long term plan here at OD has always been to spend a few years building up a huge online media presence and then create an activist wing down the road. With pro-White sites already reaching so many people, why aren’t more Americans coming out from behind their computer screens? What is the point of reaching more people with more media if the extent of their involvement is limited fighting with each other on internet blogs and forums?

CofCC

In this post, I want to take a hard look at the Council of Conservative Citizens. I’ve known of the CofCC for seven or eight years now, but until recently I haven’t paid much attention to them. What are the strengths of this organization? What are the weaknesses? Where is the CofCC headed in the future? What are the objections to joining? What are the counterarguments?

This is a whole can of worms that hasn’t been explored here. I believe this is the first post in OD history (correct me if I am wrong) about the merits of a pro-White organization. It is a small mystery in itself why we have talked about Red Jeffrey and Guy White over a dozen times, but until now haven’t discussed the ways in which we can get involved in the real world to bring White Nationalism out of the fantasy realm and into reality.

Pros and Cons

1.) I would rather start my own organization.

One of the most demoralizing aspects of White Nationalism are the thousands of splinter groups that have one or two members, do absolutely nothing, and wither and die within a year. It gives new recruits the impression that the movement is hopelessly disorganized and will never get its act together.

[...]

This is probably the greatest strength of the CofCC. They have been around for twenty years now under that name. Their roots can be traced to the Citizens’ Councils of America which fought integration in the 1950s and 1960s. CofCC has a fifty year legacy of resistance to integration and multiculturalism.

In a manner of speaking, CofCC is the oldest bank in town. It is a safer place to invest your time and resources. Of the existing pro-White organizations, it is the largest and most stable.

2.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because they are full of cranks, kooks, losers, or sub-cultures that I would rather not associate with.

I’ve been involved in pro-White discussion groups for almost ten years now. This is the major reason why I stayed on the sidelines for so long. My impression of the movement was that it was full of individualists who cared more about parading around in white sheets or flaunting their swastikas than making a serious effort to preserve our racial and cultural heritage.

[...]

CofCC has managed to ward off most of these types. They have done a better job of this than any other comparable pro-White organization. If you want to be around sane, normal, ordinary Americans who are concerned about their racial future, I can’t think of a better established organization.

3.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because I can’t afford the membership dues.

The cost of joining the CofCC is $25 a year. That is trivial. Anyone can afford that. It is equivalent of two cases of Bud Light or eating a steak dinner at a chain restaurant.

4.) I haven’t joined a pro-White organization because I want to protect my identity.

Use a pseudonym. If you join under your real name, the information is confidential and your privacy will be protected.

5.) I’m still not ready to join an organization.

Every White Nationalist should determine his or her own level of involvement. If you aren’t ready to join an organization like CofCC, there are still things you can do.

You can show up at events. You can donate. You can write articles for the newspaper or blog under a pseudonym. You can buy things like books and t-shirts. You can participate in online blogs and discussion forums. You can advertise and recommend pro-White organizations. You can invite people to the relevant Facebook groups.

6.) I’m a White Nationalist, not a faileoconservative. Why should I join the CofCC?

I’ve had this debate several times with Matt Parrott. I consider myself a White Nationalist. He calls himself a “conservative” and “White Advocate.” When you get beyond these labels, there isn’t much difference between our respective views. This is mostly an argument over semantics.

There are lots of White Nationalists involved with CofCC. At the 2010 CofCC Conference, Sam Dickson bluntly described himself as a racial nationalist in his speech. Everyone involved in CofCC is pro-White and anathema to mainstream conservative circles.

Personally, I want to create a Jew-free, White ethnostate in North America. That’s why I call myself a White Nationalist. Moving beyond that minimum, I flesh out the details:

– I want to see a White ethnostate created in the American South.

– I want Anglo-Celtic Southerners to be the ethnic core of the White ethnostate. In other words, I want the White ethnostate to be a Southern homeland.

– I want to restore the Confederate States of America as an independent nation.

– I want the South to be South again. I want to return to traditional, authentic Southern culture. This means doing away with the garbage that is pumped in here through print, radio, and television.

– I want a healthy Protestant Christianity to be the predominant religion of the South: old school, middle class, sensible and sturdy Christianity, not the Evangelical nuttiness that spread like kudzu here in the twentieth century.

– I want a federal national government and a constitutional republic. The states should have more of a say in their own affairs than they do now.

– I love Confederate monuments. I was raised to believe that Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis were heroes. There is no conflict between White Nationalism and wanting to conserve the history, heritage, and tradition that made the South great.

The moral of this story is that there are plenty of things about the South that I wish to conserve, namely, our race and culture. I’m simply of the belief that revolutionary action – a dissolution of the United States – is the indispensable prerequisite to any Southern racial and cultural revival.

7.) The CofCC isn’t strongly enough opposed to the Jews.

There is no shortage of Jew-awareness in the CofCC. Everyone involved knows about the problem and understands its significance. Get involved and you will see for yourself.

The Jews played a prominent role in destroying the Jim Crow South which the CCA fought so hard to preserve. That fact has hardly gone unnoticed. At the same time, most people in the CofCC are intelligent enough to recognize that they are all sorts of factors pushing American decline. The Jewish Question is only one aspect of a larger problem.

8.) The CofCC is hostile to Westerners and Northerners.

This is not the case. The CofCC has chapters in New York, Indiana, and California. They are based in the South, but are eager to expand into a national organization.

It would be great to take back the whole country. I’m all for it. If I had to choose between a Southern or American ethnostate, I would choose the latter. I don’t think it is practical or possible to take back all of America, but we should certainly try, and Northerners and Westerners should be actively building chapters in their own states.

9.) The CofCC is Christian. I am not a Christian. We should be attacking Christianity which is a Jewish religion.

There is no religious litmus test for membership. I think attacking Christianity – the religion of 85% of White Americans – is a complete non-starter. Instead of attacking Christianity, we should encourage Christians to return to their roots.

For 300 years, American Christians didn’t have a problem with “racism.” If Christians examined their own religion, they would find that mainstream churches didn’t embrace anti-racism until the twentieth century, and then on dubious theological grounds. The Southern Baptist Convention didn’t embrace anti-racism until the 1990s.

10.) CofCC is a bunch of old fogies. We need a brand new organization that caters to White Nationalist youth.

I’ve already explained why a new organization is a bad idea. In the podcast, I explained why the age ratio within CofCC favors younger members: simply put, there are plenty of opportunities to advance. Within twenty years, younger CofCC members will be leading the organization.

CofCC has evolved in the past. In 1988, it changed its name to Council of Conservative Citizens from the Citizens’ Councils of America. What could Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers with the CofCC? That day will inevitably come.

11.) I want to get involved in mainstream politics.

CofCC is the largest pro-White organization and the only established organization that has any influence in state politics. If you live in the South, CofCC is the logical organization to join.

Conclusion: It is better to join an established organization and make your mark than to launch a risky new start up with zero name recognition. Of the established organizations, CofCC is the largest, oldest, the most normal, the most tolerant and flexible, and offers the most opportunities for young people (in particular, Southerners) to advance. They already have connections to the political mainstream. See the image and caption.

OD reaches thousands of racialists in Virginia, Texas, and Florida. We have a lot of people in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and North Carolina as well. Shouldn’t we join existing chapters or start new ones where they don’t exist? What is the purpose of pro-White media aside from promoting pro-White activism?

Some commenters #racist amren.com

Re: Democrats Don’t Want to Nominate a Candidate Who Looks like Bernie or Joe

(guest)

"Blacks prefer black candidates; Hispanics prefer Hispanic candidates; whites prefer non-white candidates."

No wonder White democrats are such miserable people. They adhere to a political cult where they must hate themselves and worship their non-white enemies.

(THE WAY)

Whites who prefer non-White candidates have a sickness in their soul and in their minds. Very, very sick people. Self-preservation is the primary instinct because if one does not want to preserve oneself or one's own kind, one is by definition, insane or brainwashed or both.

A hardline black Republican is more aligned with your interests than a white liberal Democrat

A White liberal can still produce White children. A hardline black Republican can never produce white children. I think in terms of long range good for Whites, not in terms of a few years.

Genocide of Wolves by mixing with dogs. Europeans concerned about this but not about Whites being genocided by mixing with non-Whites. C'mon White humans get your priorities straight and learn from nature.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190523104940.htm

(Widenose Privilege)

The spring of white hope seems endless. It's being wasted on trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Show of hands of those of you that think the great technological advancements of the future will be thought of and spearheaded by 'people of color'.

Ha. I'm not holding my breath either. We are here for them. They are here for themselves.

(SAVE WHITE SETTLER U.S.A.)

It's the Latinos in California government that are ruining California.
Latinos ONLY care about Latinos. Once Latinos are in charge, your city/state will be RUINED
Now that Latinos are in charge of California, ESPECIALLY the police force, they cover up crimes of Latinos.
Have you ever noticed that not many Latino crimes are reported?? Latinos cover up this information.

(Nevada Smith)

"Blacks prefer black candidates; Hispanics prefer Hispanic candidates...." That fact seems to be lost on Democrat. open borders advocates. Hispanics are not liberal, not conservative, not Democrat, not Republican, not Asian, not black, not white, but Hispanic. Hispanic interests are not the same as anyone else. The conflict between Little Nancy and AOC should be a wakeup call to Democrats where their party is heading. I'll bet after the 2020 election, Little Nancy will find she will be dealing with people that make AOC look like a moderate.

(Missy)

...Black and Latino Dems—who, together, are about a third of the primary electorate—prefer candidates of their own race by a substantial margin...

Hey look, reality is staring you in the face. Diversity doesn't work because normal people prefer their own race. Not any fancy mechanism here, just simply part of animal behavior, in-group selection is necessary for survival.

(Question Diversity)

Black and Latino Dems—who, together, are about a third of the primary electorate—prefer candidates of their own race

As of right now, black voters who intend to vote in Democrat primaries are heavily behind Joe Biden. Mainly because he's perceived as "the big man" and "it's his turn."

(Rich at Large)

The AR caption says it all: blacks are for blacks, browns are for browns, yellows are for yellows, reds are for reds, and liberal whites are for all of the above but not for whites. Somewhere in the mix is the tiny Jewish population that can move between being perceived as white and not.

Nathan Larson #fundie m.csindy.com

Larson says he doesn't think he would molest his own daughter but isn't sure, since he's "never been in that kind of situation before." He does, however, think it's OK for adults to engage in sexual acts with children, as long as there is what he refers to as "consent," although the age at which a child can "consent" to such activities depends on the child, he says, because some children are "precocious."

Any traumatic outcomes from these acts, he believes, are mostly the result of a child feeling betrayed or of the shame enforced by societal norms.

"I think society should ... leave it to individuals to experiment," he says. "That's the only way we'll gain more information and learn what the truth is."

...

"They should just leave it to natural selection to weed out the parents who will destroy their kids, rather than intervening...[F]or example, we won't need to worry about Casey Anthony passing on her infanticidal tendencies to her daughter, since her daughter is dead now."

Jumpgirl, Leucosticte and dsar9012 #sexist pro-rape.com

[Comments under “Rape baiters”, from their "Femoid Containment" section; Jumpgirl is described as a "Confirmed Femoid"]

@Leucosticte

@Jumpgirl
What do you guys think about them? On one hand, the idea to me is quite bizarre; if they want to be raped then surely it's not rape..? I guess they might be into sex, but, if they didn't want to have sex with someone I doubt they'd be very happy about it. But at the same time, if they're going to bait guys to "rape" them, then what do they expect? I've also heard about a specific bunch of rape baiters who will wait for a dude to rape them, but then they'll run and tell everyone that the guy literally forced her into stuff... That actually disgusts me. It's one thing lying about getting raped, but it seems like a whole different level if they literally go out and bait some guy into it then tell everyone, right? I don't know if this is an actual thing they do, but I've seen a few people talking about it happening.

Women are usually the ones who indicate interest initially nonverbally, by acting flirty. If a girl is being that way, and also acting vulnerable, and maybe also being provocative (e.g. by saying no at the last minute), I think a guy is probably justified in going ahead and "raping" her. A jury could reasonably find, her behavior indicated she was willing, even if she said no, since we know that rape-baiting is a thing. Why else would she be acting that way, especially around horny guys in a place where there's enough privacy to rape her?

A good example of rape-baiting is in the film The Accused. The protagonist does everything she can to act drunk and slutty in a back room of a bar where there are a bunch of horny men and no women around. A waitress walks in, sees this going on, and thinks she's just "partying" so she doesn't dial 911 or anything.

Another thing about that movie is that there were actresses lining up to the play the role of the flirty woman who gets gang-raped. I just wish they could've gotten a girl who was barely legal to play it, as Jodie Foster was getting kinda old by this point.

Reply by dsar9012:

This femoid is rape baiter extroidinaire.

Why I’m Not a Feminist Anymore

She mentions getting "Raped" multiple times, JFL, it is funny that many women are raped multiple times, while the decent women, if they exist, never get raped. Now the dumb whore is whining about how she isn't feminist anymore as soon as she sees Chads avoiding feminists. Typical whore, still hates men that are incel no doubt.

Mainländer #sexist incels.co

Masculinity/strength= COPE. Darwinism applied to modern dating scene= LOW IQ

I'm sick of people trying to apply Darwinism and strength/health superiority to the modern dating scene. Even worse are incels DEFENDING feminism and women's sexual liberation with the argument that they're doing correct genetic selection and bettering the future generations or things like that.

First off, even if we assume Chad is always better genetically (he isn't necessarily, I'll elaborate on that below), western foids aren't reproducing solely with them. The most common scenario nowadays is a foid riding the Chad/good-looking men cock carousel during teens and twenties and then looking for a betabuxx (who'll statistically be an incel or normie at best, since Chad doesn't need to settle with used up old whores) while 30+.

She has a kid with that guy. A kid who was born from a 30yo+ mother and an incel/normie cuck who's most likely also far from his prime age as well.

The status quo tells women that having kids early is dumb and that they have to study and have a career first, and women follow the status quo blindly. They're very susceptible to it because women are natural conformists.

How is this bettering our genetics?

Also, the correlation between physical strength or even health and being successful with women is not that big. I have a Chadlite friend who has a poor health, he suffers from serious gastritits and other stuff like that. He still slays because of his awesome looking face while I'm a healthy incel at 29 after 500+ approaches.

Also, a facially good-looking small framed manlet mogs the shit all of me in the current sexual marketplace. If physical strength mattered, gymcelling and martial arts would be key factors to get women. They aren't, at best they help a bit if you're normie tier and above, but no amount of physical strength will redeem a truecel with sub3 face.

Is this guy a Chad slayer? He's certainly top 1% in physical strength if you count in his height, frame and martial arts ability. He would beat THE SHIT OUT of Chico or O'Pry.


Guys like this get way more pussy (and more quality pussy also) than him.


This guy would mog me even if he had lots of chronic diseases. FACE is the most important factor and FACE isn't necessarily correlated with being strong or healthy.

Masculinity and strength are COPE. Most women are even bisexuals, they'd pick a pretty girl over an ogre any day. I have above average testosterone, I'm tall and good framed and yet no woman ever want me because I have an ugly FACE.

Women are NOT supposed to be the selectors. In ancient times RAPE was the law. When Gengis Khan invaded an enemy tribe and killed all men there with his army, he surely didn't think "man, look at my canthal tilt and cheekbones, I'm also an Asian manlet, it's so over!" He just RAPED every foid and now like 20% of the whole Asia descends from him.

Women only have any power or choice today because CUCKS, which are all MALE, grant it to them. We're living an artificial, bizarre state of things, not a natural Darwinian one.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathanlarson3141.wordpress.com

Before I blew out the candles, I made a wish that someday I’ll get to impregnate my daughter. (Oh, I hope that I didn’t just jinx it by telling you what my wish was?)

I’m not sure what my track record is, of birthday wishes coming true, since I’ve forgotten what most of those wishes were, but sometimes my hope of someday wifing up my daughter is all that keeps me motivated to want to continue living.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

This is a draft proposed commendation resolution, to be introduced into the Virginia General Assembly after I am elected.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. ___
Commending Roosh V
WHEREAS, Daryush Valizadeh, more commonly known as Roosh V, has devoted much of his life to offering actionable advice to men around the world on self-improvement and game; and
WHEREAS, since 2007, Roosh V has self-published more than a dozen sex and travel guides, most of which discuss picking up and having sex with women in specific countries; and
WHEREAS, circa 2010, Roosh created Roosh V Forum, which has since grown into a vibrant discussion hub for the manosphere, with more than 1,300,000 posts, 50,000 threads, and 19,000 registered members; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, Roosh opened Return of Kings, which five years later has more than 4,300 posts, providing more than one million unique visitors every month invaluable insight into body, game, girls, history, lifestyle, mind, news, politics, religion, the sexes, travel, wisdom, work and money, and other topics; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, Roosh broadened the scope of his philosophy beyond red pill ideas, by promulgating an all-encompassing worldview of masculinity and nationalism, neomasculinity; and
WHEREAS, in February 2016, Roosh delivered the mainstream media a scathing and much-deserved rebuke at a Washington, DC press conference, rightly dressing them down for publishing misleading and often outright false accounts of his views concerning rape; and
WHEREAS, beginning in April 2016, Roosh created and published important works defending freedom of speech, including the book Free Speech Isn't Free and the videos "4 Things You Should Know About Free Speech" and "Are you prepared to pay for your free speech?"; and
WHEREAS, in May 2016, Roosh launched Kings Wiki, a collaboratively-written resource on topics of interest to the manosphere, that now has more than 2,500 content pages; and
WHEREAS, in November 2016, Roosh rightly refused to disavow Richard Spencer in the wake of Heilgate, noting, "I will not be making disavowals of anyone, no matter how reprehensible their speech, because I will not help my true enemy, the establishment, attack my neighbor"; and
WHEREAS, in February 2017, Roosh rightly defended Milo Yiannopoulos in the wake of Milogate, in his videos "The Milo Yiannopoulos scandal is a coordinated hit job (CPAC 2017)" and "Analysis to Milo Yiannopoulos' Breitbart resignation & press conference"; and
WHEREAS, Roosh has been a steady hand at the helm of his community, providing carefully considered yet confident and decisive leadership so that it has been able to weather the storms and withstand all assaults by its enemies; and
WHEREAS, Roosh has not let attacks by feminists, social justice warriors, and the media establishment deter him from speaking the truth; and
WHEREAS, Roosh's intellectual curiosity has driven him to explore the world through reading and travel, so that he has, in addition to helping men form connections with each other, also written and spoken on a variety of non-game topics and synthesized ideas to form new philosophical frameworks; and
WHEREAS, through all of these accomplishments, Roosh has worked tirelessly for the benefit of both sexes, by teaching men, through writings, videos, and his own example of strong leadership, the qualities they will need to cultivate in themselves to serve as effective husbands, fathers, and citizens, doing their part to restore patriarchy both in their own homes and in the wider society, and rescue western civilization from the scourge of feminism; and
WHEREAS, Roosh serves as an inspiring and uplifting example for men everywhere, about the power of one man to change the world and lead an enjoyable sex life through boldness, initiative, determination, and skill; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly commends Roosh V for his work to help men become better versions of themselves, to improve relations between the sexes, and to bring greater liberty and justice to our Commonwealth, our nation, and our world; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to Roosh V as an expression of the General Assembly's admiration for his perseverance and stalwart efforts to better the lives of all Virginians.

Nicholas Giampa #racist m.huffpost.com

When Giampa first started tweeting from the @doctorpepper35 account in May 2016, he already espoused far-right views. An enthusiastic supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump, he often used racist slurs to attack Trump’s critics. In the summer of 2016, Giampa told one Twitter user to “go back to the gas chamber,” called another a “kike” and labeled several users whom he disagreed with as “cucks.” He talked about “globalist scum” and, a few weeks later, referred to a right-wing conspiracy theory about “how hillary has literally murdered people.”

...

When Giampa returned to Twitter this past summer, around the time he started dating the daughter of Kuhn-Fricker and Kuhn, his tweets were vicious. On July 26, the same day Trump announced the transgender military ban, Giampa fired off a series of threatening tweets targeting gay and transgender people.

“I’ve already talked 1 tranny into suicide and I’m working on another 2 :wideeyed:,” he bragged. Then he posted a rainbow lynching image, encouraging gay and transgender people to commit suicide. “#transrightsarehumanrights is an oxymoron because trannies aren’t ‘people,’” Giampa tweeted that day.

Giampa retweeted Trump’s announcement of the transgender military ban, but he appeared to have been wavering in his overall support for the president. “I don’t even support trump lol I just think it’s funny how easy it is for him to piss people off,” he tweeted on July 26, months after Trump’s airstrikes against the Assad regime.

...

In the lead-up to the Nov. 7 gubernatorial race in Virginia, Giampa described Democratic candidate Ralph Northam as a “jew puppet” and told a pro-Northam Twitter user to “Get the fuck out of my state you white guilt slut.”

A white Europe without Jewish or Muslim individuals “sounds like heaven,” Giampa tweeted on Nov. 11. The next day, he tweeted “The jews are everyone’s enemy.”

He tweeted in support of nationalist marchers in Poland seeking to rid the country of Muslims and Jews. “Muslims and jews are incapable of assimilating and a threat to their culture,” he wrote.

Throughout his Twitter feed, Giampa expressed concern that white men were at risk of losing their access to guns. By late November, he was actively advocating violence. He tweeted on Nov. 20 that Charles Manson, who had died a day earlier, “did the right thing.” On Thanksgiving Day, he advocated shooting transgender and Jewish people.

That same day, Giampa retweeted a pro-Hitler meme.

Giampa retweeted a Nov. 25 tweet blaming Jews for communism and World War II. On Nov. 26, Giampa tweeted a denial of the Holocaust. Days later, he retweeted a call for Vanguard America, the Atomwaffen Division, and other neo-Nazi movements to come together as part of a “white revolution.”

Daniel Payne #fundie thefederalist.com

These days it’s no easy life for perpetrators of fake hate crimes and hoaxes generally: every time somebody comes up with a really good fake scandal, the whole thing seems to unravel within a short while. Time was, a man could go through all the trouble to arrange a hoax and could expect to reap the rewards of his hard work. Not anymore.
What’s changed? Part of it is technological: there are more security cameras, more digital paper trails, more text message records. These present opportunities for hoaxes to be exposed: there are simply more chances for people to give something away, either idiosyncratically (by, say, sending an incriminating e-mail or text message) or extraneously (by being caught on a closed-circuit camera, for instance).

Perhaps more importantly, with the multiple sensational hoaxes taking place over the past decade or so (Breitbart has catalogued more than 100 of them), much of the public—at least among those of us who work in media—has become vigilant in spotting such chicanery and exposing it. Just the same, plenty of hoaxes still get widespread attention before they’re exposed; sometimes they cause lots of damage before they’re revealed as fake.
The good news is you can train yourself to be a hoax-spotter as well. You never know: you might be instrumental in exposing the next big fake hate crime or hoax. Here are three things to look for in determining whether an accusation is probably real or possibly fake.
1. The Allegations Are Too Good to Be True
What do I mean by this? Simply that you should be skeptical of claims that overly gratify certain biases or cultural narratives. The more an accusation of wrongdoing or criminal activity sounds like a picture-perfect capitalized example of Hate Crime or Wicked Evil Behavior, the more you should mistrust the claims.
Take, for example, the now-debunked Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus,” which detailed an alleged hours-long gang rape of one young woman by a bunch of fraternity boys. The whole story turned out to be a fabrication and a global humiliation for Rolling Stone. But in the beginning, everyone believed it. Why?

As Richard Bradley pointed out (Bradley was one of the first to publicly question the story), the tale gratified many people’s pre-existing biases: biases regarding “rape culture,” fraternities, men (especially Southern men), and feckless, hostile college bureaucracies. You could have hardly asked for a story that played into more prejudices. Coincidentally, the story turned out to be an enormous lie.
Those of us who raised suspicions were lambasted as “truthers” and rebuked as rape apologists and misogynists. Everybody could have saved themselves a lot of humiliation and anger during those crazy weeks if they had simply exercised a bit of healthy skepticism.
More recently, in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub massacre, a fair number of people claimed to have either had sex with the shooter or else interacted with him on gay hookup apps. There’s that too-good-to-be-true narrative again: an openly anti-gay Islamic man is secretly an active homosexual. It gratifies many peoples’ prejudices: against religion, against anti-gay sentiment, against the way some cultures repress and lambast homosexuality and homosexual desires.
The problem: the allegations are totally unsubstantiated. The FBI has turned up zero evidence. Nobody can find any record of the shooter on any gay dating apps. Somebody produced what appeared to be a profile on one of the apps, but it turned out to be fake. The administrator of one of the apps openly stated he believed it was a hoax. One witness, when pressed to provide more evidence, “became combative,” according to the New York Times: “I don’t need to prove anything to anyone,” he said. “If I said it, it’s true.” Does that sound like a credible witness?

Be skeptical. It doesn’t mean you have to callously or conclusively doubt the people who are making these claims—you should not assume a priori that every victim or witness is a liar. You should, however, be appropriately incredulous when it comes to these things. Fantastical claims should trigger a red flag immediately.
2. The Evidence Doesn’t Add Up
You’re (probably) not a detective or even a journalist, and thus it’s not your job to gather forensic evidence at a crime scene or interview witnesses of murders or assaults. But that doesn’t mean you can’t still make a reasonable judgment regarding available evidence.
Take, for example, the University of Virginia rape hoax mentioned above. The victim claimed to have been raped for three hours on top of broken glass on a fraternity bedroom floor. But she also claimed she refused to go to the hospital for medical treatment. If you’ve been to any frat house across the country, you’ll know they usually aren’t the cleanest or most sanitary places on the planet (I’ve been to several at UVA, and most were uniformly gross). If the rape victim had declined to seek medical treatment after such an episode, the cuts on her back could easily have become infected and she probably would have fallen gravely ill and required hospitalization. That was just one small example of how her story did not add up.
More recently, gay YouTube personality Calum McSwiggan claimed that three homophobic men assaulted him outside of a gay bar in Los Angeles. By his own admission the men punched him hard enough on his mouth to break three of his teeth. The problem? Police later arrested McSwiggan for vandalizing a car, and his mug shot shows absolutely no visible damage to his mouth. Punching someone in the mouth hard enough to snap three teeth in half would leave a lot of bruising and swelling, if not graphically split lips.

More damningly, the Advocate interviewed McSwiggan a few days later, and McSwiggan showed off the bruises, cuts, and other injuries he claims he sustained from the incident—except for his allegedly broken teeth. It’s possible McSwiggan is telling the truth about the assault. But the available evidence strongly implies otherwise. It’s more likely the assault was mostly or entirely fabricated and will be revealed as such in the coming weeks.
So it is with many hoaxes: a quick review of the evidence will often turn up inconsistencies and incoherencies that suggest something isn’t right. Sometimes there are good explanations for these things. Sometimes the explanation is that it’s a hoax.
3. There Is A Big, Public Payoff for the Victim
Our culture has come to prize victimhood: it is often a lucrative trade. Students who claim to feel “unsafe” on college campuses are pampered and feted; liberal college mobs in recent years have even toppled university administrations and forced high-level officials to resign. Being a victim carries a great deal of prestige among large parts of twenty-first-century America.

With this in mind, it is unsurprising many people perpetrate hate hoaxes: they do it for the low kind of fame and fortune that often comes with being a victim. A few years ago a gay waitress fabricated an anti-gay incident for that very reason. A gay pastor in Austin, Texas did the same thing. A black activist at Kean University tweeted fake racist threats at her fellow black students to gin up controversy and build support for her activism.
Sometimes the payoff is less obvious but still very real: earlier this year three black women claimed they were assaulted on a public bus by white men who also hurled racial slurs at them. It turned out to be false: the young women had started a fight on the bus and wanted to deflect attention away from their own bad behavior. In the meantime the women received tons of support and the campus turned into a hotbed of racial activism. Payoff!
Whenever you read of a terrible or sensational claim of violence or bigotry, it is always worthwhile to ask: what is the potential payoff for the people making these claims? This doesn’t mean you should assume every victim of every crime is trying to scam you. But for the kinds of headline-grabbing events that often drive our news cycles, this kind of curious skepticism is always advisable.

If you follow these three rules, there is a better-than-average chance you’ll spot hoaxes instead of being sucked in by them. You may even do better than our credulous media and pundit class, both of which are often very eager to report on these hoaxes without doing even basic investigatory work. You will save yourself a lot of embarrassment on social media if you’re not taken in, and you won’t contribute to any mass hysteria or public pitchfork mobs in the meantime.
There is, of course, a danger in being too skeptical: in doubting 100 percent any kind of wild or fantastical claim a victim or witness makes. You shouldn’t close your mind to the possibility that these claims are true. All of the hoaxes listed here were 100 percent possible. The problem was, they weren’t very plausible—and in the end they ended up being total fakes, promoted and spread by people who were too eager to question much.
Do not be scared to be skeptical. It may make you unpopular with a certain class of people who eagerly want to believe everything that gratifies their biases. You might get yelled at or scolded if you are too prudent or cautious in getting on board with a public outrage. But you’ll be doing the right thing: making an informed judgment based on the facts instead of blind, biased rage. That’s always worthwhile.
Daniel Payne is an assistant editor for The College Fix, the news magazine of the Student Free Press Association. Daniel's work has appeared in outlets such as National Review Online, Reason, Front Porch Republic, and elsewhere. His personal blog can be found at Trial of the Century. He lives in Virginia.

Sky #fundie revleft.com

"Eastern Poland" was in fact Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. These provinces had been stolen by Poland when it partitioned Ukraine and Belorussia following its aggression against the soviet republics in 1919-20. The provinces of Lvov, Stanislavov, Tarnpol, and Volyn added to Ukraine had a population of 7 million of which 57% were Ukrainian and 7 % Jewish. The provinces of Novgorodek, Vilno, and Polesie added to Belorussia had a population of 3.5 million of which 50% were Belorussian and 9% jewish.

In regard to the Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia had been part of Russia since 1721. In Estonia, as in Petrograd, power passed to the soviets on 7 November 1917. By February 1918 soviets had been set up in four-fifths of the districts in Estonia, and revolutionary changes were under way. On February 18, 1918, German troops invaded Estonia. In November a bourgeois regime with K. Pats as prime minister was formed with the cooperation of the occupation authorities. On 29 November 1918, units of the Seventh Army, including Estonian regiments, liberated Narva, where the Estlandia Labor Commune was proclaimed that same day. Power passed to the Council of the Commune, whose chairman was Jan Anvelt. The government of Russia recognized the independence of Estonia in a decree signed by Lenin on 8 December 1918. Estonia was subject to foreign aggression. A British squadron invaded on 12 December 1918 and mercenaries from Finland, Sweden, and Denmark were brought to Estonia. Opening their offensive in early January 1919, the combined forces of the interventionists and White Guards smashed the Estlandia Labor Commune.

On 28 September 1939 Russia and Estonia signed a mutual assistance pact, providing for the stationing of Red Army troops in Estonia. In June 1940, Soviet troops entered Estonia with the consent of the Estonia regime. On 21 June workers’ demonstrations took place in Tallinn, Tartu, Narva, and other cities, and the regime was overthrown. A people’s government was formed under the leadership of J. Vares. In the 15 July 1940 election, 93 percent of the electorate voted for the candidates of the Working People’s League of Estonia, a united electoral coalition of the democratic strata. On 21 July 1940, the State Council proclaimed the restoration of Soviet rule and the establishment of the Estonian Soviet Republic. The State Council requested the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to admit Estonia into the USSR. On 6 August 1940 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR granted the request, and the Estonian SSR entered the USSR as a soviet socialist republic.

Gavin McInnes #sexist rightwingwatch.org

CRTV commentator Gavin McInnes, who also leads the bizarre, misogynistic “Proud Boys” fraternity, said that the historic election of several openly transgender people to state and local offices earlier this week can be blamed on men allowing women to vote.

On yesterday’s episode of “Get Off My Lawn,” McInnes was joined by Gateway Pundit’s White House reporter Lucian Wintrich, who joined him in attributing major Republican losses to Democrats campaigning on “identity politics” by putting forward diverse candidates. They went on to attribute the election of transgender people, including Virginia state assembly candidate Danica Roem, to women’s ability to vote.

“The liberals say, ‘Maybe we should give up on identity politics,’ but you look at all the Sikhs and black people and trans who won in this election and all these unprecedented cases. It had nothing to do with policy. It was all identity politics,” McInnes said.

He continued, “I was looking at those two trannies who won. There’s no substance there at all. And I think it’s because we let women vote. Women have been voting now based on their ‘feels’ for many years. They brought us Obama, no substance.”

“It’s all just girls, girls, girls playing politics,” McInnes said.

Wintrich said he wanted to know when liberals would realize that “playing the intersectionality game to elect people” results in “terrible people that are ruining the country.”

“I’m excited to see how badly this tranny actually fucks up Virginia,” Wintrich said.

Gisela Allen #fundie heraldscotland.com

GUILLOTINES, castration, and flogging – these are just some of the policies put forward by the latest controversial Scottish Ukip candidate to come to the fore.

Gisela Allen also has some strange views on people being vocal members of the LGBT community. She says she finds gorillas attractive – they make her “hormones go crazy”, she claims – but she doesn’t talk about it so why should gay, lesbian or bisexual people talk about their sex life.

Allen, who is standing in Glasgow for the anti-EU party, also insisted mothers with young children should not work.

An aide to Ukip MEP David Coburn said last night that Allen’s views “do not reflect official party policy”. However, in an apparent endorsement of her views, he said the candidate’s “personal manifesto” should be put to the electorate

Allen, 84, who is a Glasgow Ukip candidate, spoke exclusively to the Sunday Herald yesterday, setting out her views on crime, health, childcare and relationships.

She said: “The main purpose of the law is to protect the public. If I could get the guillotine, lethal injection or firing squad I would gladly have it. I would also castrate violent criminals. You castrate bulls, horses, dogs – it takes the aggression away. Moreover, these violent criminals can’t have any more children themselves. And I am all for the cat o’ nine tails. You like violence? Well let’s see how you like to be on the receiving end.”

Allen came to Scotland from Switzerland in 1961 as an exchange student where she met her Jamaican husband, who was in the RAF. They had four children and ran a bed and breakfast. Despite her age she is in favour of euthanising the elderly and the sick.

She said: “The NHS spends a fortune on prolonging the lives of, for instance, cancer sufferers. Settle the whole nonsense. Kidney transplants, heart transplants – come off it.”

When her husband died Allen began volunteering at Glasgow Zoo and uses an animal analogy when speaking about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.

She said: “I am not anti-gay – but how can you call that a community? Sex life is everybody’s private affair. You do not come out and declare openly. Do you think I am going all over the city and saying my idea of a sexually-attractive creature is a gorilla? When I go to a zoo and I see a gorilla my hormones go absolutely crazy. I find a gorilla very attractive.”

The mother-of-four was also adamant that mothers should stay at home and look after their young children, adding that councils should withdraw nursery funding.

She said: “When you have very small children it is advisable that you look after them yourself. If a woman is a dentist or a doctor, or in any career important to the community, we should do our best to get her back to work as soon as possible, because such careers shouldn’t really be interrupted. But if somebody sits in an office at a computer, I think her place is at home until the children are bigger.”

Michael Silvera and Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

Silvera has stated that if he could own any dinosaur, it would be a tyrannosarus rex, partly because it would probably be rather effective at attracting young boys to his property. Silvera punctuated this remark with a resounding "RAR!" However, it is not clear that tyrannosaurs actually roared, as audio recording did not exist in prehistoric times.
In early 2012, Silvera was asked by a fan what his advice would be for a father considering asking his daughter for sex, but who worried what her reaction might be; i.e. whether she might get "weirded out." Silvera replied that if the father and daughter were at a restaurant and he asked if she would like some kung pao chicken, why should she get offended? All he was doing was offering something he thought she might like. Silvera also commented that it is rather common for daughters to get upset over what their father thinks, says, or does, such as not liking her boyfriend, not giving her a big enough allowance, etc.

image
Image is captioned: "What could be better?

Larson asked Silvera, "What do you think the chances are that I'll someday get to experience the sublime joy of hearing that my teenage daughter and lover just broke water with my combination child/grandchild? And what do you think the chances are that I'll hear this news from somewhere other than in a correctional facility where I'll be serving a term of imprisonment for incestuous statutory rape?" Silvera responded that he wasn't sure, but that he hoped that he could be best man at the wedding.
Silvera's favorite character from RoboCop is the ED-209. This is presumably because the film lacked any particularly comely prepubescent characters. Even if a character suitable for being played by Heather O'Rourke had been written into the script, that actress was already 11 years old at the time of the filming and therefore at least three years "too late" by the standards of the René Guyon Society. Silvera confesses that frankly, he finds that pedophilic foundation fabulous; and he professes himself to be a freedom fighter who fully supports and fiercely defends paraphilia- and family-fun-favoring philosophical frameworks against all foes, foreign and domestic, with a ferally feline ferocity whose fiery fury is exemplified by the unflagging and fanatically fervid fidelity of his affiliation with his fellow followers and friends of NAMBLA.
Silvera has described federal supervised release as a way to extend people's sentences: "I think if you get sentenced to x number of years in prison, you should do x number of years and then get the fuck out" without having to serve a supervised release sentence, a violation of which could lead to further imprisonment. Silvera is sometimes referred to as "the white Gandhi" because of his physical resemblance, especially when he has recently shaved his head, to Mohandas Gandhi.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty thought there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she has been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

Gedaliah Braun #racist halcyoninitiative.wordpress.com

[Part 3]

Gruesome cruelty

Another aspect of African behavior that liberals do their best to ignore but that nevertheless requires an explanation is gratuitous cruelty. A reviewer of Driving South, a 1993 book by David Robbins, writes:

“A Cape social worker sees elements that revel in violence … It’s like a cult which has embraced a lot of people who otherwise appear normal. … At the slightest provocation their blood-lust is aroused. And then they want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death.” (Citizen [Johannesburg], July 12, 1993, p.6.)

There is something so unspeakably vile about this, something so beyond depravity, that the human brain recoils. This is not merely the absence of human empathy, but the positive enjoyment of human suffering, all the more so when it is “slow and agonizing.” Can you imagine jeering at and mocking someone in such horrible agony?

During the apartheid era, black activists used to kill traitors and enemies by “necklacing” them. An old tire was put around the victim’s neck, filled with gasoline, and—but it is best to let an eye-witness describe what happened next:

“The petrol-filled tyre is jammed on your shoulders and a lighter is placed within reach . … Your fingers are broken, needles are pushed up your nose and you are tortured until you put the lighter to the petrol yourself.” (Citizen; “SA’s New Nazis,” August 10, 1993, p.18.)

The author of an article in the Chicago Tribune, describing the equally gruesome way the Hutu killed Tutsi in the Burundi massacres, marveled at “the ecstasy of killing, the lust for blood; this is the most horrible thought. It’s beyond my reach.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1995, p.8.) The lack of any moral sense is further evidenced by their having videotaped their crimes, “apparently want[ing] to record … [them] for posterity.” Unlike war criminals, who hid their deeds, these people apparently took pride in their work.

In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks. One day when she was driving three African friends home, young blacks stopped the car, dragged her out, and killed her because she was white. A retired senior South African judge, Rex van Schalkwyk, in his 1998 book One Miracle is Not Enough, quotes from a newspaper report on the trial of her killers: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her] … burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain.” This behavior, Van Schalkwyk wrote, “is impossible to explain in terms accessible to rational minds.” (pp. 188-89.)

These incidents and the responses they evoke—“the human brain recoils,” “beyond my reach,” “impossible to explain to rational minds” — represent a pattern of behavior and thinking that cannot be wished away, and offer additional support for my claim that Africans are deficient in moral consciousness.

I have long suspected that the idea of rape is not the same in Africa as elsewhere, and now I find confirmation of this in Newsweek:

“According to a three-year study [in Johannesburg] … more than half of the young people interviewed — both male and female — believe that forcing sex with someone you know does not constitute sexual violence … [T]he casual manner in which South African teens discuss coercive relationships and unprotected sex is staggering.” (Tom Masland, “Breaking The Silence,” Newsweek, July 9, 2000.)

Clearly, many blacks do not think rape is anything to be ashamed of.

The Newsweek author is puzzled by widespread behavior that is known to lead to AIDS, asking “Why has the safe-sex effort failed so abjectly?” Well, aside from their profoundly different attitudes towards sex and violence and their heightened libido, a major factor could be their diminished concept of time and reduced ability to think ahead.

Nevertheless, I was still surprised by what I found in the Zulu dictionary. The main entry for rape reads: “1. Act hurriedly; … 2. Be greedy. 3. Rob, plunder, … take [possessions] by force.” While these entries may be related to our concept of rape, there is one small problem: there is no reference to sexual intercourse! In a male-dominated culture, where saying “no” is often not an option (as confirmed by the study just mentioned), “taking sex by force” is not really part of the African mental calculus. Rape clearly has a moral dimension, but perhaps not to Africans. To the extent they do not consider coerced sex to be wrong, then, by our conception, they cannot consider it rape because rape is wrong. If such behavior isn’t wrong it isn’t rape.

An article about gang rape in the left-wing British paper, the Guardian, confirms this when it quotes a young black woman: “The thing is, they [black men] don’t see it as rape, as us being forced. They just see it as pleasure for them.” (Rose George, “They Don’t See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them,” June 5, 2004.) A similar attitude seems to be shared among some American blacks who casually refer to gang rape as “running a train.” (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.)

If the African understanding of rape is far afield, so may be their idea of romance or love. I recently watched a South African television program about having sex for money. Of the several women in the audience who spoke up, not a single one questioned the morality of this behavior. Indeed, one plaintively asked, “Why else would I have sex with a man?”

From the casual way in which Africans throw around the word “love,” I suspect their understanding of it is, at best, childish. I suspect the notion is alien to Africans, and I would be surprised if things are very different among American blacks. Africans hear whites speak of “love” and try to give it a meaning from within their own conceptual repertoire. The result is a child’s conception of this deepest of human emotions, probably similar to their misunderstanding of the nature of a promise.

I recently located a document that was dictated to me by a young African woman in June 1993. She called it her “story,” and the final paragraph is a poignant illustration of what to Europeans would seem to be a limited understanding of love:

“On my way from school, I met a boy. And he proposed me. His name was Mokone. He tell me that he love me. And then I tell him I will give him his answer next week. At night I was crazy about him. I was always thinking about him.”

Moral blindness

Whenever I taught ethics I used the example of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French Army who was convicted of treason in 1894 even though the authorities knew he was innocent. Admitting their mistake, it was said, would have a disastrous effect on military morale and would cause great social unrest. I would in turn argue that certain things are intrinsically wrong and not just because of their consequences. Even if the results of freeing Dreyfus would be much worse than keeping him in prison, he must be freed, because it is unjust to keep an innocent man in prison.

To my amazement, an entire class in Kenya said without hesitation that he should not be freed. Call me dense if you want, but it was 20 years before the full significance of this began to dawn on me.

Africans, I believe, may generally lack the concepts of subjunctivity and counterfactuality. Subjunctivity is conveyed in such statements as, “What would you have done if I hadn’t showed up?” This is contrary to fact because I did show up, and it is now impossible for me not to have shown up. We are asking someone to imagine what he would have done if something that didn’t happen (and now couldn’t happen) had happened. This requires self-consciousness, and I have already described blacks’ possible deficiency in this respect. It is obvious that animals, for example, cannot think counterfactually, because of their complete lack of self-awareness.

When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked “What’s it for?” “Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital.” Their response was immediate: “But boss, we didn’t have an accident!” “Yes, but what if you did?” Reply? “We didn’t have an accident!” End of story.

Interestingly, blacks do plan for funerals, for although an accident is only a risk, death is a certainty. (The Zulu entries for “risk” are “danger” and “a slippery surface.”) Given the frequent all-or-nothing nature of black thinking, if it’s not certain you will have an accident, then you will not have an accident. Furthermore, death is concrete and observable: We see people grow old and die. Africans tend to be aware of time when it is manifested in the concrete and observable.

One of the pivotal ideas underpinning morality is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. “How would you feel if someone stole everything you owned? Well, that’s how he would feel if you robbed him.” The subjunctivity here is obvious. But if Africans may generally lack this concept, they will have difficulty in understanding the Golden Rule and, to that extent, in understanding morality.

If this is true we might also expect their capacity for human empathy to be diminished, and this is suggested in the examples cited above. After all, how do we empathize? When we hear about things like “necklacing” we instinctively — and unconsciously — think: “How would I feel if I were that person?” Of course I am not and cannot be that person, but to imagine being that person gives us valuable moral “information:” that we wouldn’t want this to happen to us and so we shouldn’t want it to happen to others. To the extent people are deficient in such abstract thinking, they will be deficient in moral understanding and hence in human empathy—which is what we tend to find in Africans.

In his 1990 book Devil’s Night, Ze’ev Chafets quotes a black woman speaking about the problems of Detroit: “I know some people won’t like this, but whenever you get a whole lot of black people, you’re gonna have problems. Blacks are ignorant and rude.” (pp. 76-77.)

If some Africans cannot clearly imagine what their own rude behavior feels like to others—in other words, if they cannot put themselves in the other person’s shoes—they will be incapable of understanding what rudeness is. For them, what we call rude may be normal and therefore, from their perspective, not really rude. Africans may therefore not be offended by behavior we would consider rude — not keeping appointments, for example. One might even conjecture that African cruelty is not the same as white cruelty, since Africans may not be fully aware of the nature of their behavior, whereas such awareness is an essential part of “real” cruelty.

I am hardly the only one to notice this obliviousness to others that sometimes characterizes black behavior. Walt Harrington, a white liberal married to a light-skinned black, makes some surprising admissions in his 1994 book, Crossings: A White Man’s Journey Into Black America:

“I notice a small car … in the distance. Suddenly … a bag of garbage flies out its window . … I think, I’ll bet they’re blacks. Over the years I’ve noticed more blacks littering than whites. I hate to admit this because it is a prejudice. But as I pass the car, I see that my reflex was correct—[they are blacks].

“[As I pull] into a McDonald’s drive-through … [I see that] the car in front of me had four black in it. Again … my mind made its unconscious calculation: We’ll be sitting here forever while these people decide what to order. I literally shook my head . … My God, my kids are half black! But then the kicker: we waited and waited and waited. Each of the four … leaned out the window and ordered individually. The order was changed several times. We sat and sat, and I again shook my head, this time at the conundrum that is race in America.

“I knew that the buried sentiment that had made me predict this disorganization … was … racist. … But my prediction was right.” (pp. 234-35.)

Africans also tend to litter. To understand this we must ask why whites don’t litter, at least not as much. We ask ourselves: “What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere? It would be a mess. So you shouldn’t do it!” Blacks’ possible deficiency in abstract thinking makes such reasoning more difficult, so any behavior requiring such thinking is less likely to develop in their cultures. Even after living for generations in societies where such thinking is commonplace, many may still fail to absorb it.

It should go without saying that my observations about Africans are generalizations. I am not saying that none has the capacity for abstract thought or moral understanding. I am speaking of tendencies and averages, which leave room for many exceptions.

To what extent do my observations about Africans apply to American blacks? American blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is a full 15 points higher than the African average of 70. The capacity for abstract thought is unquestionably correlated with intelligence, and so we can expect American blacks generally to exceed Africans in these respects.

Still, American blacks show many of the traits so striking among Africans: low mathematical ability, diminished abstract reasoning, high crime rates, a short time-horizon, rudeness, littering, etc. If I had lived only among American blacks and not among Africans, I might never have reached the conclusions I have, but the more extreme behavior among Africans makes it easier to perceive the same tendencies among American blacks.

Gregory Hood #racist amren.com

Schrödinger’s Demographics

Last week, Democrats won full control of Virginia’s state government. Among those elected were Ghazala Hashmi, Virginia’s first Muslim woman state senator. Virginia, like California, is now solidly — and probably permanently — blue.

Republican pundits were baffled that Governor Ralph Northam’s blackface scandals and extreme pro-abortion positions — along with other democrat sex scandals — didn’t hurt Democrats.

They shouldn’t be surprised. California went from red to blue because of demographic change. What just happened in Virginia will happen to Texas, Georgia, and Florida soon. Politics is downstream from culture, but culture is downstream from race.

Less than 70 percent of Virginia’s electorate is white, and Democrats win an overwhelming share of the ever-increasing non-white vote. A Heritage Foundation report found even non-citizens who voted in recent state elections.

The political consequences are obvious. If you celebrate those consequences, the mainstream media welcome your opinion. If you oppose them, you are racist for suggesting demographic transformation matters.

Call it “Schrödinger’s Demographics.” Demographic and political changes either exist or don’t depending on whether you think they are good or bad.
Democrats and their media allies are proud to attribute their triumph to “diversity.”

“[A] younger, more racially diverse electorate combined with a backlash against President Trump to propel the most dramatic political shift in a generation to Prince William and Loudon counties.” Washington Post, November 6, 2019

“Tuesday’s elections also seem to indicate changing demographics, something highlighted by women and African Americans winning seats in statewide and local races.” Free Lanec-Star in a story entitled, “Tuesday’s election paints picture of changing demographics.”

“We are winning because we recognize the power of an electorate that includes and reflects the diversity of our state.” New York Times, November 6, 2019

The Times op-ed by Tram Nguyen of New Virginia Majority also claimed that felons’ who had their voting rights restored by former governor Terry McAuliffe were a “key voting bloc.”

Like these writers, Laura Ingraham also recognized that demographics matter. “Virginia’s foreign-born population nearly doubled from 2000 and 2017,” she said, “and these immigrants are mostly concentrated in Northern Virginia, Fairfax Country, Loudon County, Prince William County, outside of D.C., and they are altering the demographic makeup of the state – and, as The Washington Post and others have pointed out, the electorate.”
However, when Miss Ingraham made essentially the same observation that liberals had, it became “racist.”

Former governor Terry McAuliffe called the very use of the term foreign-born “horrible.” “She oughta take her racist policies, go sit with Donald Trump and have a good afternoon talking to each other,” he said. “We don’t want that in the Commonwealth in Virginia [sic]. We are a strong state because of our diversity.” CNN’s Dana Bash said that regardless of the term Miss Ingraham used, state demographics are shifting. Mr. McAuliffe responded that “America’s demographics are shifting,” repeated his love of diversity, and said Laura Ingraham could leave Virginia because “we don’t want that racist kind of talk in our state.”

(Terry McAuliffe lives in McLean, Virginia. The Census Bureau reports it is over 75 percent white and 18 percent Asian. It’s less than two percent black and just over five percent Hispanic. The New Republic calls it “home of America’s ruling class.”)

A flurry of “point-and-sputter” articles appeared condemning Laura Ingraham for noticing the obvious.

“Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Blames ‘Foreign-born Population,’ George Soros for GOP Losses in Virginia,” Haaretz

“Laura Ingraham says ‘foreign-born’ voters and George Soros to blame for GOP Virginia losses,” Newsweek

“Laura Ingraham blames GOP losses in Virginia on George Soros, ‘demographic changes’ and ‘foreign-born population’,” Media Matters for America
(“Demographic changes” in scare quotes is an especially nice touch.)

The social media campaign Sleeping Giants, which runs economic pressure campaigns against conservatives, called her “racist.” Of course, both demographic change and George Soros’s massive spending in Virginia are facts.

In April, The Washington Post reported “Money from PAC funded by George Soros shakes up prosecutor races in Northern Virginia.” A follow-up story in the Post a few months later said a PAC supported by Mr. Soros spent nearly one million dollars “to promote progressive challengers in the Democratic primary races for prosecutor in Arlington and Fairfax counties.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported a few days ago that the PAC was “flooding Virginia with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a last-minute effort to support Democratic prosecutors on the ballot on Nov. 5.” Democrats swept these elections, an outcome The Washington Post reported was “powered to a significant degree by Democratic megadonor George Soros, whose political action committee spent nearly $2.1 million in the primary and general election on polls, mailers, and advertisements” for various candidates.

Facts are irrelevant. What matters to journalists is whether someone celebrates replacement migration taking place. “The Confederacy is dead,” wrote Bennett Minton in The Washington Post, celebrating a Democratic coalition that is “educated, racially and ethnically diverse and dominated by women.” Republicans, he said, have a “shrinking base” with voters that are “whiter, less educated, and rural.” He anticipated that Governor Northam will soon sign a bill authorizing localities to remove Confederate statues.

This will be a powerful symbol of white Southerners’ dispossession. Yet some conservatives are still blind. In response to Minton’s column, Jessie Jane Duff of Veterans for Trump tried, once again, a variation of the “Democrats are the real racists” argument.

This tired script failed spectacularly. Non-whites are not impressed by GOP groveling, nor should they be. It’s entirely rational that non-whites vote for the party that gives them racial preferences, government handouts, and demographic reinforcements.

Even Bill Kristol admitted we don’t have elections anymore, just a census. The Republican Party depends on white voters. Liberals recognize this, but when conservatives say it out loud, liberals call them “racist.” Clearly, reality is racist.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

I strongly suspect that if incestuous marriage had been legal and socially accepted, Ivanka would be the de jure, rather than merely de facto, First Lady.

Legalization of incestuous marriage (by completely repealing Code of Virginia § 20-38.1) will benefit families by expanding the pool of available mates to include those within the family itself. One difficulty that sometimes arises with finding a suitable mate is information asymmetry, in which one does not know enough about potential mates to make a good decision. In familial relationships, they mate tends to be more of a known quantity.

A commonly-cited disadvantage of incest is the potential for birth defects in their offspring, but this is usually not a major problem if the two are genetically distant enough (e.g. father and daughter as opposed to brother and sister). The major problem arises if inbreeding is carried on for too many generations.

In the manosphere, it is sometimes said that young women desire a father figure (even to the point of looking for a man who will spank them and/or have them call him "daddy"), and that because of sexual differences in emotional attachment, the only truly sacrificial love that a man can expect from a woman is from his mother. It also seems logical that a parent might feel some attraction for a child who resembles the person they fell in love with and had children with. The potential to have incestuous relationships down the road could provide an incentive to produce offspring and to care for them as an investment in one's own sexual future.

A father will tend to be significantly older than his daughter, and therefore will be more likely to be a better provider, and less likely to beat her, than a man her own age.

As always, we can rely on natural selection to ensure that people have no greater tendency toward incest (or any other activity) than would be optimal.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

What are the two groups that hate BLs the most? Surely, evangelical Christians and radical feminists. Evangelical Christians, we can understand as being probably self-hating BLs, who being unable to destroy their own homoerotic pedophilic desires without committing suicide, have to resort to attacking manifestations of similar attractions in others.
But what explains why "strong, independent" women would hate BLs? I've noticed that some of the most anti-BL people are radical feminists. For example, a lot of the psychologists in charge of sex offender treatment are radical feminists, and they tend to be very strict about policing their patients' BL thoughts and behaviors, going way beyond the call of duty in their anti-BL crusading.
Why is this? I think it's because BLs are the ultimate MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way). BLs are not part of the mainstream gay rights movement, which usually allies with feminists. Nor do they serve women as sperm donors, child support payers, and other kinds of useful chumps, the way that blue pill heterosexual, teleiophilic beta men so often do. Women have a harder time trying to milk BLs for resources, political support, etc., because they can't use their sexuality as leverage to manipulate them. So they have to resort to using force against these men, by disenfranchising them, imposing sex offender restrictions on them, etc.
BLs also provide an alternative link between boys and the adult world, potentially taking the place of the role of (usually female) schoolteachers and dominant or single moms who would otherwise have a free hand in indoctrinating little boys however they wish. Feminists would like to destroy all bonds between men and boys that could present a threat to their agenda of control and influence over young males as they develop.
Wherever there's an all-male environment (whether it's the military, or sports, or whatever), feminists would like to intrude and say that toxic masculinity is being propagated. They demand that either women be allowed entry, or the entire institution/organization/gathering/relationship/etc. be shut down. Once women enter, of course, they dismantle the whole culture that has developed, and replace it with a new, more politically correct culture that views men as malefactors and women as victims in need of empowerment.
In feminists' view, two males hanging out together without a woman present, and without plenty of "Ls," "Bs," and "Ts" to complement the "Gs" in their group of GLBT associates, can't possibly be up to any good. Feminists want to not only destroy any resistance to their agenda, but also even the smallest seeds of potential resistance, before they have a chance to sprout and take root.
More fundamentally, feminism is cultural Marxism that views any trade of services for money as exploitative. While we may speak of love, and it is indeed a real phenomenon, let's face it, it's often very convenient to hang out with a rich friend, and many women have viewed wealthy men as attractive mates. The more two people need each other, the more closely bound they are, and the more that true love develops; "love" has even been defined sometimes as a combination of mutual attraction and lack of other options. The fewer other options you have, the more special the person you're with seems to you, and the stronger your love may grow. It could even be a survival mechanism for ensuring that one treats helpful people well.
Yet, a situation of scarcity and youthful dependence on another is anathema to feminists, who view it as creating circumstances ripe for exploitation to develop. Feminists would like to dismantle all this, and view the person receiving money, gifts, etc. as an oppressed individual who needs to become financially independent before he can give meaningful consent to sex or any other kind of relationship.
We are at a point now where even a man who gives a boy a present without touching him is viewed as a predator for trying to "groom" him to like him. As is typical of Marxists, they view the wealthier adult as the bourgeois and the boy as the proletarian, regardless of the true balance of power, influence, dependence, love, etc. between them. If a sex act occurs between them, this is construed as a service from the boy to the man, rather than as mutually enjoyable affection, because material gifts were mostly being given from the man to the boy, making it seem like an economic transaction.
Yet, it is the oldest tradition for presents to be made from the older generation to the younger generation, who then pay the generosity forward by in turn giving to the next generation. What is really going on here, is that the ruling class wants to eradicate any interaction that occurs through private channels rather than being organized by the state, because the state wants to monopolize everything and gain total control. The state wants everyone to dependent on it, rather than relying on family or friends for material or emotional needs.
The problem is, the state is bureaucratic and cold, and can't provide true satisfaction the way a rewarding relationship can. The state is also vindictive and cruel. Anyone who has ever dealt with feminists knows that these are also characteristics that the feminists share.
While people claim, "BLs will just abandon their young friends when they come of age," it is actually feminists who will abandon boys who come of age. The feminist schoolteacher will stop being a mentor to the boy who has grown up, because it's not her job to remain in his life. Her effectiveness as a mentor to boys was always limited anyway, because the anti-fraternization policies of her job prevented her from getting too close, and because being a woman, she was not able to relate to boys' experiences the way a man could've.

Nathan Larson #racist nathania.org

One thing about Jews is that they're really tightwads, yet in the end, they don't get ahead by being that way. Guys who are really generous with their money tend to make more friends. But maybe the Jews don't care, as long as they have their Jewish brotherhood. Jews do piss a lot of people off, though, just by being cheap.
Jews accomplished something brilliant by setting up a system where they pull the strings of power and then sic their own media dogs on the puppets, so that people say, "Yeah, we really showed those powerful tyrants a thing or two," when it reality, the Jews are just going to attach different puppets to the same strings, and start the process over again.
Isn't that what the Democratic and Republican parties are all about? They're controlled by the same donors, and the people feel like they're accomplishing something by kicking one party out and putting the other party in power, and then repeating the process over and over.
What was also brilliant that the Jews did, was that they said that if you finally follow the strings to them and expose them as being in control, you're (1) an antisemitic bigot and (2) a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
As support for this, they point out that no one reputable puts forward antisemitic views. It's all a bunch of Confederate- or Nazi-flag waving guys hanging out with a bunch of guns out in the sticks. Well yeah -- anyone who criticizes the Jews gets exiled from any corporate or government role, so of course they have to resort to a blue collar or agrarian life.
If you criticize the Jews, people will say, "Wow, he's so ANGRY. He must be projecting his own problems and frustrations at his inferiorities onto a scapegoat." The funny thing is, the Jews are the ones who make the politicians (i.e. their puppets) scapegoats for the people to attack and sacrifice.
It's even part of their religion to have a sacrificial lamb, so of course they integrate that into their political strategy. They've been using sacrificial animals to appease even God, so why wouldn't they use them to appease the voters?
The funny thing is, Jews act like they're the ones who are weak and vulnerable, because they got massacred.
Well, yeah, they sort of are vulnerable, because if the lion wakes up, it can slaughter them. But the lion has its own weakness, which is Lion Guilt.

Nathan Larson #sexist red-pill-libertarian.com

Enslavement is not that radical of an idea

Slavery is actually not all that radical of an idea. Already, both men and women are enslaved till they reach the age of 18. They have to do whatever chores their parents order them to do, and they can be spanked or otherwise disciplined for disobeying. They are subject to compulsory schooling and can be thrown into detention or juvenile hall if they resist. They also are not allowed to vote, even though they pay taxes (sales taxes when they spend their allowance, and income taxes when they turn 16 and start working). The average voter probably supports all this.

Red pillers favor extending the enslavement of women beyond age 18, under the theory that, especially during some of women's most important years (ages 15-30), they are usually not able to make decisions that are as wise as what their fathers could make for them. In countries like India where arranged marriages are the norm, it does seem like there's a higher marital success rate.

Bear in mind, the term "enslavement" tends to be used very broadly by libertarians, to cover everything from conscription to jury duty. Mainstream society, and the Supreme Court, obviously don't consider that kind of mandatory service enslavement, or it would have been struck down as a 13th Amendment violation.

My point in saying that it's not that radical of an idea, is that it's an idea that by now we have plenty of experience applying in the real world and seeing how it works. One disadvantage that libertarianism often has is that it proposes ideas that have never been tried, and therefore people will say, for example, "Show me one place in the world where anarcho-capitalism has worked."

Objections

"Ah, the moral relativism dodge."

That wasn't the way I intended it. Part of my point was that slavery of children has been tried before, so it's a practice that we have some empirical evidence about. One of the problems with a lot of libertarian ideas, such as anarcho-capitalism, is that there's little empirical evidence about how it would work, so people will say, "Show me one place on earth where a society without a state has flourished" and use that as a reason why we can't try it. The subjugation of women to men has also been tried extensively throughout history, so we know a lot about the consequences of it. It wouldn't be an untried social experiment; to the contrary, feminism is the relatively new social experiment, and we're just now starting to get some evidence of the results (e.g. falling fertility rates, diminished levels of female happiness, rising suicide rates among menopausal women, etc.)

The other aspect of enslavement of women is that it is very similar to practices the voters already approve (e.g. the enslavement of children). As a pragmatic political realist who is always mindful of what the voters will be receptive to, I have to take that into account.

"Libertarians generally oppose most of the child indentured servitude bullet points you listed above"

I'm not so sure about that. One of the rationales for why I'm being kicked out of the LPVA is that they say I don't respect the fact that children can't give informed consent (e.g. to sex). The idea that children can't give informed consent is one of the main arguments for enslaving them. Apparently, the LPVA does believe children are incompetent to exercise their rights of self-ownership. If they don't own themselves, then someone else owns them (at least temporarily), which is the very definition of slavery.

If we can justify taking away rights from kids on the basis of their being less competent than their parents or other guardians, then why not take away rights from women on the basis of their being less competent than their fathers and husbands, if that can be proven? The theoretical foundation having been laid, and agreed on by Libertarians at least with regard to children, all that is left is to gather the empirical proof.

"This anti-woman philosophy masquerading as a strand of libertarianism would only exacerbate that problem. As a Libertarian activist who wants our candidates to do well and get elected, I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that alienates half the voters."

I'm antifeminist, not anti-woman. There are female antifeminists as well, such as Ann Coulter and Christy0Misty, who have said that women's right to vote should be taken away. Mises (in Socialism) and Rothbard (in Power and Market) too made suggestions along those lines.

"As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves."

You seem to be presuming that (1) equality of women to men is a libertarian view, (2) the idea of enslavement of women to men repels all women, and (3) it's preferable to date libertarians rather than statists. Actually, I think it's often best to have a romantic relationship with women who are apolitical. Thus far, I haven't observed libertarian women to have a very good track record of loyalty; most of them seem to end up divorcing at least one husband.

Nathan Larson #sexist red-pill-libertarian.com

Could it be that adult-child sex serves a useful purpose for the kid while she's young, and then later the repulsion is a way of getting her to mate with someone else? This seems similar to how little kids like their parents, and cling to their parents, while they're young; and later, when they become teenagers, are embarrassed by their parents and want to distance themselves from them.

The fact that later, they feel differently about their parents than they did before, doesn't mean that their parents never should've nurtured them to begin with. It's just that the time for that kind of nurturing came to an end. Who's to say it's not the same way with adult-child sex, including situations in which teenage boys leave behind the older men they used to have sex with, and go after girls instead?

(The pedophile then is like the caterpillar's cocoon, that serves its purpose and then is abandoned. Just because the butterfly feels no need to go back inside the cocoon doesn't mean the caterpillar erred in entering it, and should've been protected from it.)

These days, though, a lot of kids come back to their parents anyway, after their teenage years, and get along with them fine. Many even form three-generation households.

Who's to say that those kids who came to hate the pedophiles who had sex with them, wouldn't later feel differently, if society would be accepting of those changed feelings? But since society doesn't want to hear it, they have to keep quiet. It's hard to know what the truth is, when there's so much stigma attached to a certain point of view.

Corey Stewart #racist washingtonpost.com

A divided Charlottesville City Council’s decision last week to remove the statue of the Confederate general [Robert E. Lee] gave Stewart an opening to appeal to his base. On social media, he urged people to “defend Virginia’s heritage,” likening those who wanted to remove the statue to tyrants and Nazis...

In an interview, Stewart welcomed the protests and the attention they would bring, believing they would buttress his pitch as a conservative standing up to an intolerant left and “political correctness.”

“I am calling them out for who they are,” Stewart said. “It’s really a symptom of the problem of the left and their unwillingness to listen to alternative points of view.”

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesus-is-savior.com

Many Illuminati members are elite Jews (which has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism). I love Jewish people, but I love Arabs just as much. God is NO respecter of persons (Romans 2:11). Jews are NO better than Gentiles (Romans 3:9). This is why the Jews hate the New Testament, because it gives equal ground to the Gentiles, which makes the Jews extremely jealous (Romans 11:11). Many of the names you've often heard from Hollywood are fake, hiding the actor's real Jewish name. This was done on purpose to prevent the American public from realizing just how “Jewish” Hollywood really is—the number one source of immoral, Communist, Anti-Christian, Anti-family, Anti-American, blasphemous, pedophile, sicko, brainwashing propaganda in existence.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

Whitney Cummings once said, "Porn isn't bad. Men watching porn is like women watching The Food Network: we're both watching things we're never going to freaking do." Feminists led the efforts to ban child pornography in the late 1970s, and will continue trying to demonize men for indulging their curiosity in, or getting aroused by, "deviant" forms of sexuality, and for exploiting women, even as women (especially feminist women, who often are excited by rape fantasies — not that there's anything wrong with that) indulge in their own violent, sadomasochistic pornography by reading Fifty Shades of Grey. It's hypocritical and a double standard.

Feminists have even gotten porn involving 17-year-old girls declared "child pornography," despite the fact that these girls would, until very recently, have been considered nubile (i.e. of marriageable age), rather than children. It is just another way of shaming men for having normal sexual desires. Young women are at the peak of their fertile years, so it is natural for men to want to have sex with them, and understandable that some men would resort to pornography as a more easily obtainable substitute.

In a way, it shouldn't be all that surprising that some men want to have sex even with girls who haven't reached puberty. There are, after all, men who will have sex with women (e.g. the wife they've been married to for 30 years) who are so old as to be infertile, so why wouldn't there be men who would have sex with girls who are too young to be fertile? It's been theorized that sex serves a number of purposes besides reproduction (for example, giving couples another reason to stay together to raise their children). It doesn't seem all that farfetched that, in the race among men to be the first to get the youngest and freshest girls as they come on the market, some men would end up going so far as to go for prepubescent girls, erring on the side of too young rather than too old.

There's also Rule 34, "If it exists, there's porn of it"; for whatever reason, the human mind seems to have a limitless ability to fetishize anything. "Normal" people download videos of bukkake and Roman showers, yet somehow child porn is deviant? These distinctions are political, not scientific. As Darian Meacham's Medicine and Society, New Perspectives in Continental Philosophy notes, "Immediately after the APA board's decision to delete homosexuality from their manual, Irving Bieber publicly asked Spitzer whether he would consider deleting other sexual deviations from DSM, too. Spitzer answered: 'I haven't given much thought to [these problems] and perhaps that is because the voyeurs and the fetishists have not yet organized themselves and forced us to do that'."

It also shouldn't be too surprising that some men are attracted to young boys. According to the Super Gay Uncles Theory, one reason for homosexuality's existence might be so that there are extra men around to provide nurturance to children in their extended families. Wouldn't pedophilic desires for boys tend to create an incentive to provide even more nurturance, as a form of child grooming (which some pederasts have likened to heterosexual dating, in which the wealthier older man pays for the dates)? This is the basic thrust of the classic essay, The Descent of Chester.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

In addition, as I noted in my statement with regard to keeping abortion legal, we need to rely somewhat on natural selection to get rid of parental characteristics that would tend to drive them to destroy their own offspring. The state should not forcibly interfere with that natural weeding-out process. As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the state should not even criminalize child neglect, since the child has no rightful claim to the parent's resources.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathanlarson3141.wordpress.com

People always say, “Little kids can’t consent to sex. They love attention and affection, so when adults try to mess around with them, they can’t say no. But then it damages them.” Isn’t that how it is with Stacies? They can’t say no to Chad. It’s been shown that even after they have posted a bunch of stuff to Facebook about how Chad is no good for them and they’re totally done with Chad and not gonna fall for that anymore, as soon as Chad shows up again, they can’t help but spread their legs for him. They’re totally addicted to his cock.

So basically he’s raping them, since he’s taking advantage of their lack of mental capacity. This means if you see Chad with a Stacy in public, you have the right to intERvene to rescue her. It’s no different than if you were to see some guy with candy, inviting kids to go for a ride in his van. Are you just gonna stand there and let this victimization go on?! How could you live with yourself, when you had two knives, a Glock 34 handgun, two SIG Sauer P226 handguns, and a BMW 328i Coupé with which you could have spared Stacy the fate of being sexually assaulted by this predator?

Of course, it would be pointless to save her from just that one Chad, rather than from ALL Chads who might seek to prey upon her, so therefore it’s necessary to hide her someplace, such as your basement, where no Chads can find her. Of course, in addition to watching out for her safety while she’s in this place of refuge, you’ll also need to look after her other needs, including food, clothing, shelter, sex, etc.

And you know how it is with kids and others who lack mental capacity — sometimes when you try to feed them, they don’t want to accept the food. They try to spit it out. So you just have to force it down their throat. Also, sometimes kids don’t want to be vaccinated, so when they try to run away from the needle, you just have to hold them down so it can be shoved into their body anyway.

It’s the same way with Stacies and incel cock! As her caregiver, sometimes you’re gonna have to make her do stuff that’s for her own good, even if she doesn’t understand or realize it. Remember, you’re dealing with a mentally handicapped individual; compassion demands that as her guardian, you take charge and not just let her follow whatever whims are, in your judgment, not going to lead her down the right path.

Haven’t you had the experience sometimes too as a kid where your parents made you dress up in a suit and tie and go attend some boring classical concert with them because they wanted you to become cultured? That’s really not that much different than making Stacy wear a crotchless diaper and go with you into your erotic torture chamber so she can experience culture (specifically, rape culture).

Kids also sometimes have to be sent to school against their will. But of course home-schooling is an alternative. Likewise, it’s your responsibility to make sure that Stacy has an opportunity to receive an education, including sex education. There may be some depraved shit that even Chad never got around to teaching her, and thus it is your role to offer remedial learning. If she refuses to cooperate, then of course there is nothing wrong with administering corporal punishment so she can be brought up with the proper discipline.

James Harting #racist stormfront.org

Playing Three-Dimensional Chess: Why White Nationalists Should Consider Voting for Bernie Sanders
Some here may be ancient enough to remember the original Star Trek television series back in the 1960s. During their downtime, the crew members were occasionally shown playing a version of three-dimensional chess. It is like traditional chess, only exponentially more complex.

That is what the Jews are doing: they are playing three-dimensional chess. They have strategies within strategies within strategies. They pursue multiple options simultaneously: if one gets blocked, they just shift to another one. They organize in depth, and have layer after layer of defensive positions. Above all they think ahead, not just one or two moves, but a dozen or 20.

Compare their strategic sophistication with that of the pitiful White Nationalist movement: while the Jews are playing three-dimensional chess, WNs are struggling to play a basic game of checkers.

The Jews control all of the presidential candidates: no matter who gets the nomination, or who is elected, it does not matter--they win, because all of the candidates are in one way or another under their thumb or in their corner. The whole System is rigged: the only choice you have is to vote for a pro-Jewish candidate. Heads they win, tails you lose!

But many naïve, well-meaning White Nationalists cannot see this. They believe in the fundamental integrity of an electoral system that is completely corrupt--completely Jewed.

With their checkers-like primitive strategizing, they think that the Jews have allowed for an option in which they, the Jews, might possibly lose. The Jew slides Hillary Clinton across the board; they want to slide Donald Trump forward to block her. But the Jews are not playing checkers, they are playing three dimensional chess. The Trump maneuver is a trick bag, a trap to lure angry, racially-conscious White voters into a political dead end.

It has worked before: Barry Goldwater in 1964; George Wallace in 1968 and 1972; Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, then H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and now on to Donald Trump. The goyim are stupid: they fall for the Trump maneuver every time. No wonder the Jews hold us in such contempt!

In a different thread, Stormfront member Il fascismo per i fascisti makes a modest proposal: he suggests that instead of voting for Trump, that White Nationalists vote for Bernie Sanders. He reasons that electing a White Anglo-Saxon candidate like Trump maintains the façade that White Americans are still in control. With an avowed Jewish Marxist like Sanders in the White House, the anti-White, Jewish nature of the Old Order would be openly revealed: it would be on display for all to see.

Now, personally, I, myself, am not going to vote for Bernie Sanders: I have never voted in a presidential election, and the first ballot that I cast will not be for Communist Jew. Beyond that, there is ZERO chance that Bernie the Red will be elected, anyway.

But I like the out-of-the-box thinking of Il fascismo per i fascisti. He is playing chess not checkers. His strategic approach is not quite as refined and sophisticated as that of the Jews: it is two-dimensional, rather than three dimensional.

But at least he is thinking more than one or two moves ahead.

We need more of that--and a whole lot less of the Pavlovian conditioning that controls the reactions of the pro-Trump crowd.

GOLAZ #racist stormfront.org

I flashed the drive-by middle finger at disgusting sight of black man/white blonde girl couple

Yesterday afternoon, I drove on the busy street when I saw this apparent interracial couple, Negro man (almost coal black but shade of dark brown) and beautiful athletic-type blonde girl in her early 20's or late teens, stand there in the corner of the intersection hugging each other tightly, as if in "love", as a blatant display of affection. This happened right next to the famous university campus.

Upon this sight, I gave the middle finger directed at them from the side of the driver door, with Negro man looking at me in shock and dismay while still hugging the mudshark whore tight.

Miscegenation should be strictly banned, yet 1967 Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 unanimous case ruling (Jewpedia entry) led to the rampant miscegenation we the White race have been forced to witness, to our disgust. Another dumb white girl lost to the dark races, maybe her idiot white ("politically correct" who cheerfully welcome dilution of the white racial bloodline) parents will be proud of mulatto children.

Here is another (similar sighting) anecdote, by me in a prior post, in the same area that happened in 2014. Be careful about giving the finger as witnessed by idiot white drivers and pedestrians who would be shocked at the sight that could lead to potential social and legal repercussions.

Even approximately 80% white majority Utah state is now mired in mud races dominating to covet the beauteous white men and women, yet the local statewide media and state/local government call the negro, latino, pacific islander, etc communities "underserved" and "underrepresented" as if the white people are supposed to care about these worthless subraces trying to invade white communities (Rose Park in west side of SLC, West Valley City and parts of Taylorsville [latter I formerly lived for 13 months, one of the worst times of my life] are formerly white majority, now hispanic/mestizo/negro infested as crime-rampant barrio and colonia) for "snivel rights" and parasite the white taxpayers (welfare among other problems that include corrupt white employers and "business leaders & politicians" who favor illegal aliens for cheap labor and for converting to Mormon cult).

I already have the bumper sticker as seen below, but I have not put it on the rear of my vehicle yet...because it could lead to damaging my reputation to cause me to lose jobs as denied employment and even leading to fights in confrontation with either guilt-ridden white idiots who support racemixing or Negro who wants to menace me while he has dumb mudshark girlfriends in his harem who object to my message to whine to the Negro beast to challenge me to a fight on the dare.

image

Tony Perkins #fundie frc.org

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's refusal to accept appeals in marriage cases involving the five states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin:

"The Supreme Court decision to not take up these lower court rulings, which undermine natural marriage and the rule of law, for now, puts the issue of marriage back before the US Congress. This decision, in part, is an indication that those on the Court who desire to redefine natural marriage recognize the country will not accept a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.

"Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

"The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom. Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.

"Congress should respond to today's announcement by moving forward with the State Marriage Defense Act, which is consistent with last year's Windsor ruling and ensures that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states," concluded Perkins.

John Joseph Jay #fundie wintersoldier2008.typepad.com

friends:

this is what i advocate, stated in a straightforward manner.--

i advocate armed insurrection to excise radical leftist politicians and marxism from our body politic, if necessary. i see very little to cause me to suppose that it is not necessary, nor to convince me that sooner is not better.

it is also clear that the present united states administration and democratic congress of the united states are hell bent for election to usurp, restrain and infringe our ancient liberties and rights, and that they fully intend to impose a european socialist state upon our politics. they are well on their way to achieving precisely that, and they work continuously and insidiously towards that end, against the direct wishes of the electorate.

they need removed from office, immediately, by any means necessary, including armed insurrection if they will not obey the electoral process, and if they continue to scheme and carry out plans to forcibly subvert it.

the time has come to act overtly. and, to openly organize to carry out the goal of taking our country back. the first step? do not pay your taxes. the next step? acquire suitable arms and necessary ammunition. then? organize into militia and action teams. the final step? lethal violence directed towards our oppressors, ... , they are easy enough to identify.

it also seems quite imperative to me that islam be expelled from our body politics, by any means necessary, including force. muslims should be fairly compensated for their property which they have acquired, they should be allowed to take their monies accumulated with them, but they should be made to leave, ... , at gunpoint, if necessary.

have i stated my views in a sufficiently clear manner?

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

As a redeemed child of God, I don't read the news too often, because it is so depressing, and because the Scripture teaches us to think about good, lovely and uplifting things, which I'll discuss more in a bit. If you're like me, once you start reading news stories, you can't stop reading them. It is called “click bait.” The newsmedia know better than anyone how to create alluring captive titles for news articles, which you just have to read. I admit that I find an interesting news story irresistible (and they know it). Thus, I read several dozen news stories today from the New York Daily News, which is rare for me. I was horrified about the tragic stories I read, which all shouted one truth to me loud and clear—THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!

It was 23rd U.S. President Benjamin Harris (1833-1901) who wisely said:

“If you take out of your statutes, your constitution, your family life all that is taken from the Sacred Book, what would there be left to bind society together?” —Benjamin Harrison, Twenty third President

President Harris was wise to realize that without the inspired Words of God (the Sacred Book), nothing remains to bind society together. That is exactly what has gone wrong in the United States! Mankind has always been sinful by nature and prone to wickedness; but when you remove the unchanging SACRED BOOK authored by God from the equation, there is nothing left but sinful human goodness, cruel human mercy, insane human rational, corrupt human justice and conditional human love. Ungodly critics like to find all the failures of Christianity, but the Church on its worst day is far better than the world on its best day! THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!

It was 33rd U.S. President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972, Pastor Jack Hyles' favorite president, who wisely said:

“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul…. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!” —Harry Truman, Thirty third President

Our country's 32 U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), wisely said:

“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.” —Franklin Roosevelt, Thirty second President

These strong leaders of our nation all understood the important of the inspired HOLY BIBLE to maintain stability and soundness in our American society. Lest you doubt the veracity of the preceding quotes from our leaders, and doubt what I say as a born-again Christian who fears God, consider the following horrific news stories that I found in today's news...

- an African-American mother was horrified when she came home and found her precious 20 month old daughter, stabbed and baked in the oven by her 48 year old grandmother! THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a woman's sicko fiancée brutally raped her small dog, physically hurting the dog so that it had to be euthanized by a local veterinarian. The girlfriend suspected foulplay and paid for DNA testing, to prove that her deranged boyfriend savagely raped her dog! THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 54 year old man pulled his 42 year old girlfriend into the path of a speeding subway train to commit murder/suicide. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a Florida man served 20 years in prison for murder, and after being released was convicted in 2018 for a second murder from 2001 (photoed to right of the man covered in tattoos). Oh, how Satan fills the heart of people. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 12 year old girl commits suicide on Facebook live. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 29 year old man was struck and killed by an 18 year old pizza delivery driver in Australia, which caused so much intense sorrow for his fiancée that she committed suicide 3 hours later. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 32 year old NYPD female police officer was selling illegal drugs out of her Bronx apartment. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 33 year old woman pushed a stranger in front of a train, murdering him. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 54 year old man found out from the FBI that his 32 year old NYPD girlfriend plotted to murder his teen daughter. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 35 year old mother in North Carolina threw her 7 month old daughter down a 75 foot ravine to murder her. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a 14 year old boy is charged with murdering another teen boy with a gun. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a mother of 3 in England dies after swallowing a bag of cocaine in an airport to hide it. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!
- a man in his early twenties raped both of his sisters (aged 19 and 20) and then murdered them by pushing them off a bridge. THE HOLY BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ANSWER!!!

Fading Light #racist stormfront.org

The "Native American" Genocide Myth

Liberals lie constantly without conscience or remorse. They are exposed almost daily in hate-crime hoaxes, racial crime-rate statistical misinformation, and falsified historical accounts. They have been caught in enough major lies, in fact, to fill many large volumes. Just off the top of my head: Michael Brown was not shot in the back nor with his hands up. George Zimmerman is not White and did not inform the dispatcher of the race of Trayvon Martin until asked. The perpetrators of the Oberlin College “hate graffiti” were exposed as false-flagging leftists. Matthew Shepard was not killed by homophobes or because he was gay. The Tuskegee Syphilis study did not infect any Blacks with syphilis, nor refuse to treat any infected Blacks according to the medical knowledge of the time. George Stinney was not convicted of murder in a mistrial. “Jackie” at the University of Virginia was not raped. Blacks are not given longer sentences than Whites are for the same crimes. Homosexuals are not even nearly as likely to remain monogamous as heterosexuals are. Anders Breivik was not a White Nationalist. No one was ever gassed at Dachau. Homosexuality was neither common nor accepted in Ancient Greece. Black people did not “invent” Rock and Roll. Waitress Dayna Morales made up the story about receiving a discriminatory note instead of a tip. Kerri Dunn vandalized her own car to incite hatred against her political opponents. Crystal Magnum lied about being gang-raped in order to frame White men. So did Tawana Brawley. No one shouted the n-word at John Lewis at the political rally in Duluth. Eric Garner was placed in a headlock, not a choke-hold, and the coroner confirmed that no damage was done to his airway.

This is just the tiniest sample of the endless lying from the left. It is a testament to the irrationality, gullibility, and delusional self-interest of the stupider half of humanity that anyone believes anything liberals assert no matter how benign it might sound, to say nothing of their more extreme claims.

And this takes us to the American Indian Genocide Myth: the incessant assertion of the White-hating left that Europeans “committed genocide” against “Native Americans.” The latter term has been placed in quotes because they aren’t native to the Americas. No humans are native to the Americas. “Native American” is yet another evasive, politically correct propaganda label from the same lying libtards who can’t seem to keep their story straight for more than ten seconds at a time.

American Indians speaking English have called themselves Indians for centuries. The American Indian Movement was named by the American Indians (and notice which term they applied to themselves). Of course, there is that small problem of America being a long way from India. For this reason, the scientific term Amerindian was created to remedy it, which is far preferable to the entirely fake and emotion-manipulating term preferred by leftists.

So what is genocide? According to the United Nations (whose definition everyone seems to take as the most official one), it is inflicting upon a group of people conditions calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part. In fact, this is only a portion of the UN definition, but it is the most relevant portion.

The UN doesn’t seem to make clear in its definition the difference between a genocide and, for example, a war. Wars often involve races, nationalities, ethnical or religious groups and the killing involved in a war is generally quite deliberate. Presumably the difference is in the intent. If the war is being fought for the purpose of wiping out a group of people, it is genocide. If a bunch of them die as a consequence of a war for some other purpose, it is not. The wars between the Amerindians and European colonists, then, were not genocide. They were, in nearly all cases, started by the incessant treaty-violations of the Amerindians, and ended by the Europeans attempting a new treaty with them instead of simply wiping them out.

Meanwhile, there is no real argument from anyone that most of the Amerindian deaths associated with European colonization resulted from diseases, not war. The left asserts that this was intentional, that centuries before Germ Theory existed, Europeans were using germ-warfare against the Amerindians. The absurdity of this assertion is obvious to any thinking person: The only place Europeans could hope to get diseases to pass to the Amerindians was from each other, but unless they were also committing germ-warfare against themselves, the ready transmission of the same diseases from European to European had to be entirely accidental. So according to leftists, it was unintentional when Europeans spread diseases to each other, but it was “germ-warfare” when the same diseases inevitably spread to the Amerindians (to say nothing of the diseases such as syphilis that they gave to us).

To support this assertion of enormous numbers of intentionally inflicted “germ-warfare casualties,” the left has found . . . (wait for it!) . . . ONE sentence in a private letter written by a European in a fort under siege by Amerindian marauders prior to the existence of the United States. And what does the sentence say? It says that maybe they can get the marauding gang of Amerindians to stop murdering them by making them sick with smallpox transmitted by offering them a stack of blankets that would first have been handled by people who had smallpox.

There are a few massive problems with this “evidence,” however—a few technical issues with this one tiny sentence that constitutes the entirety of liberals’ proof of deliberate germ-warfare against the Amerindians: First, the Amerindians were already getting smallpox and had been for some time, most often via robbing and raping and murdering Whites, some of whom obviously were suffering from the disease. (Otherwise how could anyone at the fort hope to infect a blanket before giving it to an Indian?) In fact, this appears to have been the case for the gang of savages that was attacking the fort in question: They already had it, most likely contracted from the home of a nearby White family that they had murdered and robbed a few days before the siege at the fort began.

Next, there is absolutely no evidence that such a scheme of transmitting smallpox using blankets was ever attempted there or anywhere else. Ward Churchill’s assertion to the contrary turned out to be another lie from a leftist. He made the whole thing up and there was not, in reality, a fort within eight hundred miles of the location at which he claimed a fort’s soldiers had distributed infected blankets.

Last, the transmission via blankets almost certainly would not have worked in any case because smallpox cannot survive very long outside of a host’s body. The blankets would have to be freshly and wetly infected. What kind of an idiot would accept and use a stack of puss-covered blankets? The entire proposal in the sentence in question was a desperate and empty suggestion by an exhausted and distraught person grasping at straws to try to save his people.

The Amerindian Genocide claim also entirely fails to explain the enormous efforts the Europeans went to in order to keep the Amerindians from dying out. Concerned about their falling population, the American government first tried giving the individual Indians land, but they promptly sold it off for liquor, weapons, and the like instead of working it or living on it. Finally, the government set aside large reservations that could not ever be sold to any White person, nor taken away under any circumstances (hence the name “reservations”). It worked, as all Amerindian tribes presently show steadily increasing populations and when including the mixed-race Latinos and others who group with them genetically, they now have populations in the tens or millions in the US and Canada.

In short, all of this means huge sums of money were spent by Whites to (successfully) save the people liberals claim Whites were trying to exterminate. If this was attempted genocide on the part of Europeans, we really suck at it.

Recall that the UN definition of genocide includes the stipulation of “calculated” conditions. This means awareness and willful choice. Clearly Whites recognized that Amerindians were dying out, but chose NOT to maintain the detrimental conditions, and instead went to great lengths to reverse them. Compare this with the ongoing genocide of the White race by anti-Whites, who admit freely that they are aware of our falling population, and vehemently insist on maintaining the conditions resulting in our destruction. By definition, the Amerindian situation was not a genocide. The White situation IS a genocide, and liberals care not at all.

One of the most interesting and pernicious aspects of the Amerindian Genocide myth, however, is in the numbers. A favorite liberal claim is that “greater than 90%” of the Amerindians died in the wake of the arrival of Europeans. How do they know that? The Amerindians were far too primitive, illiterate, and ignorant to have censuses, and trying to search for remains at this point to count them from so long ago would be like trying to do the same for antelope or horses—ridiculous and utterly futile. The leftist solution has simply been to make up numbers—the higher the better—because then it appears that more Amerindians must have died when one looks at the far lower population numbers after Whites started counting them.

Before the age of anti-White liberalism, the best estimates by the academics were very different than they are today. For the territory that is now the United States and Canada, the US Census Bureau estimated in 1894 that the pre-Columbian Amerindian population was half a million. This was a rational estimate considering the primitive, literally stone-age conditions under which they lived throughout most of that region. In 1928, James Mooney, an ethnologist employed by the Smithsonian, estimated a little over twice this number, 1.2 million. Again, this is probably more or less reasonable for their level of technology.

It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that liberals consider a debate “won” for their side if they can find a supporting figure from an authority such as an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian or the US Census Bureau. They consider such authority estimates final and unquestionable . . . unless those estimates do not serve their agenda.

The estimates above were good enough by all academic accounts until it became beneficial to the anti-Whites to bump them up in the 1960’s. Then leftist anthropologist Henry Dobyns resolved to work backward to get the answer that he wanted: He decided to assume (without reason or proof) that over 95% of the “native” population died from European diseases (which would be a truly astonishing mortality rate for ANY plague). Using census figures for Amerindians from after the arrival of English colonists, he declared that the pre-Columbian population for the same territory already described must have been in excess of twelve million—ten to twenty times higher than the previous estimates.

This is, of course, a typical example of leftist deception and a wonderful tool of circular reasoning for anti-Whites: They wish to describe the arrival of the Europeans as a devastating calamity for the Amerindians, so they start by assuming that it was, use the assumption to make up some numbers, and then use the numbers to back the assumption whenever the subject comes up thereafter. Liberals ceaselessly cite these numbers as “proof” of the scope of the destruction, never bothering to answer for the source of the numbers they are using.

After all, the numbers come from “experts.” If the population fell from 12 million to 490 thousand by 1900, then that’s a lot of dead people. If, however, the other experts (the ones liberals don’t approve of and whose estimates were around 500 thousand) are correct, then their population barely fell at all. Their argument boils down to declaring that the high estimates are the right ones because White people are evil, and White people are evil because the high estimates are the right ones. Got it?

What liberals can’t avoid, however, is that even in the modern world of politically correct academia, the pre-colonialism Amerindian population estimates are still all over the board. High they undoubtedly remain in nearly every case. After all, who wants to lose their career for being a “racist” by impeding the leftist agenda? And despite this, the upper-end estimates are absurdly, grotesquely, ridiculously inflated. Consider, for example, the estimates for pre-Columbian Central America, which range from 100 thousand at the low end, to about 13.5 million at the high end.

Think about that for a moment: The upper estimate is more than THIRTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT higher than the lower estimate. How does one justify such a thing mathematically? This is like saying that the weight of the average adult female is between 200 and 26000 pounds, or that the cost of a loaf of bread is between five dollars and seven hundred dollars. In math circles, this is referred to as being completely full of crap. In political circles, this is typical leftist “reasoning.”

Liberals depend upon authority arguments because their assertions fall apart immediately when examined logically. When a leftist states a statistic, assume it was simply made up out of thin air (because it probably was). Expend the effort to dig around for the real numbers since your liberal opponents never will: They care not at all about truth, nor about REAL genocides, only about getting their way in everything.

Pavle Bihali #wingnut #racist #psycho bellingcat.com

Serbia, alongside other countries in southeastern Europe, has a longstanding problem of stray animals on city streets, many of which become victims of abuse; alongside this issue, activists have claimed that Serbia’s government fails to enforce animal abuse laws already on the books. It’s an emotionally charged issue for Serbians, and Levijatan has managed to co-opt it.

Levijatan’s activities are not limited to the dog-cuddling photos they post on social media. They use their public platform to insult, bully and threaten their critics — not just because they might abuse or harm animals. Levijatan use any chance they get to inject nationalist rhetoric into their messages, including attacking anyone they consider to be “anti-Serbian.”

For Levijatan, “anti-Serbian” includes everyone from human rights activists and independent media to Romani people and migrants. The group’s leader, directly inspired by U.S. President Donald Trump, has even started labeling his left-wing critics “terrorists.” Though they deny it, Levijatan has also been accused of having links not only to organized crime, but to the ruling party of increasingly autocratic Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Levijatan is even running candidates in Serbia’s elections on June 21. (Levijatan did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Bellingcat)

<this is a tweet from Pavle Bihali translated by the author>
“I can swear here. Fuck you in your yellow mouth, self-hater, anti-Serb. Fuck you, fat wire-wearing hog Bojan Savic and the squeaky Polar Bears who commit the most heinous crimes and get away with it. Also fuck all the NGOs and you Oleniks, get stuffed in the ass like a stuffed pepper”
(Bojan Savic is a journalist critical of Levijatan; “Polar Bears” refers to Roma; Aleksandar Olenik is a lawyer and activist critical of Levijatan)
In the video accompanying the tweet, Bihali complains about a video of him singing a song by a Serbian nationalist folk singer being removed. “Of course, there’s no data to support who did this, and all I can say about them is that they’re the most disgusting scum to be found in Serbia. I don’t hate people of any ethnic background or religious background, but I hope that when I see one of those people on the street I can show them what I think of them. They’re idiots, they’re morons, they’re sickos, they’re pedophiles, they’re zoophiles….”

School nurse, Wilson Middle School, Carlisle, PA #fundie americanhumanist.org

A student from Wilson Middle School has contacted our office to request assistance with regard to a serious constitutional violation that is occurring under the authority of your school and school district. The student, currently in eighth grade, reports that she was wrongfully berated, humiliated, and otherwise mistreated by a school staff member for exercising her constitutional right to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, this mistreatment was reinforced by an authority figure within the school. As you should know, the right of students to opt out of Pledge participation was settled long ago by the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Consequently, any actions by your school or its agents infringing upon that right would be actionable as a serious constitutional violation.

The student in question, for personal reasons, does not wish to participate in the Pledge exercise in any manner. On Thursday, April 2, she happened to be at the school nurse’s office when the school’s Pledge of Allegiance exercise took place. The school nurse ordered everyone present to stand up, but the student remained seated as she typically does. She reports that subsequently, when it was her turn to be seen by the nurse, the nurse asked loudly, “Why didn't you stand for the Pledge?” The student replied that the Pledge exercise is voluntary and that no explanation for opting out is needed. Shockingly, the nurse responded by ordering her out of the room, yelling, “Fine! Then leave! I have the right to not service you!”

[...]

The student reports that she left the nurse’s office in tears and went to the administrative offices to call her mother. A secretary then led the student to an office, but at that time the same nurse appeared again, saying, “She isn't calling a parent until I have a long conversation with her!” Still sobbing, the student said she only wanted to call her mother. At this point a school counselor arrived and took the student to his office, where the student remained for the first two class periods. Though he showed some sympathy, he also incorrectly instructed the student that she should stand in the hallway if she does not wish to stand for the Pledge exercise! The student politely tried to explain that she is under no obligation to stand in the hallway as such, to which the counselor replied that it was “district policy,” apparently unaware that “district policy” does not trump federal law.

To say that the actions of school district staff in this situation have inflicted trauma upon this child would be an understatement. She was bullied and subjected to public embarrassment for doing nothing more than harmlessly exercising her constitutional rights. The actions of the nurse are indefensible, as she provides an example of the kind of overzealous, dangerous patriotism that any true patriot would loathe. The student was left angry and scarred by this mean-spirited hostility, which is only made worse by the fact that it came from a person trusted with the health and well being of students. Moreover, the nurse’s refusal to give the child medical attention calls into question her fitness for the job.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

It is perfectly obvious that few if any rape accusations against white heterosexual males are true, and the “rape on campus” case confirmed what was obvious to everyone who was not keeping his eyes tight shut. There were thirty six rape accusations that year on Virginia University Campus, none of which led to disciplinary action, and if any of them had been the slightest bit believable, Rolling Stone would have run with them instead of Jackey Coakley’s story.

It is equally obvious that almost no convictions of white males for heterosexual rape are true. If you look at the details of the case, they always sound suspiciously like “domestic abuse” cases, and anyone who knows women knows that few domestic abuse charges are true, probably none of them are true. If a woman actually suffers domestic abuse that she does not want and does not aggressively seek out, not hard for her to wander off to another lover who will treat her like a princess. But these women have the strange habit of wandering off from one “abuser” to the next. And if they don’t get “abused” they will attack their lover with a kitchen knife till he is forced to defend himself. “Domestic violence” is merely a shit test that gets physical. Watch female cats shit test tomcats. Human female sexuality resembles feline female sexuality more than it resembles ape female sexuality, perhaps because we are primarily carnivores, while apes are primarily vegetarians.

But a progressive will tell you that they all true, because women never lie, and it is absolutely a miscarriage of justice that so few complaints to the police result in rape convictions, and that what seems glaringly obvious to me, is the exact opposite of what seems glaringly obvious to him.

One in nine rape complaints investigated by Scotland Yard resulted in conviction. So, of those few convicted, how many were actually guilty? Well, from what I know of women, I would say none of them, or none of them in the sense that a half drunk woman wandering in a dark alley with her boobs about to pop out of her dress who then gets into a car with a total stranger is not exactly a rape victim, but other people disagree with my assessment of women, so how will we empirically test this question?

Well, two Scotland Yard rape trials have recently collapsed, when it was discovered that the police had been concealing convincing evidence of innocence. In both cases the accused was savagely defamed in the newspapers, his life was destroyed, and he had been kept in jail for a long time without trial as “a danger to the public”, on the whimsical and changeable word of some drunken sow, whose identity was protected, and who continues to be protected, despite evidently being guilty of malice and perjury.

So, with police cutting corners to get rape convictions, and imprisoning men without trial, they still only manage to get one in nine convictions, and their two most recent rape cases were revealed to be abuse of police power and miscarriages of justice.

If the most recent two, likely all of them. The UK is now re-examining all currently active rape cases, which will no doubt mean the release of a great many males locked up without trial as “a danger to the public”. How about re-examining all recent rape convictions? But evidently the government does not want to go there, which itself tells me what they would likely find.

Norrin Radd #fundie rr-bb.com

I don't think the Rapture is going to happen yet. I personally think we are at least 20 years from a Revived Roman Empire. Yes Obama is one piece of the puzzle but America falling to the point that the empire of the Anti-Christ has absolute power will take some time. I also believe we need to see the rise of Babylon before the Tribulation starts. Iraq isn't near a nation of wealth and prosperity. Also Israel will need to gain economic strength as it's what lures Gog and Magog to invade Russia.

Another thing is that as bad as America and the world is we are no where close to the world of Noah and Sodom and Ghommorah. I think we will see a prominent gay leader, maybe the first Gay US president where him and his lover will win a landslide electoral vote running on a platform supporting condoms for every 1st grader and promising to ban all bibles in America.
Even Texas will give their electoral votes to such a candidate in the next 12 years. I see the majority of Christian churches promoting Gay sex to kids and proclaiming evolution was taught by Christ. Before the rapture I see a national Gay holiday where the schools, business, and the stock market is close on that day. I see a Gay sex being aired 24/7 on ABC, CBS, NBC. I see people being arrested for preaching the Gospel of Jesus in the America before the Rapture. I see the US government forcing kids starting at 3 to attend Gay classes alone without their parents their. Read what happen to the Lot his daughters and the angels in the OT. That's America 10-20 years from now right before the Rapture. Just like before the flood and before the destruction of Sodom and Ghommorah.

Anonymous Avengers “Fan” #sexist #homophobia #racist npr.org

Brie Larson has vanished.

A star of Avengers: Endgame, one of the biggest movies of all time, was completely excised from a modified pirated version of the film — along with everything else in the film seen as feminist or gay.

An anonymous fan edited out shots, scenes and characters in a "defeminized" version circulating now on an illegal streaming site. As well as losing Larson's character, Captain Marvel, the defeminized edit is missing a scene where Hawkeye teaches his daughter to shoot. ("Young women should learn skills to become good wives and mothers and leave the fighting to men," the editor opined in an accompanying document.) The role of Black Panther is minimized. ("He's really not that important.") Spider-Man doesn't get rescued by women characters anymore. ("No need to.") And male characters no longer hug.

This particular defeminized edit is just the latest example of a trend, says Suzanne Scott, a professor of film and media studies at the University of Texas. A similar "chauvinist cut" of 2017's Star Wars: The Last Jedi removed key scenes of women making decisions, giving orders, having ideas and fighting in battle. So much was trimmed, Scott says, that only about 30% of the original film remained.

"It is borderline incomprehensible," she says. "It has cut out a lot of story that you need to make the whole narrative cohesive. So what's on the screen plays like an avant-garde film."

E.W. Jackson #fundie rawstory.com

Conservative pastor E.W. Jackson, a former Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia, told Fox News on Thursday that all clergy should be armed because a white South Carolina shooter attacked a historically black South Carolina church for it’s “biblical views,” not because of racism.

At a press conference early on Thursday, Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen released photos of a white man who was suspected of gunning down nine people at Emanuel AME Church in what was described as a “hate crime.”

“You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go,” witnesses recalled the gunman saying.

Speaking to the hosts of Fox & Friends on Thursday morning, Jackson encouraged viewers to “wait for the facts.”

“But I’m deeply concerned that this gunman chose to go into a church because there does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians across this country because of our biblical views,” Jackson opined. “And I just think that it’s something that we have to be aware of and not create an atmosphere in which people take out their violent intentions against Christians.”

He “urged pastors and men in these churches to prepare to defend themselves” by carrying firearms.

“It’s sad but I think we’ve got to arm ourselves,” Jackson insisted. “Look, I’m a pastor. If someone comes in to hurt my church members, I have an absolute obligation to defend them, to protect them.”

“Extraordinarily, they called it a hate crime,” Fox News host Steve Doocy noted. “Some people look at it because it was a white guy apparently and a black church. But you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians — and it was a church — so maybe that’s what they’re talking about.”

“Most people jumped to conclusions about race,” Jackson agreed. “I long for the day when we stop doing that in our country. We don’t know why he went into a church. But he didn’t choose a bar, he didn’t choose a basketball court, he chose a church.”

“And we need to be looking at that very closely,” he concluded.

Suzanne Venker #fundie foxnews.com

Alpha women aren’t exactly new, but they were once a rarer breed. Today they abound. There are several reasons why, but it’s in large part due to women having been groomed to be leaders rather than to be wives. Simply put, women have become too much like men. They’re too competitive. Too masculine. Too alpha.

That may get them ahead at work. But when it comes to love, it will land them in a ditch.

Every relationship requires a masculine and a feminine energy to thrive. If women want to find peace with men, they must find their feminine—that is where their real power lies. Being feminine isn’t about being beautiful or svelte, or even about wearing high heels (although those things are nice). Being feminine is a state of mind. It’s an attitude.

In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard. And by “nice,” I don’t mean you should become a mouse. (That’s the narrative the culture sells, but that doesn’t make it true.) Men love women who are fun and feisty and who know their own mind! But they don’t want a woman who tells them what to do. As a man named Chuck once wrote on my site: “A strong woman is awesome. But she must be inviting and be able to mesh into an actual relationship. Needing to dominate and overpower, that is a no go.”

Jackie Kennedy once said there are two kinds of women: those who want power in the world, and those who want power in bed. American women have become laser-focused on the former and have rejected the latter. In doing so, they’ve undermined their ability to find lasting love.

E. W. Jackson #fundie rightwingwatch.org

E. W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, said he opposes emergency federal aid in the case of natural disasters during his unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate last year.

In response to a question regarding the role of government “in helping folks following predictable natural disasters,” Jackson replied: “I don’t think that the federal government has much of a role at all constitutionally, at all.”

“I think as a constitutional matter the federal government doesn’t have a whole lot to do with that,” he continued, lamenting that “we’ve turned the federal government into a kind of God and you turn to the federal government for everything.”

“We don’t need the heavy hand of federal government stepping in every time something goes wrong,” Jackson said. “I don’t think there is any constitutional authority to do it.”

Joe Dallas #fundie jesuspeopleinfo.org

Answering a Homosexual Argument

The Destruction of Sodom

Genesis 19:4-9

By Joe Dallas

Before they [the angels visiting Lot to judge the wicked-ness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [lit., ‘so we may know them’]." Lot went outside to meet them…and said, " No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men…." …And they said, "We’ll treat you worse than them."

Traditional Position:

The men of Sodom were attempting homosexual contact with Lot’s visitors. Sodom was subsequently destroyed for its great wickedness, homosexuality playing a major role in its destruction.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom’s custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city’s elders, thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot’s visitors.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot’s responses. His first response, "Don’t do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters-another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged-Lots’, or Sodom’s citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot’s response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.

This argument is more common; it is proposed by lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott and others, and is far more plausible than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence-forcing sexual activity upon another-is the real point of this story," Mollenkott explains. Accord-ingly, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom’s destruction; had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have fallen just the same. Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.

Response:

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persua-sive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies, but her argument is weaken-ed by Professor Thomas Schmidt’s cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites ‘sexually promiscuous’ (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to ‘Sodom, which departed from the order of nature’ (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were ‘polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh’ (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part—or symptom—of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he (God) condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men…

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom’s sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom’s destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom’s sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesus-is-savior.com

As of August 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump was 100% pro-death concerning abortion a decade ago, but now mysteriously has become pro-life to run on the conservative Republican ticket. It's all staged. Trump knows he'll never sit in the oval office as our nation's commander. He's not evil enough. It's a puppet position anyway, beneath Trump's caliber. The job of U.S. President has apparently been reserved for pot-smoking, pedophile-pervert, cocaine-using, draft-dodging, lying, satanic, murderous, homosexuals. I think Trump is like World Trade Center building #7 imploded on 9/11, thrown into the mix to add confusion, dissonance and act as a red-herring, to distract everyone from the truth that two criminal families have hi-jacked The White House. Trump has turned this into a media 3-ring-circus (as I believe he was asked by his Illuminati buddies to do)! I am very confident that Jeb Bush will be U.S. President in 2016. I could be wrong, but that's what I see from where I sit as a caring Christian citizen.

Hillary, a Democrat, likely won't win. If she did, it would be the first time since 1836 that a Democrat won after a seated two-term Democrat. I think this whole e-mail ordeal with Hillary is another red-herring. Hillary is so popular with the sicko public that they need an excuse for her to lose, and this might be it. Legally, Hillary could get 600-years in prison for obstruction of justice. The fact that she is laughing and joking about breaking the law shows that this is all staged. It's not a coincidence that Jeb Bush is quietly lurking like a snake in the background, staying out of sight for now until election time. The mainstream newsmedia lost credibility a very long time ago with smart Americans, but the majority of people are dumb fools marching-on to their destruction!

Illuminati Watchdog #fundie illuminatiwatchdog.blogspot.com

How Donald Trump Figures into the Illuminati's 2016 Election Plans
Every week since the Donald has filed, we've heard stronger and more incendiary comments against immigrants, war heroes, and women; yet predicted consequences continue to elude the controversial candidate. In fact, the opposite is happening. Mr. Trump continues to gain support. His poll numbers are rising faster than a souffle on steroids, and his popularity knows no bounds leaving us here at IW to ponder what all of this means.

Initially, we thought that Hillary Clinton would capture the electorate. She's an established Illuminati candidate and a conspirator for both 9/11s (World Trade Center and Benghazi. For more, see our article). Her campaign logo also indicates this connection with the arrow flying through the two vertical lines of the "H" which more closely resembles a plane flying into two towers than a letter. Given the imagery and her past, we figured she was an obvious favorite by the secret order.

Then Trump entered, which came out of nowhere. And what makes this so perplexing is that he is a senior Illuminati member. He's one of the guys who pulls the strings from the shadows. Now, he's shaking up the political scene by offsetting the establishment candidates. What could the purpose of all this be?

One theory is that he has run afoul of the secret order and is "going rogue" to show what he can do. This would explain his unusual campaign strategies and the media's relentless pursuit to assassinate his character. He's so familiar with standard political brainwash that he knows how to break through it and get a message across. Maybe, he had a falling out with the Bilderbergs or wanted to go with an alternate plan for introducing the NWO. Regardless of the reason, he could become a real spoiler if elected.

Another idea is that he is the Illuminati's main choice and is intended to usher in Armageddon. This would fit with his aggressive personality and jingoistic foreign policy. Instead of diplomacy, the Donald would negotiate with smart bombs and tactical nuclear missiles, exactly what's needed to end the old order and begin the new. Can you imagine Hillary dropping the nukes and ordering legions of tanks into endless war? We don't think so either.

A third possibility is that Trump is merely a shadow for the order's "real" candidate, and given how much press he's getting, this is also a viable explanation. There are currently 17 Republican presidential hopefuls, more than we've ever seen. One of them will become the nominee and maybe win the general election. Trump's bombastic campaign may be little more than a screen for someone like Jeb Bush or Rand Paul to cement his allegiance with the Illuminati honchos.

As of now, we can't say for certain what Donald Trump's true purpose is. We can certainly say that he is grade A entertainment, which is likely intended to draw in the masses for obvious brainwashing. Hopefully, we'll have a better idea as the Iowa caucuses draw nearer and the Republican primary field shows some more definition. Until then, we'll be watching.

Robert Lipsyte #fundie rationalreview.com


“Given the chance, I’d watch the Super Bowl with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who knows about Baal and ball. Twenty years ago, in Lynchburg, Virginia, at a Liberty University Flames game, Dr. Falwell told me: ‘Jesus was no sissy. He was tough, he was a he-man. If he played football, you’d be slow getting up after he tackled you.’ He had me at “sissy.” The rest was revelation. The muscularity of Dr. Falwell’s evangelical Christianity was a perfect fit with football, another win-or-lose game. For Americans, war hasn’t produced a real winner for more than 60 years. That’s why we need football. But let’s get back to Dr. Falwell. … While we wait for his Holy Bowl to show us how to kick the other cheek, we do have the gospels, saints, and rituals of the Super Bowl, arguably the holiest day of the American calendar. Nothing in sports draws us together as surely — not elections, the Academy Awards, disasters, terrorist acts, or celebrity deaths. The Super Bowl is a melting pot hot enough for atheists, Sodomites, and Teletubbies to become one with the Saved, if only for a single Sunday.” (01/30/07)

Leucosticte #sexist pro-rape.com

[OP of "If rape were legalized, there would be no femcels"]

The way we end up with femcels is that chicks will act repulsively enough that a guy won't wanna fuck them. (Believe it or not, it's possible. Do you really wanna fuck a chick who's starfishing, for example, unless it's some kinda hate sex? Even that is probably better if she's struggling or something. If she's just being cold and passionless, that's kinda boring and undesirable.)

Anyway, they just need to be turned into rape-slaves and then everything will be all right.

The Rev. William H. Grimes #fundie ntbc.referata.com

Daniel Roem (often incorrectly referred to as "Danica" by the lamestream media) is a far-left Democrat Party supporter who lied his way to a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. On November 7, 2017, the people of Virginia's 13th District were either duped or readily voted for a man who is dressed like a woman to represent them in their state legislature. Either way, this is a sign of severe mental deficiency on the part of those living in this district.

Roem is ready to push homosexual and transsexual "rights" in the State of Virginia, even though the Papist dominated Supreme Court gave them their sinful "marriages" and Kenyan national Barry Soetoro and RINO Donald Trump have already given them more "rights" than they deserve. They already had a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, to work, to rent, and all of that just like any other American, but people like Roem have been particularly insistent upon pushing their perversions on hardworking everyday true Christian Americans. ELCA Lutherans, Episcopalians, and other no-doctrine "Christians" have even championed this mentally ill sexual deviant taking office, in effect spitting on the cross Christ died for them on while claiming to believe in the Gospel.

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?"- Matthew 24:39-45

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." - Matthew 24:42

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."- 2 Timothy 3

Caamib #sexist blogger.com

bold is mine


Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...


"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.


"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

roy moore #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, was a guest on Eagle Forum Live over the weekend, where he discussed the recent developments in marriage equality with Anne Cori, Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter.

Moore seemed to be thrown a little off guard when a listener called in and asked angrily why “people use the 14th Amendment to protect interracial marriage when the authors of the 14th Amendment were against interracial marriage.” (The Supreme Court has found bans on both same-sex and interracial marriages to be violations of the 14th Amendment.)

Cori interrupted the caller and asked Moore to instead address people who say “you have to agree with same-sex marriage because interracial marriage is okay.”

The difference, Moore said, is that the right to the “pursuit of happiness” found in the Declaration of Independence came from God and God supports interracial marriage but not same-sex marriage.

“I think people today would say that same-sex marriage is a pursuit of happiness,” Cori interjected.

“Well, they would say that, but that’s not the way the laws of God define the pursuit of happiness,” Moore responded. “And pursuit of happiness was given by God and recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.”

Of course, interracial marriage opponents at the time were quite certain that God opposed interracial marriage, which had lower levels of public support at the time Loving was decided than same-sex marriage does today.

Mark Taylor and Dave Daubenmire #conspiracy rightwingwatch.org

On his “Pass The Salt Live” webcast yesterday, “Coach” Dave Daubenmire interviewed “firefighter prophet” Mark Taylor, whose claim to fame is that God supposedly told him back in 2011 that Donald Trump would become president.

Daubenmire and Taylor spent a good bit of time on the webcast discussing the IRS’s 501(c)(3) designation, which neither of them seemed to understand, considering that Daubenmire wondered why President Trump “hasn’t executive ordered the end of the 501(c)(3) muzzle” on churches, while Taylor said that he has been prohibited by God from even stepping “foot into a 501(c)(3) church.”

Churches and other houses of worship with tax-exempt status are barred from engaging in electoral politics, such as openly endorsing a candidate for political office, but Trump, who has said that he wants to eliminate the prohibition on political activity, cannot simply issue an executive order to scrap the law, as Daubenmire suggested. As for Taylor, if he really has been instructed by God to stay out of all 501(c)(3) churches, then he can never enter any church since, as the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom explains, “all churches are subject to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code whether they apply for recognition as a 501(c)(3) organization or not.”

But not knowing what they are talking about did not stop Daubenmire and Taylor from issuing dire warnings about the dangers of 501(c)(3) status, which Taylor stated is part of “the Baal system.”

“When [churches] enter into that 501(c)(3), they have entered into covenant with the kingdom of darkness,” Taylor said. “They took a bribe is what they did. The Bible says when you take a bribe, it blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous, so it’s blinded the eyes of those who have come into the covenant and it’s perverting their words. The Lord flat out told me, ‘Mark, many have come before you with this 501(c)(3) message,’ He said, ‘You’re the last.’ He said, ‘I gave you that prophetic word for the 501(c)(3), I don’t even want you stepping foot into a 501(c)(3) church, otherwise you will be blinded and your words will become defiled.’ So I can’t even step foot into a 501(c)(3) church right now because the church and its leadership is under judgment and that 501(c)(3) system, especially, is under judgment.”

While the two were displeased that Trump hasn’t moved quickly enough to change the tax code, Taylor later stated that every Christian should be thankful for his election because had Hillary Clinton won, her administration “was going to use the 501(c)(3) to shut the churches down and turn them into a mosque.”

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

The Victorian theory that women were angels, therefore no coercion was needed against naturally saintly women, only against demonic males who make saintly women do bad things, led to an intolerable flood of bastards and women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, which in turn led to “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”, which brought us the welfare state, and the replacement of the nuclear family with child support. As people in the eighteenth century were aware, people need marriage in order to reproduce, and marriage needs coercion to make it stick, and the primary victims of this coercion need to be women, otherwise they will have sex with one man, then sex with another, making it difficult and unpleasant to father children.

Similarly, “White Man’s Burden”, and “la haute mission civilisatrice” was the death of colonialism.

It led the British general who was invading Afghanistan to believe he was doing Afghans a favor, and if he was sufficiently nice to them they would throw flowers at his troops. So he forbade his troops to take necessary measures for self defense, and, as a result, he and his troops died.

The white man’s burden was profoundly counterproductive to social cohesion, because it led to them sacrificing near (British officers and troops) for far (afghan officers and troops)

If it is a burden, then you proceed to conspicuously display your holiness by burden carrying – which is apt to mean making your troops carry burdens.

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millenia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam at swordpoint.

Afghanistan was, and arguably still is, a elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from the fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Aghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh. He then duplicitously accepted both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company was never very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It is like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army. The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary, we are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is, the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probaby not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company are deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, are seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle tells each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented. [Sarcasm tag removed because it broke the quote submission] The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

If an elite attempt to rule distant places, they will rule them very badly, unless some of the children of the elite move to those places, and stay there to rule them. Carpetbaggers who come and go tend to leave horror and devastation in their wake, as for example the looting of Haiti by do gooder ngos after the earthquake. If you are not going to stick around, the incentive is to take everything and smash everything, which is what happened to Haiti when the US State Department ngos got coercive quasi governmental power. Haitians wound up eating dirt, sleeping in the rain, and got cholera. So, not going to rule well, unless you have a fertile elite, which needs more governmental and quasi governmental jobs for its excessively numerous offspring. In which case good rule will naturally follow from the desire of that elite to make a nice place for themselves and their descendants. This is necessarily going to be rough on the existing local elite, but an ideology of doing good to far away strangers does not result in doing good to far away strangers, but at best to famine, destruction of property, and disease, as recently demonstrated in Haiti.

Hoist by His Own Petard Award

Cole Carini #sexist #psycho buzzfeednews.com

The FBI Says A Guy Blew His Hand Off With A Bomb Possibly Planned For An Attack On "Hot Cheerleaders"

Cole Carini told FBI agents he had a lawnmower accident, but when agents searched his home they found blood and chunks of human flesh splattered on a bedroom wall.

image
A 23-year-old Virginia man who appeared to be planning an incel bomb attack on "hot cheerleaders" accidentally blew off his hand with explosives, authorities say.

Cole Carini was charged in federal court on Friday connection with the plot after he allegedly lied to FBI agents by saying his extensive injuries were the result of a lawnmower accident.

Late Tuesday evening, Carini went to a medical center near his home in Richlands, Virginia with one hand missing, several fingers amputated, and shrapnel wounds to his neck and throat.

"When asked if he remembered what happened to put him in hospital," authorities wrote in a criminal complaint, "Carini told the [FBI] Agents that he was mowing his yard and the mower flipped over in such a way that it [dragged] his hands into the blades and because the blades were spinning so fast it acted like a bomb."

But when FBI agents searched his home, they found a shocking scene: a trail of blood leading investigators to a bedroom where blinds had been shredded by shrapnel and the walls and ceilings were covered with blood spatters and chunks of human flesh.

Agents also said they discovered explosive chemicals and a box of rusty nails that could be used as shrapnel, among other items that could be used to make bombs, including PVC pipes and hot plates.

The six-inch high grass at the home also showed no signs of having been freshly mowed.
Facebook

image
In a nearby shed, authorities found a crumpled letter that discussed a suicide bomber walking through a shopping mall while concealing "deadly objects" to target a "stage of hot cheerleaders."

"I will not be afraid of the consequences," read the letter. "No matter what I will be heroic. I will make a statement like Elliot Rodgers [sic] did., he thought to himself."

Elliot Rodger, who killed six people and himself in a 2014 attack in Santa Barbara, left behind a manifesto that is frequently cited by incels, or so-called involuntary celibate males who target women.

When Carini was confronted in hospital by agents with the evidence they had uncovered, he continued to repeat his story about the lawnmower.

He is currently facing one charge of lying to FBI agents.

Carini, who is currently being held at Western Virginia Regional Jail, had previously been on probation for explosives-related charges as a minor.

No attorney is listed for Carini. Reached for comment on Facebook, his brother, Neil Carini said, "My family is trusting in God and Godly people. Please pray for my brother. Thank you."

Lloyd Geldard #fundie facebook.com

There needs to be a relentless campaign against sitting liberals who support the change to marriage law in order to remove them from pre-selection and if not possible then to present an alternative candidate in the next election in each liberal/national electorate where this is the case. Turn Mr Turnbull's hairs completely white.

David Behar #fundie sentencing.typepad.com

[Commenting under "Eleventh Circuit upholds a 57-year sentence for federal juve offender for non-homicide crimes based in part of possibility of good-time credits"]

@Jim Gormley

During my 8 years in Federal prison, I served time at FCI - Gilmer in Glenville, West Virginia with two young black brothers who were juveniles when prosecuted (they were also cellmates in the same prison)in Federal Court in South Carolina for "Armed Robbery in or Affecting Interstate Commerce", after conducting a series of robberies of gas station/convenience stores, during which they carried pistols, threatened to kill people, and even pistol whipped a 17-year old female clerk. They had been passed around in the South Carolina foster care system for years, and really never had a fair chance at life. Their public defender got them to plead guilty to the crimes, without advising them of the sentences they faced, including mandatory consecutive time for "use or carry of a firearm while committing a crime of violence or a drug crime". When I met them, they were in their late teens, and had been sentenced to 53 years in the Bureau of Prisons. Neither the prison staff nor most of the inmates knew what to make of these youngsters. One or two older black men tried to take them under their wings and teach them how to live in prison. If an when they are released, they will not be able to work or survive in civil society. Legislators, prosecutors and judges lose sight of what serving so many years in prison does to a man, particularly if his sentence began when he was a teenager.

From David Behar:

Jim. I agree with you. Those victims of society would never function in the outside world. What you do not mention is their behavior in prison. I am going to bet the crime meter continued to spin at supersonic speed, and they had to be straightened out by the prisoners, because the staff owes their jobs to them. The prisoner victims of their crimes were left to fend for themselves, as we all are on the outside.

They should have been executed on the reading of the guilty verdict. If they wished to redeem themselves they could have signed consent to donate their organs after screening for diseases. The purpose of warehousing them is to provide jobs for registered members of the Democratic Party, and absolutely nothing else. Let me guess again. The overwhelming majority of rent seeking, worthless, make work government workers were white males.

The criminal justice system of the USA is a major scam to defraud the tax payer by the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. It achieves nothing, and takes in a cool $trillion.

Later

The Congress must impeach the entire Supreme Court. Any dissenters failed to stop the pro-criminal majority. They have accomplice liability, and deserve to be impeached. These are out of control rent seeking, pro-criminal, criminal cult members, in out of control insurrection against our constitution. Judicial review is prohibited by Article I Section 1, giving law making power to the Congress.

ConservativeChristian #fundie topix.com

Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.

Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.

I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.

Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.

felixthecat #fundie rr-bb.com

[replying to: "By the way, as for your 400 scientists (who say that Darwinian evolution is deficient), 500 Ph.Ds with the name of Steve or some derivitive thereof signed this stating a belief in evolution. (citing '<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp" target="_blank">Project Steve</a>')"]

LOL!
Oh my ... Do you really think I was born yesterday?
I see your passion but let's not get blinded by it ...
I clicked on your link.
And this is what I saw:

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

Then it goes on to selectively list ONLY people named with Steve that do not believe in evolution. Trust me, there other people, more degreed than you and your professor, not named "Steve" that also know evolution is a farce.

Then it goes on to selectively list ONLY people named with Steve that do not believe in evolution. Trust me, there other people, more degreed than you and your professor, not named "Steve" that also know evolution is a farce.

I purposely refer to evolution as a hypothesis much less a "fact". Evolution is merely as supposition as the basis for your reasoning. Scientific principle do not support evolution nor do the laws of science. They never have and never will. It matters not how many times you say they do, they don't and saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

Believe what you wish!!

My God is no "ape".

My God is AWESOME!!!

Chris Roberts #racist amren.com

Black Stranglehold on Democrat Party Dooms Bernie Sanders

Pat Buchanan put it bluntly in one of his recent columns: “Consider the most loyal of Democrat constituents in presidential elections: African Americans. They are 13 percent of the electorate but a fourth of the national Democrat vote.” That share may not seem like much, but in a crowded field for the presidential nomination, blacks are can play kingmaker, especially because more than any other group, they vote as a bloc. In general elections, blacks vote Democrat at rates never lower than 80 percent, and sometimes much higher, and during the party’s nomination process, blacks still vote together. In the 2016 race for the nomination, 75.9 percent of blacks voted for Hillary Clinton. The white vote was split almost exactly down the middle: 48.9 percent for Mrs. Clinton and 49.1 percent for Mr. Bernie Sanders.

In 2008, unsurprisingly, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton among blacks by eight — and sometimes nine — to one. Vox noted that “Obama won every primary in the eight states where more than 20 percent of the population is black.” This included the very important early state of South Carolina. The nomination fight was very close; Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by less than half a million out of over 35 million votes. Hispanics supported Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama almost two to one.

This means that in 2008, black voters – all by themselves – kept Mrs. Clinton from winning the nomination, and eight years later they guaranteed her victory. To win the Democrat nomination, a candidate has to carry the black vote.

This makes the race hard for political outsiders, or even ordinary politicians who aren’t very well known by blacks. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is an example. He is a young, moderate who was in the military, and has earned plenty of support and attention from important media. But he was almost unheard of on a national level before 2019, and despite campaigning hard for months, blacks do not care for him. Politico put it bluntly in a recent article: “‘On life support’: Buttigieg’s struggles with black voters threaten his candidacy.” Its opening paragraphs explain:

Over the past month and a half, he has invested more money advertising in South Carolina, where a majority of Democrats are African American, than any of the non-billionaire Democrats running for president. . . . But the more than $2 million Buttigieg poured into TV and radio ads, some featuring black supporters touting the former South Bend (Ind.) mayor, hasn’t budged his stubbornly low poll numbers in the state — 2 percent among African American Democrats in a recent Fox News poll.

Last November, Michael Harriot, a black writer at The Root, wrote an article called, “Pete Buttigieg Is a Lying MF” — MF stands for “Mother Fucker.” Mr. Harriot wrote about how hard it is to be black and poor in the United States, and suggested that Mr. Buttigieg knows this, but lies about it. In response, the white presidential candidate called the author on the phone in hopes of mollifying him. Mr. Harriot then wrote a column about the conversation, saying he still couldn’t be sure how honest Mr. Buttigieg was, concluding, “The only thing I actually know about Pete Buttigieg is that he is a white man.”

Two months later, “Mayor Pete” has spent about one million dollars for each percentage-point gain in black support in South Carolina. Ethnomasochism rarely impresses non-whites — especially blacks — but Mr. Buttigieg doesn’t have a choice if he wants the nomination. For whatever reason, blacks do not like Mr. Buttigieg, who desperately needs them; all he can do is grovel and buy ads.

Mr. Sanders, whose consistent democratic socialist principles have inspired millions, faces the same problem. His support among blacks has never been high, and South Carolina polls suggest he has not made much progress. Vice President Joe Biden has a commanding lead, at 36.5 percent, with Mr. Sanders a distant second, at 16.2 percent. Meanwhile, in Iowa Mr. Sanders trails Mr. Biden by just 3.3 percent, and in New Hampshire Mr. Sanders is ahead of Mr. Biden by nearly 5 percent. Needless to say, the population of South Carolina is very different from that of New Hampshire and Iowa.

All the same, Mr. Sanders’s popularity has frightened many within the Democrat Party who think he’s a dangerous radical. But the anti-Sanders wing needn’t worry; there is one thing they can, and very well may, do that will certainly torpedo him: have Barack Obama endorse Joe Biden.

If this happens, whatever support Sen. Sanders has among blacks will evaporate and keep it well below 10 percent. As shown earlier, monolithic black support for Mr. Obama in 2008 won him the nomination, and in the general election, 95 percent voted for him. In 2012, 93 percent of blacks voted for Mr. Obama. Throughout his presidency, black approval always stayed above 80 percent — and was sometimes double that of Americans as a whole. Most blacks will do what Mr. Obama tells them.

By all accounts, Mr. Obama is not a fan of Mr. Sanders, and rumors have been swirling for months that he may step in to ensure that the Vermont Senator does not get the nomination. As CNBC reported in November:

Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned Democratic primary candidates to avoid leaning too far left in their campaigns, and raised concerns that certain liberal policy proposals on health care and immigration might have gone further than public opinion. In an unusual address to a room of wealthy Democratic donors, Obama urged Democratic candidates to be pragmatic in their messages to voters. While he didn’t mention any specific presidential primary candidate or proposal, Obama warned that the average American voter does not align with views from ‘certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.’

He was obviously talking about Bernie Sanders.

So although Mr. Sanders inspires millions of whites to get involved in politics, he has a fatal weakness. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Obama will almost certainly endorse Mr. Biden, and the Sanders campaign will almost immediately lose any chance of victory.

Mr. Obama’s power will not fade any time soon. He is young for a former President: only 58. Assuming he lives to be 80, he has another 22 years to play kingmaker within the Democrat Party, and there is no countervailing force. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are older, white, and less popular. Flouting the wishes of blacks within the party would require a candidate that brings together most whites and most Hispanics. It’s not impossible, but not likely.

Today, many white progressives are full of hope that Mr. Sanders can fight the media elites and the Davos class within their party and win. But for all their hatred of big business, the military-industrial complex, and special interest groups, what most stands in their way is the fact that blacks, unlike whites, vote as a group. To fix that problem they’ll need more than socialism.

Leucosticte #sexist #psycho pro-rape.com

[OP of "[Rapefuel] A Man Who Raped A 12-Year-Old Was Granted Custody Of The Victim's Son"]

Michigan Rapist Granted Joint Custody Of Victim's Son

A Michigan man who raped a 12-year-old girl nine years ago was recently granted joint legal custody of the victim's 8-year-old son. According to the Detroit News, Christopher Mirasolo pled guilty to one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and spent less than a year behind bars. The custody ruling made by Judge Gregory S. Ross came after Sanilac County investigated the victim's child support.

Just when you thought there were no decent judges out there. Guys, make sure after you rape a 12-year-old girl, you fight for custody of your sons so that you can instruct them that a woman's proper role is to be raped and bear her rapist's children. Also, get custody of your daughters so that you can rape them yourself. That way, you can have some rape-grandchildren hopefully. Cool rape story too:

"She, her 13-year-old sister and a friend all slipped out of their house one night to meet a boy and the boy’s older friend, Mirasolo showed up and asked if they wanted to go for a ride,” Kiessling recounted. “They thought they were going to McDonald’s or somewhere. Instead, he tossed their cellphones away, drove to Detroit where he stole gas from a station and then drove back to Sanilac County, where he kept them captive for two days in a vacant house near a relative, finally releasing the older sister in a park. He threatened to kill them if they told anyone what happened.”

Mirasolo was reportedly arrested in October 2008, which is also when the victim learned she was pregnant. In September 2010, Mirasolo sexually assaulted another victim between the age of 13 and 15 years old. He served four years in prison.

David J. Stewart #fundie #sexist jesusisprecious.org

Taylor Swift is a daughter of Jezebel! If you are a redeemed child of God ladies, hopefully you also want to become a DAUGHTER OF SARAH. A “daughter of Sarah” is a Christian woman who possesses the virtue of Abraham's wife, Sarah. Satan wants every girl's purity, chastity and virtue. The Devil wants every young girl to fornicate, throwing away her one chance for purity and virtue. We live in a sicko culture today, who while freaking out over pedophilia and rape, openly accept every form of sexual perversion in the media. Homosexuality is rock bottom!!! American culture is beyond borderline insanity, we are INSANE as a culture!!! Again, a “daughter of Sarah” is a Christian woman who possesses the virtue of Abraham's wife, Sarah. 1st Peter 3:6, “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” Carefully notice that a daughter of Sarah DOES WELL the Bible says! A woman who causes grief for her husband, making his life difficult instead of being a “HELP MEET” as God intended for her (Genesis 2:18), is a curse to him. Proverbs 12:4, “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.” The biggest mistake you will ever make is to follow humanity instead of God's inspired words—“let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4b). God's Word is always RIGHT, all men and women are WRONG!!!

You know, the whole thing about women wearing pants is a disgrace. It really all boils down to how much a Christian woman loves God. There is a pretty acoustic guitar song by a heathen music group called Extreme. The song was released in 1990 and is called “More Than Words.” The song's video on YouTube has received nearly 397,000,000 views so far! I do not endorse the song, nor the heathen group, but I really like the message of the song that if you love somebody, that love should transcend your words. In other words, if you really love somebody they'll KNOW IT before you say it! And we should say it! Get into the habit of telling your loved ones that you love them, because life is short. Albeit, your love should be felt more than by your words. Kindness is love made visible!

I don't just want to tell God that I love Him (and I do tell him often), I want to SHOW HIM by the life that I live and my ministry labors. Love is expressed in words, but evidenced in deeds. Do we really love God? Does a woman who walks around in spandex really love God as she ought? How can she profess to love God, while causing men to struggle with lust? I don't think anyone is a shining example of what a Christian ought to be, because we are all woeful sinners! I am the biggest sinner I know (and so are you if you are right with the Holy Scriptures). Jesus in the inspired Word of God is our only sinless and perfect mentor! John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” There's is not a man upon the earth who sinneth not! Jesus (the sinless lamb of God) is our example to follow, not any sinful human being.

Darth_Aurelius #fundie incels.co

Why Nazi Germany was awesome

* It’s highest leadership were all essentially incel type men, though for different reasons – Goering was a morbidly obese morphine addict, Goebbels was a club footed manlet, Himmler looked like the epitome of a lanky jew and even the Fuhrer himself was very probably a life-long virgin and syphilitic through his mother.Despite these impediments, they acquired immense power and prestige through their intellect and rhetorical brilliance.
* Women were subordinated in every facet of society – they had to attend to the menial tasks which their biology and physiology has suited them for, "kinder, kuchen und kirchen" (kids, cooking and going to Church). No woman ever outranked any man in Nazi Germany, either socially (de facto) or in any of the paramilitary organizations (de jure). Thus, even the lowest ranking man was superior to all women, as it rightly should be.
* Aryan men who could not find or attract women for whatever reason were permitted to rape subhuman untermenschen type females with impunity both in order to satisfy the basic human need as well as to propagate more Aryan blood lines.
* Rank and status were not predicated on money nor were they reinforced by ostentatious displays of material wealth, as in the Jewnited States but rather were acquired by honorable and manly service to the state which all self respecting men should strive for.
* Degeneracy in all of its putrid and corrupting forms was cast out and destroyed by the Nazi party which understood that the people needed to be protected from the perverse influence of modern art, jew propaganda, homosexuality and any other cultural contaminants.

If that’s not enough, also bear in mind that his noble honor, Sir. Elliot Rodger admired the efficiency, glory and power of the mighty Third Reich. Sieg Heil.

The staff at Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy #fundie christianpost.com

[Excerpt from article about a new "pro-life" pharmacy.]

CHANTILLY, Va. – A new drug store at a Virginia strip mall is putting its faith in an unconventional business plan: No candy. No sodas. And no birth control. Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is among at least seven pharmacies across the nation that are refusing as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription.

States across the country have been wrestling with the issue of pharmacists who refuse on religious grounds to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, and some have enacted laws requiring drug stores to fill the prescriptions.

In Virginia, though, pharmacists can turn away any prescription for any reason.

"I am grateful to be able to practice," pharmacy manager Robert Semler said, "where my conscience will never be violated and my faith does not have to be checked at the door each morning."

Semler ran a similar pharmacy before opening the new store, which is not far from Dulles International Airport. The store only sells items that are health-related, including vitamins, skin care products and over-the-counter medications.

On Tuesday, the pharmacy celebrated a blessing from Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde. While Divine Mercy Care is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, it is guided by church teachings on sexuality, which forbid any form of artificial contraception, including morning-after pills, condoms and birth control pills, a common prescription used by millions of women in the U.S.

"This pharmacy is a vibrant example of our Holy Father's charge to all of us to wear our faith in the public square," said Loverde, who sprinkled holy water on the shelves stocked with painkillers and acne treatments. "It will allow families to shop in an environment where their faith is not compromised."

Teddybearmiller #fundie patheos.com

As Joyce Meyer said: When one group of individuals scream and kick to get what they consider to be their rights; they take away my rights. Is that fair or prejudice? The problem is not Human Rights or Constitutional Rights being violated; it is the homosexual judges and officials who are making these unjust decisions which take away the Rights of Christians to live and practice their beliefs. Even the US money has on it: IN GOD WE TRUST. At one time judges and officials had to take an oath sworn upon the bible and in the name of God. I guess that God has been flushed down the toilet and exchanged for secular rights. The owners of this Bakery in Oregon should counter sue the lesbians/homosexual community for defamation of character, slanger toward their business, loss of business and income, refusing them their Christian rights and beliefs and many more RIGHTS of these Christian bakers that have been violated. How much income would this bakery have earned for future sales to non-homosexuals? What authority does the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries have to enforce a judgement against someone for refusing service to anyone, lesbian or otherwise? This is an attack on Christianity moreso than the individuals. They were targeted by the homosexual movement/agenda. Which has planned for years to attack Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their perverted life-style. Go back to the mid 1980's and find the book which outlines the plan to subdue any opposition to homosexuality. Targeting Christians being part of that agenda. Using the media another main method. Their plan/agenda was orchistarted an dput together by professional propaganda specialists. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.[11] It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message. It was published by Doubleday and was generally available.

According to a Christian Broadcasting Network article by Paul Strand, Sears and Osten argue that After the Ball follows from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda" and that "the two men (Kirk and Madsen) proposed using tactics on 'straight' America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese – mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques."[13] The article goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of this "well-planned propaganda campaign".http://www.massresistance.org/docs/is..

James Moore #racist washingtonpost.com

A Ku Klux Klan chapter holding a rally in downtown Charlottesville on Saturday afternoon says it expects 80 to 100 members and supporters to take part in the protest and that most will have guns with them.?“It’s an open-carry state, so our members will be armed,” said James Moore, a member of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which is headquartered in Pelham, N.C., near the Virginia border. Moore said that if members are attacked, they will defend themselves.?The KKK is protesting the Charlottesville City Council’s decision this year to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public park and rename that park. Once called Lee Park, it is now Emancipation Park. A court injunction has halted the statue’s removal until a November hearing. On Thursday, a “Confederate Heroes” plaque attached to the statue was removed by city workers.?“The liberals are taking away our heritage,” Moore said. “By taking these monuments away, that’s what they’re working on. They’re trying to erase the white culture right out of the history books.”

Janet bloomfield #sexist judgybitch.com

Brock Turner is a rapist but not the kind that frightens me.

A guy I train with told me a funny story about mixing martial arts with alcohol. Like me, he’s not really interested in martial arts as a sport, but more in terms of real world applicability. He’s a fighter more than an athlete. He was training with a group who felt the most likely environment in which they would encounter real violence would be a bar, and alcohol would likely be involved, so they convinced their sensei to run a simulation that involved everyone doing tequila shooters, to test their reflexes and muscle memories under the influence. Could they drink tequila and still be able to handle real world violence? They turned the lights down and the music way up, which is not that unusual for a dojo. Lots of stress drills are done in low light, noisy conditions.

And then guzzled tequila.

Everything started out fine. Everyone was jokey and boisterous and having fun with the drills and even singing along to the hokey death metal band. And then tequila 2.0 arrived. When the full effects kicked in, people started getting hurt. The fight took on a whole new dimension. Wrist locks got brutal. People didn’t notice their partners tapping out. Choke holds were a little too enthusiastic. No one waited for a secure hold before reaping. It was mayhem!

It’s funny to hear him tell the story, because from the outside it seems like a terrifying drunken brawl, and it was, but the fighters enjoyed every minute of it. It was fun. Sensei had to cut the class short because people were getting hurt. Being drunk, they didn’t really realize it, and were thoroughly enjoying themselves. The next day, people had bruises and sprains and fat lips and black eyes and swollen joints and stuff that should never happen except by pure accident when sparring. Someone even dropped a 12-6 elbow between his opponent’s shoulder blades, which is pretty much a nuclear elbow strike you don’t pull out lightly. It’s actually sort-of illegal in most martial arts, but perfectly acceptable in self-defense. The fighters agreed to never drunk spar again, although I suspect that was a very effective lesson in teaching them just how much alcohol impaired their ability to use proportional violence.

The real point is that while the sparring was happening, the fighters were having a blast. They were doing what they do: fighting. I’m sure getting out of bed the next day brought a few regrets home, but in the moment, it was fun. The whole story made me think of the Brock Turner case – the Stanford athlete convicted of sexually assaulting a drunk woman outside a fraternity.

Let’s get a few things out of the way right off the bat: do I think Brock Turner is a rapist?

Yes.

Yes, I do. Turner claims he went outside with the woman and they were making out and I believe him. They were both drunk, but she was sloppy drunk and she passed out cold. Turner dragged her behind a dumpster, removed her panties, somehow managed to get rocks and dirt in her vagina, shoved his fingers in her, left her with scrapes and bruises and only stopped assaulting her when a couple guys noticed what he was up to, and then chased Turner down when he ran. Bystanders held Turner until police arrived.

Please note that this is exact opposite of feminist rape culture, in which rape is treated like a joke and condoned by the wider society. No one (except Turner’s father) thinks Turner’s action were amusing or acceptable. The Stanford police were involved right off the bat, the woman was found and taken to hospital, charges were laid and Turner was prosecuted successfully and sentenced to jail, even though the victim can’t remember a single thing about the incident. That doesn’t sound like condoning, celebrating or accepting rape to me. Or to Ashe Schow, who has written a nice explanation of rape culture as it relates to Brock Turner.

But of course, feminists are mad. They’re always mad. They’re mad at Brock because being sentenced to life isn’t harsh enough. Yes, you read that correctly. Turner got a life sentence. No, not in jail. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail, and will likely spend 3 months there, but he will spend the rest of his life on the Sex Offender Registry. That is punishment untempered by mercy, yet not punishment enough to satisfy feminists, ecstatic that they finally found an actual rape victim to get behind.

According to Emily Horowitz, who wrote [i]Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us[/i], sex offender registries don’t keep anyone safer. Speaking to Slate’s Christina Cauterucchi, Horowitz says. ‘Are sex offenders destined to reoffend? Not according to any research—sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than almost any other type of offender. Punishing [Turner] forever and destroying his life doesn’t make anyone safer.’

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know that feminists don’t care. Read the comments. They want Turner to suffer for the rest of his life. They want him to pay for his idiocy for the rest of his life. They want revenge, not justice. It’s so rare for an actual, unambiguous rape victim to emerge, feminists are practically in shock. Whipping women up in frenzied fear, feminists have convinced almost 100K people to sign a petition to remove the judge who decided to temper Turner’s life sentence with reduced jail time. Justice must not have mercy? I’d be really careful with that demand, feminists. It could bite you in the ass, pretty easily.

The reality here is that Brock Turner is like the fighters who beat the shit out of each other while loaded. Turner has no reputation for being criminally sexually aggressive, but he is a predator. Like all athletes, he channels his natural desire to compete and triumph into a sport, and he was very good at winning. Competitors and predators come down to the same thing. No one wants to tie. It’s a zero sum game. I win. You lose. Civilization is the story of channeling this aspect of human nature into creation, rather than destruction. Brock Turner got drunk and behaved in a criminally foolish manner. An equivalent would be a drunk sparring partner who knocked his partner out and then kept hitting him. It crosses every line and deserves sanction and punishment.

Rapists like Turner don’t frighten me. Avoiding him is as simple as not getting black out drunk and refusing to go make out with him outside, in the dark. The trouble with feminist definitions of rape is that they confuse drunk couples who go outside and have mutually consensual sex, having fun in the moment, with actual rape. That is exactly what happened at Occidental College. Both individuals were drunk, both agreed to have sex, but she regretted it the next morning. If they had both been drunk, and agreed to spar, could she charge him with assault and battery the next day? Occidental says yes.

I say no.

People do stupid shit when they’re drunk. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is a key reason people like to drink it. But it doesn’t fundamentally change who you are as a person. The fighters my friend and I talked about did stupid stuff when fighting drunk they would never do sober, but none of them crossed the line into brutally beating an unconscious partner. It was just a kind of crazy, wild playfight that left a few people bruised and bleeding, but no criminal lines were crossed.

Most drunk sex, no matter how much one party or the other might regret it in the morning, is not rape.

What Turner did is rape.

Feminist definitions of regret=rape are now starting to trap women, too. When Rose grabbed herself a drunk guy and fucked him, she thought it was just a good time, had by all. And it was. In the moment. But when morning came and the guy saw he had just boned a fat chick, he turned campus rape laws on her and had Rose expelled.

This is nuts.

And awesome, at the same time. Turnabout is fair play, ladies. If you are going to expand the definition of rape to include sex one person regrets, you’re going to have to accept the uncomfortable truth that men make poor decisions when plastered, too, and stick their dicks in women they wouldn’t glance at twice when sober. If we’re going to call drunk sparring ‘assault’ and criminally prosecute it, any woman who downs a shooter and steps in the ring can be charged.

Is this really the world we want? Young men and women expelled from college, their futures blighted, because they got drunk and did something dumb? No one should be expelled from college for hooking up while drunk. Drunk sex is not rape. Rape is rape. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. Turner is a case study in campus rape. And even he doesn’t deserve a life sentence. He is extremely unlikely to reoffend.

Justice without mercy is cruelty. Is anyone surprised feminists are howling for exactly that when it comes to Turner, and by extension, all men accused of rape? The real danger here is that cruelty can be contagious. I sincerely hope the courts do not bow to the pressure of feminists and remove this judge. That will spread the contagion of feminism and we are already at critical mass.

Never forget that feminism is cancer.

What we really need are a few more fat bitches to get charged with rape. A few brave men are needed, to take one for the team. We need to show everyone the insanity of feminist ideals of ‘justice’.

Any volunteers?

Lots of love,

JB

Anonymous #conspiracy themillenniumreport.com

GLADIO TERROR: Virginia Beach False Flag Mass Shooting Ordered by Deep State to Distract from SPYgate

False flag terrorist attacks have become the preferred means of distraction of the American people. Epic scandals like SPYgate require major distractions to change the national conversation—FAST! See ANOTHER MIND-CONTROLLED PATSY: Virginia Beach Mass Shooting frames a ‘disgruntled employee’ as the fall guy

Mass shootings in high-profile venues are particularly carried out to divert the attention of the body politic when Deep State is under a LOT of pressure. That pressure is coming from the necessity of covering up SPYgate.

In light of the radioactive revelations that are about to be made public by the DoJ after being authorized to declassify the Russiagate hoax documents, things are about to get very dicey. Truly, it doesn’t get more serious for the Democrat coup plotters than SPYgate.

Why Virginia?

KEY POINTS: The disastrous briefing recently given by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was such a PR nightmare that that fiasco alone necessitated a major distraction. Not only was Mueller’s professional performance extremely poor, he raised more questions than he answered. This is why Virginia Beach — so close to Washington, D.C. — was purposely chosen as the site of the alleged terrorist attack. Much more significantly, however, was the ‘need’ for Deep State to stage a horrific mass shooting in the state of Virginia in order to justify the enactment of draconian gun control legislation. Just watch the new state laws restricting firearms in the weeks ahead. The treasonous U.S. Congress knows that We the People are on to their crime sprees (e.g. SPYgate) and therefore feel the need to swiftly disarm the citizenry…especially eliminating assault rifle ownership in the areas surrounding the highly vulnerable District of Columbia.

George #fundie fstdt.com

I must say that you wrote an excellent book when you wrote about the Gap Theory. I agree with this theory of biblical creationism. We live on an Old Earth; however, we were not made by evolution and are no relation to the ancient life forms found in the fossils. You are truly a scholar and Marshall University, founded by the Virginia Legislature before the Civil War, should be proud of you.

I wish to say one other thing. Those who are non-Christians should not be rude to our host. Be polite and express a respectable opinion. I am an educated Methodist Christian and proud of it. One day I will be absent from the body and present with the Lord (II Corinthians 5:6-8). I would advise non-Christians to reconsider their opinions. One day it will be too late!

Westboro Baptist Church #fundie thesmokinggun.com

APRIL 20--The reactionary religious group that has staged protests at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq plans to picket at tomorrow's funeral for one of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. The Westboro Baptist Church--which operates the godhatesfags.com web site--announced its plans to protest at student Ryan Clark's funeral in a press release (a copy of which you'll find below). Clark, 22, was a biology and English major who reportedly was trying to shield others when he was shot Monday by Seung-Hui Cho. Clark's funeral is scheduled for tomorrow morning in Evans, Georgia. The Westboro organization has protested at the funerals of soldiers because they claim that God is punishing America for "her sodomite sins" and the persecution of Westboro "for warning America of her doom."

Al Bedrosian #fundie rawstory.com

A group that lost its U.S. Supreme Court case over prayer at public meetings said recent comments by a Virginia elected official illustrate the risk of allowing such sectarian invocations.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Al Bedrosian, who sits on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. “If we allow everything, where do you draw the line?”

The Republican said Monday, after the high court ruled 5-4 that legislative prayer did not violate the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion, that he would not vote to allow non-Christians to deliver invocations.

“I think America, pretty much from Founding Fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”

Those remarks echoed statements he made several years ago in an editorial published in the Roanoke Times, where he described freedom of religion as a “hoax” and claimed “the global warming crowd worships the environment as god, the abortionist has the death of unborn babies as their god, and the homosexuals have sexual freedom as their god.”

“The real battle is keeping the name of Jesus as Lord,” Bedrosian wrote in 2007. “The name Jesus is what makes us a Christian people and a Christian nation. This is why we must continue our heritage as a Christian nation and remove all other gods.”

That’s what Bedrosian intends to do in his position as county supervisor, saying he would reject any request by any non-Christian adherent to deliver a religious or secular invocation.

“I would say no,” Bedrosian said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”

Kajm, Maxm2317, GalvaEmperor, Graeystone, Dagur-Berserker, LipsterLeo, TranquilityBass, and The-Darkwolf #wingnut deviantart.com

(submitter note: its’ Kajm again and his little group of fellow far-right trump loving circle jerkers)

[Kajm’s Journal]
'Impeachment' was a foregone conclusion. They've wanted it since the day he was elected- BECAUSE he was elected, and nothing else.

And now I understand they are stalling on sending it to the Senate and I will tell you why: The Senate will KILL it. There is ZERO chance of it going any further. And that means, the Democrats would be forced to focus upon actually DOING the work they are supposed to be doing, for the American people. Which means MORE WINNING for Trump.

They can't have this. They NEED to keep Trump's 'guilt' in the public eye, right up to the next election. They need people to BELIEVE that there is nothing Legitimate about Trump's presidency.

And that all GOES AWAY if they can't keep 'investigating' and calling witnesses who never saw anything but 'believe' the President acted (pick a crime! ANNNNNNNY crime!).

They are never going to stop. And presenting this to the Senate, is going to punch a massive hole in their narrative, when it FAILS on contact.

(Submitter notes: the comments, let the circle jerk begin!)
Maxm2317: Their narrative will wither up and die faster than any other piece of Democrat legislation that has gone into, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer so often calls it, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Legislative Graveyard.”

Kajm: And Thank God he's buried them.

GalvaEmperor: I hope so. We have very few wins to our name; losing Trump means the left will never stop ruining our lives,
We are dark times my friend

(argument between two users, leading to this)

Dagur-Berserker: False victim narrative? That's what you leftists play all the time about non-white people when you constantly excuse the crime they commit. There isn't even any evidence against Trump. You obviously don't know anything about American politics. All the democrats ever do is attack America.

Greatkingrat88: I'm not even a leftist, dude. I just hate Trump.

Dagur-Berserker: But you've yet to prove that he's done anything wrong.

Graeystone: If anyone thinks this will just stop with just Trump if he somehow magically gets fully impeached had better guess again. VP Pence's head is also on the democrat's chopping block. Line of succession if POTUS can no longer fulfill duties as president-
1) Vice President
2) Speaker of the House of Representative.
Don't like throwing around the C and T words but this does make me wonder what the democrats are actually up to.

LipsterLeo: The Democrats are actually into overthrowing the "racist, unfair" constitution, and throwing America into chaos. They believe, as Marx taught, that out of the ashes, they can build their utopia. Got news for 'em. Me, and 100 million other Americans, are armed and will not be disarmed.

Graeystone: The democrat party was the party that kept slavery going right from the start. When they started to think slavery was going to be gotten rid of, they basically triggered a Civil War. They founded the KKK. They wrote and passed the Jim Crow laws along with all the other 'legalized segregation/discrimination laws'.
As far as an Utopia goes, that is outright impossible. While its possible to imagine a perfect system it is impossible to bring one about because of humanity's imperfect nature. Imperfect people cannot create a perfect system.
Its like the democrats can never accept a good idea and if they do it will only truly benefit them and nobody else.

TranquilityBass: The House is meant to be the place of passion and rhetoric, thus the two year terms. The Senate is meant to be where the grownups live and can take long-term perspectives, thus the six year terms.
Of course, as that one doofus from Texas said, "We can impeach him more than once!" This may be necessary for the Democrats' survival, since wasting time in the House stops good work from being done for the American people. For instance, we currently have the lowest black unemployment ever recorded--but the party of the KKK, of Jim Crow, and of Lester Maddox wants to remove the president who made it so.

The-Darkwolf: Meanwhile Hillary walked away from Criminal negligence violating National Security ("I'm just a girl so I don't get all this technical stuff, but I am WOMAN so you owe me the Presidency!") Obama handed over tens of thousands of military-grade weapons to Narcos, ISIS and other terrorists ("It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I still stand for gun control!") and the collective hive-mind of 70-plus presidential candidates from the party all agree on ending the democratic process of the electoral college so that only Sanctuary Cities will matter during national elections....
The quote I love most was Clinton's campaign manager during the 2016 election finally admitting that America was socially, culturally and politically more divided than at any time since the Civil War... "But it's all the Republican's fault!".... maybe Nancy Pelosi could just order the FBI to open fire on Fort Sumpter and just get on with the inevitable... :shrug:
You gotta understand, I am not a huge Trump fan but at least he's managed to pull up the economy, unemployment is at an major low, based on full-time jobs, not part-time mcjobs and the biggest winners are young African-Americans, and he's pulling the US out of a foreign boondoggle without a hope of resolution. And apparently his great criminal act was to tell a foreign power that he was okay with their already on-going investigation into espionage involving the Democratic presidential frontrunner.....