Similar posts

Holyheavens, 7339er and MelvinTheMerciless #sexist reddit.com

[OP and comments under "A distinction should be made between the rape of a chaste woman and that of a promiscuous slut."]

@Holyheavens

A chaste woman is either a virgin, a married woman who's only partner in her life has been her husband or a remarried widow. In each of these instances, no fornication took place.

I define the promiscuous slut as a woman who's had sexual relations with more than partner in her life safe for remarried widows as mentioned above.

I'm lenient on premarital sex only if it's done with her one and only lifepartner.

Moving on the topic of rape; a distinction should be made on the severity of punishment depending on whether the victim falls in one of either categories.

The chaste woman can be considered to have been truly traumatized in case of rape, because she has been sullied and bereft of her dignity she was taught to uphold.

The promiscuous slut has no dignity or principles to speak of in the first place. It can barely be considered human because it immediately acts on lust like a wild beast without considering the consequences. Such a creature ought best to pursue a career of prostitution, considering it has no value as a mother or wife. It's not much different from a sexual object. The most it loses when being raped is a couple of minutes. What is one dick more after having been penetrated by various others?

A rapist who's raped a woman in the first category must receive a heavy punishment. Chaste women should be protected from being dirtied at all costs for they are the (future) wifes of moral men. So the death penalty is fitting.

A rapist who's raped a woman in the second category must pay a fine to the raped slut. A slut is not much different from a prostitute -except that she gives her cunt out for free to various men which could be considered as even worse than prostitution- so why not at least pay her to keep things fair and treat her for the whore she is?

From 7339er:

I wouldn't even give the 2nd rapist a fine to be honest. She should think of it as repayment for that male incel's taxes paying for her free abortions and birth control.

From MelvinTheMerciless:

In the second category the fine should not be paid to the slut but to the father of the slut or whoever the legal male guardian may be. If no man claims the slut as part of his household then we're talking about public property. A town bike. So a fine would only be appropriate if a man used the slut in a way that left it unsuitable for future use by other men. In that case, the fine should be paid to the government or the courts (perhaps to defray the costs associated with enforcing monogamy) or to a charitable fund (perhaps one dedicated to the development of sex robots and other female replacement technologies).

Edita #fundie patheos.com

So you like being overburdened by your womanly duties such as having kids, cleaning house and cooking all the while getting harassed at work by your boss? You like slavery? Why wouldn't you want an easy life where the only thing you care about is loving your husband? I don't understand your slave mind. Think woman, eventually you will get older you will begin to lack the energy to do it all. And your marriage will end in divorce.

I for one refuse such slavery. You are just as bad as Christian fundamentalist, homophobic pro-lifers to be honest. No longer will the TWRA's allow for women such as you to enslave us into doing male duties.

Feminists managed to ‘liberate’ women by making it easier for women to become sluts (premarital sex). Thus, reducing the importance of chaste and pure women as a result, men have no inventive to marry and women are used as nothing more but mere sexual commodities. When women finally tire of the promiscuous lifestyle, they find that no man wants to marry them. Men who do not shun marriage tend to marry virgins so the feminist promiscuous sluts are left to age by themselves. Or they settle for less well to do men and are subsequently are exploited by these men for monetary purposes. This is because the career of the promiscuous woman finally begins to take off exponentially after the investment she put forth in her 20’s and 30’s.

In the end, she misses out on marriageable men and wastes it on a useless career that essentially fails to fulfill her. Not only is the woman used for monetary and sexual purposes by her less successful (Mangina) husband who refuses to support her. He also exploits her when it comes to housework and child rearing. As again, the woman is made to do it all while the husband comfortably relaxes on a coach after a days work. Nevertheless, a working woman’s day never ends she not only is forced to have a job outside of the home she must do everything inside of the home. This includes everything from childcare, housework chores and servicing her husband sexually; indeed what a great day for the liberationist elite. To see women toil and suffer in the hands of an egalitarian society and at the hands of an emasculated husband who seeks to use and abuse the woman for all that she is worth. Feminism has made women lower the standards for men greatly. It has told women that they can be successful by themselves, however feminists failed to take into account the unfair distribution of labor in the household. In addition, the woman begins to resent her husband for making her work outside of the home and do everything inside of the home. This leads to fights and divorce, and thus after a divorce a woman seeks to gain the best financial advantage from the husband. Through alimony, some lucky gals manage to take revenge on Mangina husbands that way. However, most women are left destitute. As shown by the increasing poverty rates of single mothers.

This is the great liberation that feminism gave women. It has made women into thrash. It has made men disrespect women it has led to a nation of emasculated men who further thrive on the oppression of the feminine women. These men fear feminine women who seek protection and objectification of their men. They are scared to take responsibility, be the leaders in their families, and lead their wives. These men thus cause resentment in women. Then women act out in desperation. The modern woman is forced to be the “Escrava Isaura” of our time. She is shunned, thrashed and spit on; she becomes a sexual commodity to be used by many men. Additionally, she continues to be exploited after marriage by a husband who refuses to undertake the breadwinner role and makes her work outside of the home. Feminism has created a nation of deluded Isaura’s who insist on the doctrine of feminism, yet knowing that something is not right. Deep down she knows she is being exploited by the system she knows that it is unfair. Yet without a voice for women, she remains gullible and easily swayed toward the belief that egalitarianism is good.

LUVSLLAMAS #fundie rr-bb.com

All you have to do is look at an animal and the details of their feathers, fur or features tells me they were created by *my* God. Since we will all serve Him during the Millenium, He knows the desire of my heart is to be the head zoo-keeper at the San Diego Zoo - with all the cages removed.

And yes, I believe my wonderful pets will all be waiting for me in my mansion's yard. And think about how important our pets are to our Heavenly Father....
He preserved their parents through the flood to connect with us at this specific era in history. Isn't He Wonderful!

amanda2324 #fundie comments.deviantart.com

It is not only offensive, but completely wrong to compare sexuality to skin color. One is a useful attribute for survival (skin color), one is not. One is something that is clearly visible /and/ is a physical reality; one is not.

Further, the experiences of the two groups are different. Have homosexuals ever been enslaved? No. Have they ever had their personhood denied? No. Do their parades attract hundreds of police officers who will beat them within an inch of their lives, and the courts and other police officers do nothing about it? No. Have homosexuals ever been forced to go to different restrooms, different drinking fountains, different schools, etc? No. Have they ever been disallowed to vote? No. Have they ever been disallowed to own property? No.

So it is offensive to a lot of people because blacks, as a group, had it like 10000000 times worse than homosexuals have ever had it as a group.

The worst thing they can whine about is that they can't get a piece of paper from the government that declares them "married." That's just NOT equivalent to being enslaved and legally able to be beaten /to death/. Hence why it's offensive to do the comparison. It's not valid, it's absolutely and totally incorrect, and makes their claims seem hyperbolic and childish.


Yes, other places in the world; no here. So here, in the US, what they are doing is in fact whining. None of their whining and lobbying here does a single, not even miniscule, thing for anyone who participates in same-sex erotic behavior anywhere else in the world. So, yeah. What they are doing here, in this country, is only whining. They may NOT, EVER use the suffering of people in OTHER countries as a means of obtaining anything /here/.

[ The point is that, in essence, both groups have been historically persecuted for something that is innate to their being, and that's why it is not an offensive comparison to make. ]

False. Homosexuality as a concept did not exist until within the last, according to my faulty memory, 60 years. Same-sex erotic BEHAVIOR is /not/ innate to anyone's being, and is the /actual/ thing that's ever been criminalized with death. And guess what? No one /has/ to participate or initiate same-sex behavior. It's not an innate part of their being. Now, skin color, which is neither a behavior nor something they can hide, is an entirely different matter.

[ Attempting to trivialise the persecution of gay people because their sexuality is not "clearly visible" is laughably superficial. ]

I never trivialized the persecution of gay people because sexual orientation isn't visible. I've trivialized in only in the sense that I've put it into perspective with groups of people who've actually had to deal with /real/ oppression and discrimination. So, in fact, I haven't trivialized anything. You and your false and ignorant comparisons trivialize /real/ cases of horrid discrimination and oppression

[ When the holocaust ended, people who were in there for racial issues where released.

The allies never released the homosexuals, because they saw nothing wrong with people being imprisoned for being gay, and many, many lgbt people are killed, even to this day.

So get fucked. ]


Due to your use of vulgar language, I can tell you're not here for an intelligent, rational discussion.

HisGraceAdInfinitum #fundie christianforums.com

its evolutionists that are the idiots, they think we all came from an ape but we keep apes in cages as attractions at zoos, why dont we put ourselves in zoos if we came from apes? apes are just animals, but god made each of us individually and he put in a lot of love into each of us, were more than just animals. evolutionists deny this which is really stupid, god loves us, even the idiot evolutionists who deny him.

indoeuropeanisms1947 #sexist reddit.com

Promiscuity is probably one of the biggest problems facing whites today. Other than a few countries in the Balkans, promiscuity is commonplace in most European countries and basically the norm in the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia and even supposedly conservative countries such as Poland and Ireland. Promiscuity is a problem because of the way it ruins women and the fact that promiscuity is manifested in race mixing, out of wedlock births and unstable marriages.

The only way to realistically root out promiscuity and sexual decadence in white countries is to make slut shaming fashionable again and to encourage white men to be assertive and controlling of their wives, sisters and daughters. The only reason women are able to act like this is because slutty behavior is fashionable and tolerated by men. If most men are no longer tolerating sluts, women will do whatever it takes to get the attention of men.

Razzputin #fundie arguewitheveryone.com

There is nothing wrong with loving someone who is gay. There is nothing wrong with loving your pet cobra snake. But love or no love.....no one has any business trusting either around kids. A snake carries deadly venom. The faggot carries deadly disease, and the faggot is likely to assault the child sexually....in fact.....if the snake is the lesser risk of the two.....and the zoo keeps snakes in cages......then why cant we put all of the faggots in cages to protect the public? Everyday you could get up in the morning and water and feed your pet faggot and talk to your pet faggot. Occasionally you could let your pet faggot out of the cage and have him do the dishes for you. You could even train the faggot to feed the snake. But never, ever, ever, trust either one of them around children. That is just not appropriate at all. It has nothing to do with love. You can love your pet faggot just like you love your pet squirrell. But never, ever, allow them around children. They prey upon children.

Jacob Harrison #fundie #wingnut #psycho forums.fstdt.net

How the justice system should work in England.

Hello. I talked about restoring the legitimate royal line to the throne of England. Now I will talk about how the justice system will work in England based on England’s traditions.

Ugh I thought it was going to be my final message to you but I have to first explain my ideas of how the justice system should work and how Eugenics should work in the United States, and England and how to deal with abortion. It will be in proportion to the crimes commited

Men and women must not be allowed to cross dress. Men and women can wear whatever clothes they want as long as it is not slutty. All women’s bathing suits MUST cover butt cheeks and boobs since boobs are private parts.

Pornography should be banned because it causes sex trafficking. Hentai should be banned because it is just plain gross. Sex should only be depicted in movies and TV shows and promiscuity and premarital sex should be promoted as a BAD thing, like in the great classic horror films Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street.

Divorce for Christians should be made illegal and replaced with annulment but annulment should be granted only in cases of actual abusive spouses. Adultry should be punished with fines. Premarital sex like in Merry Old England should be legal, but should not be encouraged in the media.

Stealing most property, destroying property, vandalism, and littering should be punished by fines. Stealing and destroying major property or committing arson should be punished with jail sentences.

Smoking in public should be legalized but fines should be commited if the smoker blows the smoke in someone else’s face. Cigarettes and cigars though should be replaced with the good old fashioned pipes because pipes are less addicting.

Possessing marijuana and illegal drugs should be punished with jail sentences. Putting pot smokers in jail is rehabilitation because it deprived them of the drug and makes them get clean.

Insulting the benevolent government should be punished with 5 year jail sentences for treason. Saying actual racist comments(meaning judging people by the content of their color and using the N word, not for showing statistics of poverty and crime since blacks are sadly impoverished because of the Democrats), holocaust denial, and promoting communism and socialism should be punished with 5 year jail sentences. Most Trump supporters do not use the n word.

Blasphemy against the Christian God should be punished by 1 year in jail or a fine of 300 dollars(this law is still on the charter in the State of Massachusetts which I live in)

Prayer should be allowed in public schools. Those of different religions should go to schools of their own religions.

Blasphemy against gods of other pagan religions should be punished by mild fines. However criticizing their religions by saying their gods do not exist, or criticizing Jews for not accepting Jesus Christ as their messiah does not count as blasphemy.

However blasphemy against Islam, Muhammad, and Allah should be legal and encouraged.

Muslim women can wear hijabs but they must not be allowed to criticize people who don’t wear hijabs and must not be allowed to wear burquas or burkinis.

The religions that should be banned with jail for 1 year are Satanism, New Agism, Gnosticism, Wicca, the anti Trinitarian heresies, and Druidism because they are all heresies and occult. They as long as fortune tellers, and mediums, as well as those who consult them should be locked up in churches until they repent.

Atheism should be punished with fines because of it’s correlation with socialism and because it promotes doing whatever you want without fear of being judged.

People with severe autism(not people with Asperger’s syndrome which I have been diagnosed with), and people with IQ’s less than 100 should be chemically castrated. So should average thugs that are beyond rehabilitation.

First degree murderers, all mass shooters, and drug dealers who have been proven guilty with ton’s of circumstantial evidence, or dirrect proof with footage should be executed by public beheadings with axes. The head should be put on display.

Men who are guilty of high treason(the top leaders of rebellions against the United States, and monarch) should be punished by being hung, drawn, and quartered like it was done in Merry Old England (though in private locations because most people today would vomit seeing it in public). Women as a courtesy guilty of the high treason should be publically burned at the stake as was done in Merry Old England.

All average Rebels who change sides will be pardoned.

Torture should be permitted for adults as a means of interrogating criminals, rebels, and terrorists. Most people who get tortured will eventually give in because they would prefer being executed rather than continuing to be tortured.

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

[re: whether humor existed before the arrival of Christianity]

To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.

MedwedianPresident_3 #sexist #homophobia #wingnut #crackpot #conspiracy reddit.com

[OP of "Feminism, Adultery and Homosexuality are Dysgenic"]

We all know that the Cathedral openly promotes anti-natural inclinations to feminism, adultery and especially the perversions of homosexuality. The level of brainwashing in mainstream media and education has reached levels that are ridiculously laughable (e.g. actually comical) to intelligent people.

It is true that one of the reasons for this is the War on the Family - by destroying marriage and friendship, the state atomizes society in order to make it more manageable. People whose only social connection is that to the state make it easier to set up an Orwellian tyranny.

Nevertheless, after examining the problem throughoutly, I think that there is one, more alarming, reason behind it, namely the attempt to reduce birth rates among certain groups.

Feminist women do not marry and consider children "parasites" - if they become pregnant for some reason, it is likely that they will commit infanticide before the child is born. Childlessness is prevalent not only among open third-wave feminists but also among all sorts of "emancipated" or "career women".

As women frequently utilize men to get pregnant, file for divorce quickly and then demand support, men are discouraged from marrying and having children because they can't know that they won't become "money donkeys".

Adultery, e.g. early and premarital promiscuity and the great frequency of intercourse alienates copulation from its only natural purpose, reproduction. The broad acceptance and even encouragement of adultery promotes not only contraceptives but also abortions as the "deed" is completely separated from the will to have children.

Combined with feminism, adultery has contributed to the fact that it is nowadays unacceptable for women to bear children before 30, and to have more than two or three children. This drastically reduces birth rates.

The problem with homosexuality is not only that it further contributes to adultery and promiscuity but also that it is an anti-biological form of cohabitation. Sexual deviants have to resort to adoption or artificial fertilization to have children, which is significantly harder than what a man and a woman would have to do if they wished to have a child. This means that birth numbers are also lower among homosexuals.

It is interesting to see that these three deviances/ideologies are most prevalent within both the established liberal-academic elite (the middle-aged parts of which are primarily comprised of former hippies, subculture members or left-wing extremists) and its younger and poorer cousin, the urban boheme. These groups are increasingly displacing conservative but well-educated people.

As the true elite disminishes in size, it is increasingly replaced by individuals of ordinary or even subpar intelligence and ability thanks to the "equality"-driven college system which grants bonus points for members of ethnic minorities or children of proles.

What does this ultimatively lead to?

You're right, the median IQ and ability of the elite decreases with the proportion of the true biological elite.

In short: postmodernist society is slowly sawing off its head.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Taylor Swift's music videos are nothing less than vulgar, promiscuous, sensual, lewd and shameful. Very deceitfully, there is a popular consensus online that Taylor Swift is less sexualizing than Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus. That's like saying that Playboy magazine isn't as bad as Penthouse. Sexual sins are deadly! Colossians 3:5-7, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” Sensual public indecency is no trifle matter to God!!!

Furthermore, homosexuality is an awful sin according to God's Word:

Romans 1:24-27 and 32, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Taylor Swift is well-favored by the gay community for her open support, through her music, of the homosexual agenda. May I say, we ought to give up our wrongs in America, not our rights! God does not bless sin! God will not bless America while we are committing adultery, murdering our children, walking around naked at the beaches, recognizing homosexual marriages, worshipping materialism, cheating one another in business dealings, teaching our children that it's Ok for two men to sodomize each other and call it “love,” et cetera! We are a very sick nation!!!

The Truth #racist smartpunters.com

Yes, you guessed it, niggers are a global plague to civilized societies. There's no mistaking it, while some above make wild claims that "red necks" are the low man, I offer the following observations of the poor class:

1.) Poor "white trash" at least own their shelter - the much maligned trailer. Unlike the wild urban monkey, that calls Public housing projects (aka zoo cage) home.

2.) Poor white people hold family structure - unlike blacks, who don't know the identity of their father from conception, and have multiple unknown siblings from said unknown silverback males.

3.) Poor white people work. Blacks? Do I really need to explain.

4.) Poor white people commit demonstrably less crime than do blacks.

5.) Refer to 1 - Poor white people are responsible. That is, they don't bring a dozen hungry mouths into this world so that Uncle Sam can feed them.

6.) White people are homo-sapiens. Blacks are pseudo-sapiens. (For more about why blacks are scientifically proven to be inferior, see my previous post under "Gimme dat money...from July 2009).

I encourage everyone to visit the department of justice online to read up on crime statistics (quick, before Nigger-in-charge decides to pull it down). Even a quick search on wikipedia regarding "race and intelligence" will surely open some eyes (and don't forget to read the references). Search google scholar papers to read university research findings on race and IQ. Or, turn a blind eye, continue to think that we're all equal, and sleep through life.

Crush the liberal agenda with raw facts. Open eyes to the truth.

- the Truth

Henry Makow #fundie henrymakow.com

[All formatting and hyperlinks from original]

Satanic possession means we are mental prisoners of the Masonic Jewish central bankers.

Cabalist (Masonic) Judaism is Satanism. (Satanism inverts good and evil; true and false; natural & unnatural.) The hit comedy Broad City is another example of how the mass media inducts society into Jewish dysfunction and perversity. This show is so offensive I can barely watch it.

Broad City chronicles the lives of two loudmouthed Jewish broads who have been cut loose from marriage and family by feminism. Socially and biologically redundant, they are going crazy but making it seem normal. They have no careers. No boyfriends. No charm. No beauty. The show is non-stop vulgarity, promiscuity, lesbianism and excretory references. Yet it is heralded as a brilliant "comedy" by virtually everyone. "Disgusting" is the new "funny."

Cabalist Judaism is about destroying the world in order to conquer it. The show normalizes mental illness, body odor, foul language and sexual obsession. It is pure evil and people are celebrating and embracing it. Western society doesn't know it is a Jewish solipsism. The Jewish experience is presented as a positive model. Gay Jewish behavior is presented as goy straight. (See also "TV's Luciferian message.") Satanic Jews and their Freemason allies indeed are God. They create a repugnant reality, homage to themselves and Satan.

Advancedatheist #fundie returnofkings.com

I would like to see the return of social norms where gays feel shame and humility again because they face sanctions against "expressing themselves," and where they especially have a lot of trouble finding each other to engage in their self-destructive behavior. I suppose gay men's lives have "value" based on some kind of abstract moral reasoning. But that "value" doesn't mean they have a right to sexual fulfillment, for the simple reason that nobody has such a right. Instead we have let gay men set the standard for this entitlement mentality that threatens to bring down civilization.

Oh, speaking of a return to tradition, I work in the hospitality industry, and last night I checked in a young, Mennonite-looking couple from Missouri. The young woman wore a plain, old-fashioned prairie dress and bonnet, like she stepped off the cover of one of those "bonnet ripper" novels many women like to read these days.

I thought: Hey, I could see living in a world where that standard of women's decorum becomes the norm again. I don't like the world of obese, vulgar, loud, promiscuous women with tattoos, piercings and opinions based on arbitrary liberal ideology instead of empiricism.

Paul Abramson #fundie cseblogs.com

Only a few short years later, the teaching of evolution over Genesis began to take its toll. In 1962 and 1963, prayer and the Bible began to be removed from the classrooms. Premarital sex, divorce, drug use, violence, and general rebellion filled the 1960s as evolution’s conclusions were taken and applied en masse.

No longer could one neglect to lock their home, auto, and business. Evolution in practice encouraged “survival of the meanest” and “survival of the most deceitful” instead of “honesty is the best policy”.

Then “no fault insurance” became the norm as enough persons (believing evolution, whether consciously or subconsciously) decided to lie when recounting an auto accident. Wall Street deals used to be done on a handshake. No longer. Eventually it has become necessary to have drivers pay for gas first, then pump, as evolutionary tenets took hold in men’s hearts and minds.

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

Politics is downstream of culture, which is why our moonbat rulers follow Antonio Gramsci's strategy of seizing control of strategic high ground (the media, academia) and using it to weaken the culture, rather than trying to inflict communism all at once through brute force. Our willingness to tolerate and possibly even extend the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is a testament to the strategy’s efficacy. Though Democrats have profited enormously from induced cultural decay, now that Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) is retiring, he can tell the truth:

“Society has changed. The public is to blame as well. I think the people have gotten dumber. I don’t know that I would’ve said that out loud pre-my announcement that I was going to be leaving. [Laughter] But I think that’s true. I mean everything has changed. The media has changed. We now give broadcast licenses to philosophies instead of people.”

Virtually everything broadcast on television advances the same philosophy: moonbattery.

Soon politics will be utterly superfluous, because the American people will have been “fundamentally transformed.” Already if James Madison came back from the dead and ran on a platform of restoring the Constitution, against Robert Mugabe running on a platform of spreading white folks’ wealth around, there is no doubt the media would stridently side with Mugabe, and little doubt that Mugabe would win.

What if George Washington himself returned and was somehow made president? His attempts to preserve liberty and honor would be met with hoots of derision by the media. It would be like making him president of the monkey cage at the zoo. Eloquent speeches have little effect when your audience is crapping in their hands and flinging it at you. In the end he would be hounded out of office for his insensitivity to the historically disadvantaged.

Consequently, even if the Democrats manage to lose, we will be left with a “moderate” who will advance their agenda, just slightly more slowly.

Miu #racist city-data.com

Two very predictable replies from a black poster, and how very juvenile and schoolyard! And both supporting another strong stereotype of black people… that they are highly prone to violent outbursts.

Instead of responding to words with more words, as in a discussion or debate, black people quickly resort to making physical attacks. Just as the Rodney King incident proved and any other time that the black community didn’t get their way. And what would your precious Martin Luther King Jr think of your solution to being compared to an animal? Shame on ALL of you!!!

And know this, that as long as black people respond in such a immature way with these physical outbursts and tantrums, they will never be respected by other races. And as long as blacks use the N word, others will, even if they won’t use the word in public themselves, be thinking of it when black people are behaving poorly and in an uncivilized way.
Violence and even threats of physical violence are NOT the way to earn respect from others and to change others opinions of you. It only makes others wish that you would go away or didn’t exist. And angry black men like you is why other races don’t want their daughters marrying your kind… not that you’re the marrying kind of men. And they think that because of all the unmarried black baby mommas in the US.

And right now, I am visualizing SHABAZZ (I really hope that isn’t your name in real life) being an angry monkey in a cage at a zoo who is throwing poo at the humans looking at him… and it’s not a solution that would make other races admire them.

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

Liberal logic is an argument that has logical appeal to a liberal, but is nonsensical. Let's build a list:

* an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone, but saying a prayer in class can cause tremendous harm
* increasing spending by government must reduce poverty (no, dependency increases poverty)
* teaching abstinence must not reduce premarital sex
* widespread ownership of the largely defensive weapon of gun must not reduce crime
* that lack of government programs to rehabilitate criminals must not reduce crime
* that increasing taxes must increase government revenue (no, often people work less)

Jeff #racist answers.yahoo.com

Tough questions, for sure.

Typically speaking, given their suppressed frontal cortex, low IQ, simian features, and volatile temperament, there's no worthwhile communication any of them would impart to an intelligent individual. So I'd not worry about it, if I were you.

As far as telling apes from black people; if they're in the zoo behind a cage they're probably a monkey. If they're in the unemployment line getting Obama bucks or in the prison system they're blacks.

Hope this helps.

J. D. Heyes #fundie naturalnews.com

The Alt-Left is pushing full-bore to destroy what remains of traditional America and her values, as evidenced by the Pennsylvania affiliate of Planned Parenthood tweeting its desire for a Disney princess who has had an abortion.

In a tweet, since deleted, someone from Planned Parenthood Keystone tweeted, “We need a disney [sic] princess who’s had an abortion.”

Quote, unquote.

In addition, the tweet continued Left-wing fantasy cultural destruction wish list:

“We need a disney princess who’s pro-choice. We need a disney princess who’s an undocumented immigrant. We need a disney princess who’s actually a union worker. We need a disney princess who’s trans.”

According to The Wrap, the ridiculous tweet was taken down about two hours after it was posted. But obviously, it did not go unnoticed, as Breitbart News reported. It was picked up by Alex Pfeiffer, who is an associate producer for Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” program.

Also, it was noticed by conservative columnist, author, and editor of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, who tweeted this: “We need a Disney princess who stumps for sex-selective abortions on the taxpayer dime then lectures us about what small children they would have killed should watch for entertainment.”

...

If you’re still not convinced that this is just another small step in the Left’s incessant war on traditional America, consider these additional truths which further demonstrate the all-out assault on wholesome values by the cultural Marxists, as noted by Culture Watch:

— Gain control over the nation’s public schools (which has been fully accomplished) and then use them as conduits for Marxist/socialist ideology; dumb down the curricula; gain control over the teacher’s unions;

— Use outrageous forms of artistic expression to denigrate American culture;

— Label all laws that seek to curb obscenity as “censorship” and oppose them;

— Directly attack previous cultural norms and standards through the widespread promotion of pornography and other obscenities in books, magazines, pop culture, entertainment and, of course, the Internet;

— Present as ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ aberrant, abnormal lifestyles like homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and LGBTQ/transgenderism;

— Banish all forms of Christianity and other religious observances from the public square and if possible, demonize and criminalize it (unless the religious practitioners are minorities you can also use to attack the predominant American race — Caucasians);

— Downplay and then discredit the traditional family as the basic unit and building block of society (a mother and a father);

— Decriminalize promiscuity and make divorce easy and quick;

— Declare war on morality and redefine what it’s like to be a “moral” person based on the above.

This has been happening in our country — and most other countries throughout the West for decades. Is it any wonder, then, why our children are walking into schools and shooting their peers?

Wow_here we go again #fundie topix.com

Your an idiot... spelled IDIOT!!!

When i was in school the jews BlTCHED about saying the pledge of allegiance to our country flag...

As for you and your darwinian stupidity...

Your a true moron... if you believe if darwins saga... then you bleieve in slavery... because your ancestors are in cages at the zoo...

So pick one idiot... slavery or god...

Rabbi Dov Lev #fundie aish.com

In the 1990s, John Gray's bestseller asserted that relationships can only be successful if gender distinctions are recognized and adhered to. For millennia, Jewish sources have taught that women's physiological and psychological needs are different from that of their male counterparts. In God's infinite wisdom, he delineated different responsibilities for men and women according to their respective metaphysical and physiological needs.

[...]

Since the beginning of mankind, all societies have recognized that a woman's sensitivity and warmth are ideally suited for motherhood. Moreover, the extraordinary feeling that men can never experience - nurturing a baby inside them - puts women in the position of being the best, most loving caregivers for their children. For the preservation of the family structure, and by extension the overall health of society, the Torah encourages women to embrace this role.

Witchwind #sexist witchwind.wordpress.com

UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

I haven’t been writing in a while, and it’s not because I don’t like writing any more but things have accelerated elsewhere in my life and I can’t be involved everywhere at once. As this isn’t paid work, obviously I can’t afford to put blogging first.

Anyway, there are still many posts waiting to be finished. In the meantime, I’ll start another one.

I often muse about all the things that we’d need to change about patriarchy if we abolished men’s rule over women and the earth. Everything and every single aspect of social organisation is so much the opposite of how it should be, it’s dizzying to even begin to think about all the things we should stop / change.

Mostly it’s about men stopping from doing harm. But stopping men isn’t enough because beyond that there is the entire world to relearn, to heal, and our entire society to rebuild. We would be faced with the immense task of replacing all the misogynist, genocidal, biocidal practices men have ordered our society with for eons. So many of us now are acculturated, cut from land, nature and from one another.

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Men’s position in society

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Major serial killers, serial torturers, pimps, pornographers, severe domestic abusers, serial rapists, genocide planners, biocide planners and pedocriminals across the world will simply be euthanised: the decisions will be taken by women in a mass world tribunal for patriarchal crimes. This is by far the best solution, and is the most legitimate, ethical way of reducing male population to more reasonable levels. Such men would otherwise forever pose a threat to women, children, animals, the earth and society as a whole, and we know they have no chance of ceasing their violent behaviour after having reached such an advanced stage of sadism and sociopathy. It would be reckless to spend space, resources and energy in keeping them alive in prisons.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle.

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Family, child-raising and reproduction

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Schools as we know them as punitive reclusion centres for grooming into male domination and female subordination (as well as selection system for elite executors of patriarchal institutions) will be abolished. Boys would definitely not be around the girls, certainly not most of the time, and never beyond the age of puberty. And obviously no adult male would be allowed near children.

There will be no such thing as “teachers” with positions of authority over children. “Guiders” could learn also from the children or students as much the students from them. We’d learn anything we’d want from languages to sciences to art to music to medicine to building to witchcraft to swimming (etc) without restriction of age or time, as long as it’s adapted to our capacities, level and availability. Learning would be autonomous, with guidance when needed, instead of enforced and dictated. They’d be no need for external reward, marking or punishment because the process of learning in itself is so rewarding and fascinating that it’s self-sufficient. Anyway I could go on and on, non-patriarchal learning is truly riveting.

Social structures between women.

All relationships of authority, domination and subordination will be abolished between all women of all ages. We will be able to recognise each other’s strengths, expertise, guidance and capacities (or lack of) without it implying superiority, inferiority, veneration or lack of respect. We would find each other beautiful. We would live our friendships, love and affection for women unhindered.

MEN’S INSTITUTIONS

All oppressive male institutions will be abolished after men have been retrieved from them. We obviously won’t keep these institutions. They will return to the nothingness that they belong, just as a distant, bad memory.

Military:

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

State:

States, borders, nations, laws would be abolished and totally dispensed with. Laws mentioning the number of prohibited acts will be kept for men only. Women do not need laws to contain ourselves. Laws were created by the male elite to protect their property from other men. Laws are rigid and static, that’s because their purpose is to hold existing patriarchal powers in place. Our own society would be in constant evolution, improvement, creative renewal, yet grounded in reality and adapted to our needs and circumstances.

Women would be able to move freely.

Societal structures and decision-making assemblies wouldn’t exceed roughly 300 women (representing no more than themselves). Keeping numbers low for cooperation is important because the greater the size of the unit, the more horizontal cooperation becomes difficult and requires vertical hierarchy. Possibilities for peaceful, cooperative organisation between women are infinite – as long as they respect the individual integrity of every female – the group should never weigh over the individual but be a source for support and efficient organisation of collective life and space. There could easily be associations of exchange between different groups and peoples in order for women to cooperate regionally and globally where necessary. There would be no limit in age of participation in decision-making for women and girls, which means adapting the format to different ages and capacities.

Medicine:

Men would be permanently banned from any kind of medical practice. All woman-hating, genocidal institutions such as gynecology, psychiatry, obstetrics, big pharma, the torture of living beings in the name of “scientific experimentation” will be banned. Men’s fragmented, objectifying, sadistic view the human body will be part of history, replaced by biophilic medicine. Medical science will no longer be monopolised by a small elite but available to all at any age where appropriate. The (female) doctor’s role will be to guide the patient in her own healing, never to exercise authority over her or take decisions at her expense. Special healing spaces (where surgery is necessary, etc) will be so nice, warm and welcoming that just being there will make you feel better. The soul and life conditions of a person will always be considered part of the body, and symptoms will always be understood in a holistic way. There will be no more chemical, synthetic and toxic products with often worse side effects than the illness itself it claims to heal.

Perfect health would be the normal state of women anyway, as we will learn by experience and observation what we should eat and do to stay healthy at all seasons and times. Most women will have rediscovered our healing, divination and extra-sensory communication powers.

Religion:

Patriarchal religions will crumble down with men’s oppressive system. Religious ideologies, along with its hierarchies and vacuous rituals will cease to exist. I believe a woman’s world would be spiritual. Spiritual connection isn’t based on faith but on critical observation and experience, on a real personal connection to the elements, beings and spirits that surround us, and on the real magnetic power of beings.

Economy (tied to ecology):

Obviously, Slavery, men’s exploitation of women, men’s capitalist systems will be abolished too. The most important aspect of male economy is that it’s based on men’s competitive accumulation of resources (by killing, destroying, commodifying, taking control over, extracting the greatest possible amount of life) and based on production of poisonous, addictive, programmed obsolescent goods — in order to win the patriarchal game of achieving greater domination over women and girls.

This necrophilic relationship to the world and the environment will be abolished, to be replaced by biophilic ecological and economic principles. This will encompass every single process of our life activities, from house building, to food consumption, to communication, travelling, furniture making, cooking, etc. They will have to be carefully designed and thought out in a way as to never endanger the survival of any species, never pollute any environment, never require the use of poisonous, non-recyclable materials, never to require indentured labour or exploitation in order to be maintained. This would obviously impact the nature and scale of our activities. “Work” (exploitation and division of labour) as we know it would disappear. It would be the responsibility of each individual or group to sustain herself more or less autonomously.

We should learn to observe our environment and deeply understand the interconnectedness of all beings around us, as well our own impact before deciding whether or how to transform it. Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone. For instance, if we pick leaves of some plants, it’s important not to rip the whole plant off, to take only parts of it so it can grow again. Or to only take a few plants (or seashells, whatever) where there are many, so to respect the survival of the species where it is settled. If we cut trees to build our house, replant them. There are also infinite ways of making the most of materials for energy, food or production while using it as efficiently as possible. Building houses in ways that don’t require heating in winter or cooling in the summer. It is now widely known that energy such as electricity can be infinitely renewable if we use wind power, magnetic power, water power… And everything can be made DIY.

We will learn to be autonomous again and make our own clothes, food, furniture, houses, soaps, detergent products – or maybe someone else will make them but most things can be handmade and it’s so much more rewarding.

In a biophilic world, nothing is garbage, nothing is pollution. Everything is conceived so as to be part of a life cycle. This doesn’t mean we should keep the same toothbrush for 50 years or never improve on our machines, technology and infrastructure, but there’s no such thing as a dump, or toxic spilling. All materials should be harmless, recyclable or biodegradable, given back the earth if we no longer need them.

Industrial agriculture and farming:

Genetic modification of plants, pesticides, monoculture, field ploughing and consequent aridification of the land will be considered criminal. Our right to self-sustenance would no more be confiscated by mega food corporations – as they will no longer exist.

Agriculture should always be small-scale, local, and as much as possible be modelled on wildlife, self-growing / self-renewing conditions (the less work and intervention, the better), and especially be conceived so as to nourish and sustain rather than deplete wildlife and environmental balance. Again, possibilities are infinite, we have so much to learn.

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely. Maybe after a few decades, after the human population has stalled, male population has decreased, and after we’ve made serious efforts for reforestation and restoration of wildlife on the earth, it would probably be fairer to hunt animals occasionally. Right now, given the extinction rate of animal species, I find it criminal to hunt or fish. We don’t need to eat that much meat anyway.

Witchwind #fundie witchwind.wordpress.com

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

[...]

FAMILY, CHILD-RAISING AND REPRODUCTION
Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Brad Harrub, Ph.D. #fundie apologeticspress.org

The following are quotes from a commentary on Gardasil, the vaccine against HPV infections in both boys and girls.

...

"Gardasil is controversial because it has been recommended that girls become immunized—as early as age 9—before they have sex and put themselves at risk of infection. Some religious leaders are concerned that the vaccine could send a confusing message to girls that premarital sex and sexual promiscuity are acceptable (Pinto, 2006, emp. added)."

...

"This means even Christian children who are brought up knowing that sexual activity before marriage is a sin would still be forced to be vaccinated against this STD. Otherwise they could not attend school.

Clearly, this is the marketing of evil to our nation."

....

In defense of the vaccine, Dr. Denio Khabele, Meharry Medical College’s director of gynecologic oncology, observed: “We have to separate out moral issues and look at the public health standpoint. You could have one sexual encounter and be exposed to this virus” (Pinto, 2006). Separate out the moral issues? I would love to hear how to “separate out the moral issues” to a nine year old who is questioning why she needs such a vaccine. The laws and commands of God cannot and should not be “separated” for any reason. We have forgotten that He gave us laws and commands for our own good! Dr. Khabele failed to consider there would be little need for this vaccine if we taught biblical principles of sex.

Mark Huffman, vice-president of education and training for Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, also supports the use of the vaccine. He remarked, “It’s like saying, withhold seatbelts so people don’t drive recklessly. It just doesn’t work like that” (Pinto, 2006). Someone should remind Mr. Huffman that the way to prevent reckless driving is not through seatbelts, but rather by proper education, encouraging drivers to obey traffic laws, and punishment for violations. His argument is comparing apples and oranges. These “reckless drivers” (STDs) are totally preventable without seatbelts (vaccines).


Anonymoose #fundie thoughtcatalog.com

Tiffany, it's a miracle that women that look like you regularly get laid, but it just goes to show that the standard of modern "dating" (if you want to call it that) has fell so low that utterly average looking women are sought after like some sort of prize. No respectable man wants to marry a slut, especially not some vulgar little Vietnamese whore with a mouth like a sailor that will give birth to a future mixed raced Elliot Rodgers. Who the fuck wants that. Fucking hell

David Pearce #fundie abolitionist.com

(This is a part of an essay calling for all predatory animals to killed off or genetically engineered into herbivores to end all suffering in the biosphere.)

More controversial than the case of tapeworms, cockroaches or locusts would be reprogramming or phasing out snakes and crocodiles. Snakes and crocodiles cause innumerable hideous deaths in the world each day. They are also part of our familiar conceptual landscape thanks to movies, zoos, TV documentaries, and the like - though a relaxed tolerance of their activities is easier in the comfortable West than for, say, a grieving Indian mother who has lost her child to a snakebite. Snakes are responsible for over 50,000 human deaths each year.

Most controversial of all, however, would be the extinction - or genetically-driven behavioural modification - of members of the cat family. We'll focus here on felines rather than the "easy" cases like parasitic tapeworms or cockroaches because of the unique status of members of the cat family in contemporary human culture, both as pets/companion animals and as our romanticised emblems of "wildlife". Most contemporary humans have a strong aesthetic preference in favour of continued feline survival. Their existence in current guise is perhaps the biggest ethical/ideological challenge to the radical abolitionist. For our culture glorifies lions, with their iconic status as the King of the Beasts; we admire the grace and agility of a cheetah; the tiger is a symbol of strength, beauty and controlled aggression; the panther is dark, swift and elegant; and so forth. Innumerable companies and sports teams have enlisted one or other of the big cats for their logos as symbols of manliness and vigour. Moreover cats of the domestic variety are the archetypal household pets. The worldwide domestic cat population has been estimated at around 400 million. We romanticise their virtues and forgive their foibles, notably their playful torment of mice. Indeed rather than being an object of horror - and compassion for the mouse - the torment of mice has been turned into stylized entertainment. Hence Tom-and-Jerry cartoons. By contrast, talk of "eliminating" predation can sound sinister. What would "phasing out" or "reprogramming" predators mean in practice? Most disturbingly, such terms are evocative of genocide, not universal compassion.

Appearances deceive. To get a conceptual handle on what is really going on during "predation", let's compare our attitude to the fate of a pig or a zebra with the fate of an organism with whom those non-human animals are functionally equivalent, both intellectually and in their capacity to suffer, namely a human toddler. On those rare occasions when a domestic dog kills a baby or toddler, the attack is front-page news. The offending dog is subsequently put down. Likewise, lions in Africa who turn man-eater are tracked down and killed, regardless of their conserved status. This response isn't to imply lions - or for that matter rogue dogs - are morally culpable. But by common consent they must be prevented from killing any more human beings. By contrast, the spectacle of a lion chasing a terrified zebra and then asphyxiating its victim can be shown on TV as evening entertainment, edifying viewing even for children. How is this parallel relevant? Well, if our theory of value aspires to a God's-eye perspective, stripped of unwarranted anthropocentric bias in the manner of the physical sciences, then the well-being of a pig or a zebra inherently matters no less than the fate of a human baby - or any other organism endowed with an equivalent degree of sentience. If we are morally consistent, then as we acquire God-like powers over Nature's creatures, we should take analogous steps to secure their well-being too. Given our anthropocentric bias, thinking of non-human vertebrates not just as equivalent in moral status to toddlers or infants, but as though they were toddlers or infants, is a useful exercise. Such reconceptualisation helps correct our lack of empathy for sentient beings whose physical appearance is different from "us". Ethically, the practice of intelligent "anthropomorphism" shouldn't be shunned as unscientific, but embraced insofar as it augments our stunted capacity for empathy. Such anthropomorphism can be a valuable corrective to our cognitive and moral limitations. This is not a plea to be sentimental, simply for impartial benevolence. Nor is it even a plea to take "sides" between killer and prey. Human serial killers who prey on other humans need to be locked up. But ultimately, it's vindictive morally to blame them in any ultimate sense for the fate of their victims. Their behaviour supervenes on the fundamental laws of physics. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. Yet this indulgence doesn't extend to permitting them to kill again; and the abolitionist maintains the same principle holds good for nonhuman serial killers too.

heinrich himmler #racist niggermania.net

This is excellent thinking. You know your nigger. The darker, the stupider. Of course, all of these filthy spooks are more like gorillas than humans.
As a matter of fact, this was proven in a study done at Oxford University in 1937. It was firmly established that the nigger is a sub-species of the ape. The Brits even successfully mated several captive niggers with gorillas in cages at the London Zoo in that same year as an adjunct to the Oxford investigation. Just look at one. The nose, the lips, the knuckle dragging - all are dead giveaways.

It pays to be very wary of niggers trying to pass as human beings. The high yellows often try this trick. Look at the fingernails - niggers' have no moons. The rancid odor is also a dead giveaway. Also, no matter how hard they try to speak English, nigger-babble creeps in. I "be," etc. As a human being, you must be vigilant.


Sieg Heil 88/14

insurrecto #fundie reddit.com

[Now deleted thread OP]

Rape victims often develop a variety of serious psychological issues, including depression, borderline personality disorder (aka borderline insanity disorder), self-harm, alcohol and/or drug addiction, and PTSD.

People who have these serious psychological issues are at a higher risk of joblessness, homelessness, and divorce. They tend to have unstable and chaotic relationships.

Now, of course it isn't a rape victim's fault that they were raped, but that still doesn't mean that it is a good idea to date a rape victim.

Dating someone who has serious psychological issues is risky. To illustrate how risky it is, would you date a pedophile? Pedophilia isn't a choice. However, pedophiles have unstable lives and wouldn't make good romantic partners.

So, if you expect a man to be willing to date a rape victim because "it wasn't her fault," then you should be willing to date a pedophile because "it isn't his fault."

Straw Dystopia Award

except the OP thinks it's utopia

rango-mango #sexist reddit.com

Just consider this for a second:


Women would be sold at bustling markets in order to be used as sex toys/domestic servants/breeding slaves, with the higher quality ones possibly being entered in beauty competitions with large prizes for incels with the most high quality and fertile women.


There'd also be breeding centers if you want to donate some of your cum in order to get a son with the highest quality genes, and zoos where you could admire sluts and harlots in their natural environments: kitchens, bedrooms, and dark cold caves.


As for normies and Chads, we could use them for organs, meat, labor, slaves, punching bags, or even just luxury items for incels who want to own more then just women. (Not to mention any homosexual/bisexual incels who'd like a sex toy. After all, an incel is an incel, no matter their sexuality, and we all deserve our own high quality sex toys.)


Of course, women, normies, and Chads would all lose the ability to vote, as they would automatically vote for the person most sympathetic to them, and thus the one who is most likely to give them more (undeserved) rights.


As for nearcels and volcels, they'd basically have the same rights as non-Chad men do currently, although they wouldn't have all the benefits that incels and truecels would get in this new society, such as the ability to buy women and/or normies in bulk, or the ability to hold high positions of political power.


Wizards and KHHV incels would, of course, hold the most power, and would be the ones most likely to have careers in politics and law enforcement (AKA keeping women and normies in their places).


And, if we really need one, we'll make a free woman/normie rank, for those extremely rare women and normies that have proven themselves capable of actual rational thought and genuine intellect. This rank enables them to get jobs, own property, publish/sell content that they've created, and (occasionally) say no to sex/labor. Of course, free women/normies would be few and far in between, and their rank would be stripped from them the moment they attempted to disobey or harm an incel, and they would be automatically be forced into prostitution/labor, and would be auctioned off to a lucky pimp/slave master as soon as possible.


This would be a far better, far happier world IMHO.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

(commenting on story "Farmer Files Suit After Being Banned from Selling at Market for Disallowing 'Gay Weddings' (sic) on Property"):

Oboehner:
Sexual perversion is not a constitutionally protected right, if that perversion affects others practicing their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion it not the religious person's duty to accommodate them. Remember, the lesbo's approached the farmer, not the other way around.

Colin Rafferty:
Wrong. See Lawrence v. Texas. That's the deciding law about "sexual perversion". Anyway, a wedding is not about sex. You must be thinking of the honeymoon. The discrimination is about the gender of the participants. Which in East Lansing is protected.

Oboehner:
"See Lawrence v. Texas"
See Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution which states ALL legislative powers rest in Congress.
The refusal was about a lifestyle CHOICE that contradicts the religious belief of the farmer.

Colin Rafferty:
Are you seriously using that canard about the Supreme Court doesn't actually have the power it has always had, and always been recognized to have had? Get a grip.
Just as the rationale behind the business's actions are unimportant, so is the reason why they wanted to get married. They were discriminated against because of their gender. That is against the law in East Lansing.

Oboehner:
Are you seriously using that canard about the Supreme Court having the ability to legislate despite NO ONE actually able to back that up other than some asinine tradition? Get a grip.
"They were discriminated against because of their gender." That's a big old steamy pile of BS, that should be against the law in East Lancing.

Colin Rafferty:
That's exactly why they were discriminated against. If one of them was male, they would have had their wedding there. They didn't because they were both women.
Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Oboehner:
There's another big old steamy pile. If they had gone there for any other purpose than an activity the hosts did not believe in, they would have been gladly served - both females.

Colin Rafferty:
That doesn't change the fact that they were discriminated against because of their gender.

Oboehner:
Still steamy, still a big pile. A "wedding" is an activity, the farmer stated her served deviants - he did not want to host the ACTIVITY.

Colin Rafferty:
But he already hosts weddings. If he didn't want to host weddings, he shouldn't advertise for them.

Oboehner:
Just practicing his constitutionally protected right.

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

Dancing is just as sinful at high school proms, ballrooms, town gatherings, etc. Dancing and immodest dress are synonymous. Dancing leads to lasciviousness (i.e., immoral sexual desire). The ONLY place where dancing is acceptable is between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home, and without observation by others. America has deteriorated into a sexually perverted nation, where sensual and suggestive dancing is commonplace. As a result, millions of unwanted babies continue to be murdered every year through abortion. This is a great evil in America! We have earned the title from Muslims of being THE GREAT SATAN!

Think about it ... the average person today can't help but laugh at the thought that dancing is a sin; yet millions of unplanned pregnancies continue to be terminated through murderous abortions. Is it surprising that a nation that sees no harm in murdering children would also see no harm in premarital sex, petting, dancing, pornography, stealing, divorcing, and filthy conversation? I think not.

God will not bless a wicked nation whose citizens disobey His Word. America today as a morally-toxic society. This is a dangerous place to raise a family. Children are being indoctrinated and corrupted by the Communist public school system. Men are being corrupted by the sensual filth and pornographic smut that has overtaken and ruined our country. Women are being brainwashed by feminism, indoctrinated to destroy their marriages.

Young girls today, they want to have fun. Young girls today just wanna party. Today young girls wanna go to a nightclub and have open sex on the floor of the nightclub, and then put it on YouTube, and if they should get pregnant they want to throw the baby into a dumpster. That's the new America! No morals. No self-respect. No nation. No borders. No language. No culture. No responsibility. Now that's America today!

supersport #fundie christianforums.com

Most of today's science is a joke....science is run by a bunch of chance-loving atheists who have constructed an intellectual moat around themselves -- this moat disallows the free-flow of any information that contradicts the basic dogma they have constructed for their made-up, Sesame-Street-like fairytale world.

JeanValjean197o #fundie reddit.com

Rape can be classified into two categories (perhaps more but for our purposes 2).

The completely blameless rape where a woman minding her own business is attacked and held at knife-point or beaten until she submits to sex.

Then there is date rape.

Imagine that I break into the zoo at night and dangle raw meat above the tiger cage. I am not only breaking the rules but I am engaging in very risky behavior. Most of the tigers will mill about happy to wait for food to drop. They won't do anything to harm me. But if one of them jumps up and rips my fucking arm off then people will rightly say that I had it coming.

Date rape is like the above situation only women have lobbied for laws that absolve her of responsibility and remove pesky rules like, "You shouldn't break into zoos late at night and dangle steaks above the tiger cage."

To complicate issues further: if we look at the details of many date rape claims we find that almost always no violence was use. It is also extremely rare that date rape drugs were used. This is actually so rare that it's considered an Urban Legend.

Occasionally a woman is unconscious and the man had sex with her. This was wrong of him, but to claim that it rises to the level of a man breaking into a home and raping a woman at knife-point is ridiculous.

Often the woman has no memory of the event and suffered no physical harm. Yet, as a society we think that's a justification to send the man to prison for years?

What's more is that often she may have been conscious but too drunk to remember. Sex may have been her idea and their intent all night long. But because she was so drunk she can't remember the sex or blacked out during it then that constituted rape. Meanwhile, these rules don't apply to men in reverse. If he's too drunk or blacks out she can do whatever she wants and get away with it. Just try to go to the police and tell them your girl fucked you while you were asleep. It just won't work.

For those women who are riding the cock carousel, who go out and dance naked on tables, flash their tits at guys, get hammered drunk and then agree to sex only to later claim they didn't or to change their mind in the process after things got going I really don't have any sympathy for them.

Women who engage in behavior which was designed to provoke a male sexual response have no right to bitch when they succeed.

If a woman walks away from a "rape" where no weapon was used, no threats, no violence, and there's not a mark on her and her clothes aren't damaged then I have a real problem with considering what happened to her a crime and certainly not a crime that should be punished with decades in prison and a lifetime on a sexual predators list.

Now as for false accusations. I think that nearly everything that comes out of feminists mouths about rape is a false accusation.

The 1 in 5 women in college will be raped is a false accusation. It is preposterous.

The 1 in 4 women will be raped during their life is a lie.

The 80% of rapes aren't reported is ridiculous and reckless conjecture which relies on faulty data and unreliable surveys that redefine rape in order to extrapolate a shocking percentage.

The fact that the media, thousands of college professors and politicians allow these clearly false statistics to go unchallenged tells me that only the most cut and dry rape accusation should be accepted and prosecuted.

We simply can't trust women to tell the truth and we can't trust the government to enforce the law fairly.

All that said, it's up to each of us to protect ourselves from false rape accusations. As leaders of the relationship we need to exercise control of the activities so that we aren't engaging in actions that can be used against us later on.

However, if BD/SM or other kinds of kink are mutually agreed upon then you should sit down with your partner and outline ON PAPER what you both agree to. Get her to sign it and put it away some place safe. That way if she says on paper that it's cool if you fuck her while she's drunk and that she won't hold you liable if she can't remember or she passes out then you have that to take to court.

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

The rise of homosexuality, promiscuity, gang violence, fatherlessness, lesbianism and single motherhood within the African-American community is directly attributed to GODDESS WORSHIP.

When you watch porn, you're unwittingly engaging in goddess worship. You're subjecting yourself to the worship of Cerces: Mama Wata: Yemonja. (I will use these names interchangeably throughout this article).

This is why in all porn movies (gay porn being the exception), the woman is always the starring attraction. Everything centers around her. This is because Mama Wata operates through goddess sensuality. The porn industry itself is highly occult in nature: and its purpose is to make money off people while opening them up for demonic visitation and infiltration through sex.

Here's something else to consider: Notice how whenever people - particularly women - get near a beach or some other body of water, they tend to want to get almost naked? Why the desire to show one's body so openly to others, specifically around water?

My contention is that the spirit of Yemonja is behind it. This demon is also behind the whole strong-independent-single mother phenomenon among many black women in the United States today. Most single black mothers and their children are under the powerful control of this marine spirit.

Yemonja is also behind the rise of homosexuality and lesbianism among so many black Americans. This is the goddess of single mothers, fatherless kids, female sensuality and weak effeminate men.

When a person enters into a covenant with this spirit, the children of the single mother becomes the property of Mama Wata.

To secure worship from them, this spirit leads the children into becoming emotionally-driven or effeminate males (if they're sons), and sexually promiscuous and domineering females (if they're daughters).

Mama Wata has specific colors that are worn by her more open followers. Those colors are aquamarine blue and sea green. Have you noticed a proliferation of women (and effeminate guys) dyeing their hair those exact same colors lately?

Sea shells worn as jewelry and hair adornments are another tell-tale sign of this spirit's direct influence within society today. This is because Mama Wata/Yemonja is known as the water spirit, meaning it is believed to dwell in or has its base of operation within bodies of water.

Mama Wata is personified as a mermaid spirit.

How does one enter into a covenant with this demonic creature? It mainly happens through sex! Particularly through engaging in fornication, adultery, masturbation, watching porn, visiting strip clubs, watching strippers and homosexual acts. Sex is the initiation ritual that brings one into covenant agreement with Mama Wata.

I've been warning you for some time that sexual sin is nothing to play around with! It's never just harmless pleasure. That's what this demon wants you to think, to make it easier to gain control over your life. When you have sex outside of wedlock, you are forming a covenant with demons.

This is the one big secret that witches and those given over to the occult do NOT want you to understand. They initiate others into the occult through having sex with them: including CHRISTIANS!

Many of you don't realize it: but this demonic spirit is the very reason why so many of you struggle to get into a relationship that's worth having.

It's also one of the main demonic principalities behind the high crime, incarceration and murder rates among African-American males. It's behind the gang confederacy in Chicago known as Folk Nation, which includes the GD, Black Gangster Disciples and the Latin Disciples. They use those colors because those are Mama Watas colors! These gangs are responsible for a large portion of the violent murders that has plagued Chicago's black and Latino communities in recent times.

Yemonja will always seek to claim her children back: even if it's by death. And it's the reason behind so many men being unable to find financial security or to maintain gainful employment.

All these are negative side effects of making covenants with demons.

Sidenote: All attempts at black unity and upliftment will fail miserably unless this demon principality is dealt with first. We cannot solve our physical problems until we first conquer our spiritual nemesis.

Many of you are yoked to Mama Wata, whether intentionally or not. And now you must get unyoked. Only the mighty power of Jesus Christ can set you free.

To combat this notorious demon, a person needs to give their full heart and allegiance to Jesus Christ. The sinful lifestyle needs to be completely abandoned without reservation. One needs to be baptized in water. And they need to seek God for the baptism and in filling of the Holy Ghost.

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

The entire entertainment industry encourages premarital sex, pedophilia, lasciviousness, adultery, unforgiveness, vengeance, divorce and homosexuality. Young People: Don't Grow Up To Be Like Lewd, Shameful, Sellout, Taylor Swift. The Illuminati want to destroy the family unit, so that America will become weak, indifferent and vulnerable to takeover. This means that Christianity must also be destroyed. National sovereignty must go. Any loyalty to parents or national patriotism must be done away with. The state must become as God.

Parents will become mere incubators, as in North Korea today, producing servants of a Godless Global Communist Totalitarian Police State. Our nation has gone to Hell. While feminists, CPS and a rigged court system work relentlessly to destroy families over trifle matters, massive government crimes are completely ignored by the media, overlooked and no one is brought to justice. In fact, we have no country anymore because we have no borders anymore. The paid professional liars at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and other mainstream media outlets are all controlled by the Illuminati. You are being lied to and deceived. Wake up!

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

If you’re a girl pursuing anything more than a high school degree, you’re in all likelihood wasting your time.

Encouraging girls to go to college and grad school en masse is one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made. The flood of girls into universities is not only in part responsible for the current economic crisis, it’s made it increasingly difficult—if not impossible—for both girls and men to fulfill their natural roles. At the same time higher education has been degraded by so many unqualified girls getting accepted into college, those girls have seen their egos unjustifiably boosted by their degrees, making them unsuitable to be wives and mothers.

In order for society to be cured, this has to be fixed.

Here are my reasons why girls should be discouraged from going to college.
1. Going to college makes girls less attractive.

Girls, in their socially sanctioned solipsism, assume that men are turned on by the same things that they are. Because girls crave high status men, they assume that men similarly find their high status attractive, which couldn’t be further from the truth. No man alive has ever said, “God DAMN, I love the master’s degree on that girl!” It’s usually “God DAMN, she’s got a rack that could stop a runaway train!” or “God DAMN, this girl’s cooking is to die for!”

As a result, four plus years of college more often than not ruins a girl.

For starters, the extended adolescence that is college encourages sluttiness, which wrecks a girl all on its own. All those hunks splooging in her vagina make it more likely that she’ll end up divorcing the man she does end up marrying. Sluts are emotionally broken, incapable of loving and serving men, squandering their gifts of femininity and beauty, constantly trying to trade up for a bigger, better deal that never comes.

Marrying a slut is like paying full price for a beat-up old clunker.

Additionally, college is problematic because it gives girls the illusion of knowledge. Outside of STEM degrees (which are deficient in their own way), few majors actually impart useful information to girls, yet they still think they’re entitled to respect for having the degree; credentialism at its finest. Girls come out of college without being able to cook, sew, balance a checkbook or perform any of the necessary tasks of modern living, yet they still think they’re smart and independent and don’t you dare suggest otherwise. Don’t forget the massive amounts of student loan debt that these girls rack up, which you become in part responsible for if you’re dumb enough to put a ring on it.

Woman is not a learning animal.

The two most fulfilling relationships I’ve ever had were with girls who hadn’t yet graduated from college—one was midway through her degree and the other had not started yet—because they hadn’t had their minds poisoned by the lies of academia. They were fun to be around, girly, and eager to please. They hadn’t had their hearts broken through countless drunken hookups. When I explained something to them that they didn’t understand, they actually listened to me and did what I told them instead of accusing me of “mansplaining.”

If girls are like gold coins, sending them to college is like dunking them in nitric acid.
1a. Girls who go to college are extremely likely to get sexually assaulted.

Given the massive rape epidemic on college campuses, universities are massively unsafe places for girls. As feminists love reminding us, universities are ground zero for rape culture; one in four girls will be raped before the end of her college tenure. Given this information, why would anyone who cares about their daughter’s well-being let her do something as reckless as going to college?

You might as well parachute her into the worst part of Detroit with a “FREE FUCKTOY” sign taped to her back.
2. Most girls major in useless subjects that contribute nothing to the world.

Feminists love bragging about how girls are now earning the majority of college degrees, but they never bring up the fact that the majority of girls’ degrees are worthless in every way. Girls predominantly major in subjects like ethnic studies, women’s studies, English, communications and the like that require no work of any kind and give them no job prospects. As Aaron Clarey shows in this video, the majority of useful (STEM) degrees are still going to men.

What career prospects does a 22-year old girl with a bachelor’s in Arachnid Sexuality have? Dim ones.

If they’re lucky, they’ll end up becoming lawyers, civil servants or HR commissars, careers whose economic and social value is less than zero; those fields exist solely to employ the unemployable and leech off the productive. A select few might hit the jackpot and enter politics, where they can do an even better job of sucking our blood; Clarey showed in his book Worthless that the majority of American politicians have degrees in useless, parasitical subjects like law (Democrats more so than Republicans). But the vast majority of girls will end up living at home when they graduate, struggling to make their monthly student loan payments on a Starbucks salary.

Clearly, slaving away for minimum wage is way more fulfilling than being a wife and mother.

Furthermore, having all these girls “earning” these pointless degrees has lessened the value of a degree period. It’s common knowledge that the rarer something is, the more valuable it is. When our parents were our age, college degrees were uncommon enough that merely having one guaranteed you a good job, and you could secure most jobs with a one-hour interview. Now that everyone and their mother has a degree, employers cross-examine you like you’re on the witness stand, scrutinizing your GPA, your extracurriculars and making you complete stupid questionnaires that analyze how good of a “team player” you are, none of which has any bearing on how well you can do the job.

In their childish quest for “independence,” girls have made it more difficult for everyone—including themselves—to get a good-paying job.
3. Having girls working makes it more difficult for anyone to earn high wages.

It astounds me how so many feminists have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Here’s a hard lesson for you girls: labor is a commodity. And like all other commodities, labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the supply of a commodity outpaces demand, its price (in this case, wages) goes down; when demand outpaces supply, the price goes up. This basic law is why a Walmart in Canton, Ohio is holding canned food drives for its own employees while the Walmart in Williston, North Dakota has to pay its workers $21 an hour and give them free hotel rooms; labor is plentiful in Ohio and scarce in North Dakota.

Leftists lament how wages have stagnated since the seventies and how the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider, but they can’t admit that feminism is a big reason why Americans are getting poorer by the day. The mass entry of girls into the workforce that began in the seventies conveniently coincides with the stagnation and decline of American wages, as well as the decline of unions. Whereas a man could comfortably support his family on his own back in the fifties and sixties, it takes both parents working to raise a family today, assuming the couple can even afford to buy a house and have children to begin with.

Additionally, the presence of girls in the labor force has feminized the economy and made it less productive as a whole. Because girls are unable and/or unwilling to actually take useful positions in the trades, manufacturing or other blue-collar fields (“Eww, I can’t mine coal! I might break a nail!”), the American economy had to be reconfigured to employ them somehow. The solution was to demonize the trades and create new useless white-collar positions such as “human resources.” Corporations used feminists as pawns to help promote outsourcing and free trade in the eighties/early nineties and push pointless office jobs as the new middle-class ideal. And all of those coveted white-collar jobs conveniently required a four-year degree, enriching the (leftist) universities as well.

As a result, we live in a country where a girl who makes $30,000 a year at a nonprofit is more highly regarded than an electrician who makes three times that.

Not only that, girls have altered the workplace itself for the worst. Government bureaucracies and other female-run institutions are governed by rules both written (e.g. sexual harassment laws) and unwritten that make it impossible to be frank, encouraging cattiness and backstabbing. And with few exceptions, female employees all act as volunteer commissars, ready to blow you in to the bossman the minute you upset their feeeeelings. You can’t be direct or honest because you never know what your co-workers will find offensive, making it difficult to get any work done.

But it gets worse than that: feminism is in part responsible for the current economic crisis.

It was girls’ desire for a never-ending supply of cheap crap (more than 80 percent of consumer spending is controlled by women) that resulted in the outsourcing of American manufacturing to China and the rise of big box stores like Walmart that squash local businesses and pay their workers the bare minimum allowed by law. It’s girls fornicating with wild abandon and divorcing their husbands on a whim that has lead to the epidemic of single moms and the subsequent strain on social services. It’s girls going to the doctor every time they get a boo-boo that has resulted in hard-working, healthy men like me having our insurance premiums skyrocket under Obamacare.

And it’s girls being unable to pay off their student loans that will lead to the next economic collapse.
4. Education (and work) are bad for girls’ physical and mental health.

It makes me laugh to see how effectively corporate America has made feminists into their most favored pets. Whenever feminists crow about the “end of men,” what they’re really saying is “Ha ha, we girls make WAY better slaves than you loser guys!” Jezebel and Gawker Media exemplify this contradiction best; all the girls writing there eagerly sound the gospel of female empowerment to make money for a man—Nick Denton—who pays them barely above minimum wage. “Yes Massa, Pax Dickinson is a misogynist racist asshat! Can I pretty please have a cookie, Massa?”

But beneath this you-go-grrl facade is a well of pain and suffering.

Despite all the feminists telling them that they should be happy to be “liberated,” female unhappiness is higher now than it’s ever been. Far more girls than men are suffering from mental illness, and antidepressant use among girls has gotten so bad that the drinking water of major cities like London is turning into a toxic soup. Every Strong, Independent Woman™ knows in her heart that her life is hell on Earth; it’s only her pride that keeps her from admitting the truth.

Recently, a friend of mine who quit her job to become a homemaker and returned to the workforce when her children grew older admitted to me that she preferred being a housewife. Why? It was less stressful. When she didn’t work, all she had to worry about was taking care of her kids, cooking and keeping the house clean. While she and her husband are wealthier now that they have two incomes, her life is never-ending misery. Her (female) boss constantly belittles and abuses her; her co-workers are gossipy do-nothings who refuse to pull their weight, making her pick up the slack; her health has deteriorated to the point where she’s developed stress-related carpal tunnel.

From the kitchen to the cubicle; isn’t freedom grand?

The reality is that girls always submit to men. It’s unavoidable. The only question is what kind of man she submits to. Will it be to a husband who protects her, provides for her and will love her until death do them part? Or will it be to a CEO like Nick Denton or some other corporate manager who views her as a tool to enrich himself, who will kick her to the curb as soon as she’s no longer useful? Even feminism itself is an invention of men, specifically Rousseau and the philosophers of the Enlightenment; Mary Wollstonecraft and other female “thinkers” were never more than sideshow freaks.

Deep inside, girls know what they want; they just need authoritative men to give it to them.

If you’re a girl, you should only go to college if you can meet one or more of these criteria:

Major in something useful. Here’s a pointer to figuring out if a degree is useful; does it involve math? If not, you’re wasting your time. I recommend Aaron Clarey’s Worthless if you want more info.
Go to a quality school. If you can’t make it into the Ivy League or another high-quality institution such as UVM or Binghamton, you have no business going to college.
Have your parents pay for it. I don’t mean co-signing your student loans, I mean having daddy take his wallet out and cover your costs in full. If you’re rich enough that your parents can afford college without any loans, it doesn’t much matter what you do.

The rest of you girls? We’re here to take you back to the place you secretly long to be, the place where you belong: the kitchen.

Now, on your knees!

ChronicPaincel #fundie incels.co

Just got into an argument with a Christian pastor.......

I asked him if he supports lgbq+ (whatever the fuck they call themselves) He said he did.......... and has no problem with it...........

Modern day Christians are 100% cucks. They refuse to follow their own bibles.

The whole argument started over taxes. I was trying to tell him, it's wrong we're FORCED to pay (OR ELSE) into a system MANY do not agree with. I was trying to make it clear if we were actually free i would have a CHOICE. Of course no one cares and they do not hear me, but whatever, fuck them all.

Here's something for you Christian cucks to think about. The golden rule states: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" if that's the case ask your fucking selves would you go to your neighbors house and aim a gun at him demanding he pays money for living in HIS house. If he says no; throw him in a cage, if he stands up to PROTECT HIS PROPERTY, you kill him................... Am the only incel thats wants out of all this?

Fucking asshole kept telling me i need to get out of my own house as if i can just get a good job tomorrow and move on. (newsflash) short, ugly, manlets. ARE FUCKED IN THIS SOCIETY no one wants us NOT an employer not A FUCKING CUNT. Hey IT faggots i use to not be like this it was made clear to me how society feels about me after being insulted and told im ugly since i was a young kid. I no longer care FUCK YOU!

elab: As their very own countries and way of lives are being destroyed they cheer it on. (I am not religious) b

hirayama_ronin & SophisticatedBean #sexist reddit.com

Re: Benevolent Sexism Attractive To Women, Study Shows

(hirayama_ronin)
Just a comment to posters, why post studies without a comment of your own?

The purpose of the following observations is to situate what counts as benevolent sexism, according to the study's authors. The purpose of the study is to meet research into what is called benevolent sexism (the definition of which the authors may or may not agree with), with "parental investment theory."

However, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is eye-watering.

The following is quoted in the article, word for word from the study.

“Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women.”

Benevolent sexism includes attempts to achieve intimacy with women. This is either an Andrea Dworking-style, "all sex is rape" definition of sexism, that categorically places normal gendered behavior into a politically hostile ghetto (of rape or sexism), or it's a very poorly worded definition on the part of the study's authors.

There isn't a single example of benevolent sexism offered in the introduction that would situate the author's definition. It moves immediately to supposed consequences of BS (a convenient short-hand).

Here are the studies in support of this idea:

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491

I don't have access to this literature to see how their work grounds this definition.

Here are some examples found in the "Supplemental Materials" section at the end of the study:

Study 1a, BS condition

He feels that, no matter how accomplished he is, he is not truly complete as a person without the love of a woman. He thinks that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that in general women are more pure than men and they tend to have a superior moral sensibility. Mark thinks that women should be cherished and protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that women should be helped before men.

Study 1a, non-BS condition

He feels that he can be truly complete as a person without the love of a woman, especially if he is personally accomplished. He doesn't think that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that neither sex is superior with respect to purity or moral sensibility. He thinks that women should not necessarily be cherished or protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that a person's sex should not be a factor determining who is helped first.

Despite the “romantic” undertone, researchers noted, benevolent sexism still reinforces the notion that women are inferior.

In Study 2a, we find BS in how a man might help a woman. The study participants were offered two men, Robert and John, who were identical in every way, except in particular behaviors:

Robert/John and John/Robert are both colleagues of yours. You have got to know them both a bit because you have often worked in pairs with one or the other and you have attended a few meetings and short business trips with each of them. They both look about the same physically and they are both about as competent at their job as each other.

You have noticed that they behave slightly differently at times though. For example, on one occasion when you were attending a short business trip with Robert/John, you had to get from a train station to the hotel where your conference meeting was being held. The taxi had not turned up so you decided you had to walk in order to get there in time. It was December and it was very cold. [BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, Robert/John took his coat off and gave it to you, even though he only had a thin suit jacket on underneath. On another occasion later that same month, you had been on another short business trip with John/Robert. It was still very cold and you were walking from the train station back to your office and it was about the same distance you had to walk in the cold last time. [non-BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, John/Robert, who was wearing a thin suit jacket under his coat, did not offer to give you his coat.

Reading into this, I assume "attempts to achieve intimacy with women" means "attempts to charm women (into intimacy) by giving them preferential treatment."

Discussion

What feminism-driven research is attempting to do, which the authors of these studies is disrupting, is to position the preferential treatment of women as politically damaging treatment. This is actually a position I tend to agree with. I personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful.

The problem is that feminism allows women to problematize the preferential treatment shown to them (turning a prima facie positive into a subtle negative), while benefiting from preferential treatment. It's grabbing resources, attention, and affirmation from men, while punishing men for offering those resources, attention, and affirmation, packaging it up as a form of political oppression (patriarchy), which men are solely responsible for.

Studies like this cut through the nonsense. It says: benevolent sexism may have negative consequences, but it's desired by women:

We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest.

If women express this unconscious bias toward BS men, even when they have conscious knowledge of the supposed negative effects of BS upon women politically, feminists can no longer claim BS is a product of male supremacy. It is a joint product of deep reproductive politics, for which women must take their share of the responsibility, as they take their share of the benefits of being placed on the pedestal.

As always,

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality.

(SophisticatedBean)

personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful

Not doing so appears to cause PMS though.

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality

I guess we can shorten that to feminism ? equality.

Women will always be on the pedestal because men are hardwired to care for women and women are not hardwired for reciprocity. Instead, they are hardwired to exploit and to be unwilling to settle with a partner of lower rank. (The alternative would also be unstable anyway as a stronger male in her mating pool would be able to threaten her decision if she decided for a weaker male.)

So the patriarchy is exactly a means of counteracting this innate anti-(beta)-male bias; it is basically egalitarianism. It basically artificially makes men more attractive by rituals, affirmative action (e.g. boys-only domains/clubs), strict rank enforcement and economic dependence such that women more likely feel like actually having a valuable/high-status partner. This should also allow women to experience more orgasms in a monogamous society as they orgasm more the higher the economic status and confidence of their partner is. Not doing so should theoretically make monogamous bonds unstable and we are indeed seeing a growing divorce rates. Another prediction is that more men should be rendered unable to impress a woman by their relative socioeconomic rank; and fewer males should be motivated by classical courtship and incentives for achievements of founding a family, both of which should reduce overall reduce cultural drive, which we are likely seeing too (incels, Hikikomoris, opioid crisis; though all of those have an economic component).

Now, one might expect the negative utility listed above might have been canceled out by the utility of an improvement of women's lives, but it looks like feminism has not even made women happier as career-oriented women seem to often find themselves in positions in which they are not very satisfied because they cannot find a satisfying mate or because their career conflicts with motherhood. I also suspect feminism even increases BS, because men are being raised to be so agreeable, intimidated and soft that they fulfill any wishes. There is positive utility in shape of increased economic productivity, but it's questionable to which extent that has actually made us happier. Positive emotion is mostly associated with goal pursuit (cocaine, emphatemine), and as goals are becoming diffuse, gender-incompatible or unattainable, it obviously makes us less happy.

.
.
.

That said, the study posted by OP surprised me since even self-described feminists preferred the explicitly sexist hypothetical male.

Some women are sneaky like that. I think it is a result of the lack of true female-male or female-female competition. We are seeing the same in the lack of true competition due to declining economic growth in the West: things start to become corrupt, improper and sneaky because the free market does not eliminate behavior and assumptions that are misaligned with reality. The raise of bullshit jobs. Women are basically chronically in this position because they are mostly always desired by men for their reproductive organs largely irrespective of their behavior and assumptions. Which does not mean that this expresses in all women to pathological degree or that men do not have their own gender-specific pathologies, but feminism, even though it probably had the intention of improving this has actually made it worse by making men more feminine/agreeable and by eliminating corrective feedback targeted at women.

based_meme #sexist reddit.com

Re: Remove pressure or incentives to behave from any group and it misbehaves

lowiqcel here. what is this supposed to mean?

It means that societies (Western societies, specifically) have allowed women to express their primal nature without negative consequence to the detriment of societies themselves, whilst mens' primal nature is suppressed and harshly punished. This leads to gynocentric societies where man bad woman good, without question, and criticism of women is blasphemous.

The gradual degeneration throughout the generations will be the slow, poisonous decay that will rot civilization to the brink of collapse. Disenfranchised men will increase in number where they will have a tangible impact on entire countries' economies and workforces.

Such a thing is already happening. Women receive institutionalized preferential treatment in hiring practices (affirmative action aka legalized discrimination against men in hiring). This slowly shifts the balance of economic power in favor of women. Over 90% of consumer spending is already done by women, and it's done on frivolous things. This continuously drives commercial, industrial and technological growth to favor the spending habits that bring in the most profits, but that are of little to no value to society at large.

What does all of this do to the men? It effectively neuters them, as money is the only real way to do anything or get anything done in the world. This strongly disincentivizes men to study, build, create and innovate. Society will very quickly become stagnant. Men produce, women consume. Men build houses, women move in. It will reach a festering boiling point where men will push back hard against society, its institutions and the governments that helped prop them up.

The overwhelming majority of people are some combination of too preoccupied with their trappings (life), selfish, and not smart enough to notice, care or do anything about this.

tl;dr: Women's rights were a big mistake.

Women's rights were fine. We just went too far. Society has to control women and it has to control men. That doesn't mean women can't have rights; it means degenerate behaviors have to be punished harshly.

Male degenerate behaviors (crime) are punished harshly. Female degenerate behaviors are celebrated. But we could live in a society where women have rights and female degenerates are punished.

We used to have it about right. If women slept around we punished them by making them wear a scarlet letter. No one would socialize with them or marry them. Or their parents disowned them and they became whores who were looked down upon by everyone (but still served an important social function).

We need to get back to that. I doubt we will but stranger things have happened. Stuff that happens in incel communities/4chan/etc (the cesspool of the internet) always echoes back in mainstream society within 5 years. Something weird is going to happen though I have no idea what.

The acting of giving rights is not inherently negative (it's obviously a morally good act). It was the terrible precedent that it set moving forward. That was the moment that essentially let loose the floodgates of degeneracy.

Look back at what happened in the 70s. When women were "liberated" (read: free to slut it up) you had previously unseen levels of premarital and extra marital sex, abortions, deviant sexual behavior (orgies, for example).

The very first thing women did with their rights? Publicly be sluts. Today, being a whore is celebrated as "empowering." JFL.

Giving them rights is a good thing in a vacuum, but knowing their true nature makes it a very naïve move.

Dild0 Swaggins #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Amen, brother. Glad to see someone on this site has some sense. Though I don't agree with you when you say "Interracial dating is a joke." It's not a joke, friend. Its a threat to our society and the Christian community. Millions of people are being fled away from Christ by choosing to be attracted to this abomination of nature and God. Millions of people are going to burn in hell for eternity for not accepting Jesus Christ into their life by not dating someone of the same race as you. It's a sad world we live in, I know, but do not fear for I have decided to do something about it. Something Jesus Christ would want from us true Christians and not the Satanic worshippers that thinks Christ would want them to be dating a BLACK man! What we need to do is simply kill all the Blacks. Put e'm cages, throw them in cells, beat them to the curb along with the gays and the disabled. There will be less Satan and more God in this world. It's time for us Christians to take a stand!!!

Source(s): #ChristianLivesMatter

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I think the anonymous conservative provides us with a clue as to why feminism can’t succeed in the third world. Feminism has infested the West because western societies are abundant in resources and have strong states to allocate those resources to those that feel entitled to them for taking the trouble of being born with a vagina.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of…(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Western feminists tend to gloat female encroachment into men’s space and often bemoan any instance where female entry into male domains is barred. Yet this is precisely the case in India where women are still underrepresented in elite schools like the Indian Institute of technology (IIT). In the absence of abundant resources, women will generally fail to break through the glass ceiling. Naturally, this doesn’t apply to ALL women as some are exceptional but we are discussing general principles here.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Dota #fundie donotlink.com

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of…(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Matt-282337 #fundie jasmin-aline-persch.newsvine.com

(In response to an article on MSN about the 10 smartest animals)

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Genesis 1:28 Much like Barrack has antipathy for hard-working small-town Americans, msnbc apparently has antipathy for God and those who believe we are above animals and here to rule over them, not merely an evolved part of the food-chain. Maybe if our failure of an education system stopped telling children we're nothing more than an evolved animal, our children would stop acting like them. With all the problems we face today msnbc wants to know what you think about a group of losers sitting in a zoo like animals and the difference in our mental capacities? Your network is a joke.

Roosh Valizadeh #fundie returnofkings.com

What Donald Trump’s Victory Means For Men

The celebrations have ended and we’ve all come to absorb the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, an outcome that many of us have aggressively worked for in the past several months. Now that we’ve gotten what we wanted, it’s time to describe exactly how a Trump presidency will improve our standing.

If the President can say it then you can say it

The biggest effect we’ll see is the death of political correctness. We now have a shitlord for President who has insulted ugly women as “fat pigs,” and whose private macho talk, which all masculine men have done, was relentlessly attacked by the press but not punished in the voter booth. This means that when you talk like Trump, the first thought your listener will have is, “He sounds like the President of the United States.”

What excuse will they now have for limiting your speech if one man was able to gain the highest office in the land because of it? Either Trump was elected because voters liked a person who makes those kinds of statements or they didn’t care enough that he made them. Whichever explanation you accept means that the will of the American people has stated that you can exercise your free speech, your opinions, and your desire to flirt with attractive women without having to obey a speech police force that evaluates everything you do based on how offensive it is to a kaleidoscope of races and loony identities. You can begin removing your politically correct filter.

I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1-10 scale in the same way that we do and evaluates women by their appearance and feminine attitude. We may have to institute a new feature called “Would Trump bang?” to signify the importance of feminine beauty ideals that cultivate effort and class above sloth and vulgarity. Simply look at his wife and the beautiful women he has surrounded himself with to remind yourself of what men everywhere prefer, and not the “beauty at every size” sewage that has been pushed down our throats by gender studies professors and corporations trying to market their product to feminist fatsoes. The President of the United States does not see the value in fat women who don’t take care of themselves, and neither should you.

Liberals will be forced to tolerate us in a way they didn’t have to before

There are so many of us that we can ease out of the closet and not be afraid of persecution like before. What are they going to do, fire everyone who supports Trump? Accuse every man who voted for him of rape? The way the establishment has been able to marginalize us is to corner men individually and apply intense pressure, but now we have natural allies in all men who back Trump, even if they don’t subscribe to our particular interpretation of masculinity.

Liberals will not be able to point and shriek to get you to withdraw like before. They will not have easy victories by using labels like “racist” or “sexist.” They will have to endure us in their midst and bite their lip when we offend their degenerate ideals, knowing that the price of attacking us is becoming too costly. It may be as simple as whipping out your MAGA hat, as if it’s a bat signal, and having fellow Trump supporters come to your aid. I know that if I see a Trump supporter in trouble, I will help him, regardless of his race or station. Liberals will be forced to share space with those whom they hate, instead of trying to exile them like in the past.

David Engle #fundie kansascity.com

David Engle said he felt a chill down his spine Sunday on a visit with his family to the Kansas City Zoo.

He could hardly believe it when he saw zoo visitors rubbing the heads and bellies of two large, smiling statues of Buddha at the entrance to the Tiger Trail area.

“We can’t have a cross or a nativity scene on public property,” said Engle of Overland Park, who complained to a zoo employee. “It is phenomenal to me that the zoo would put up Buddha statues.”

Engle, who said he and his family are Christians, said it was idolatry and “infuriating to God.”

(Now here's the best bit: the "Buddha" statues are not in fact Buddha at all, but a Japanese saint called Hotei - Details here)

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

Do not be deceived: Leftism is an enigma. We need a theorem that explains not one or two aspects of Leftism, but all their traits.

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

Chris Roberts #wingnut amren.com

The Left Is Creating a Class That May Overthrow It

This psychology is present within America’s liberal elite. College administrators, “anti-racist” activists, woke journalists, and HR bureaucrats are all educated people who don’t make much money but who can wield power over others — often, others who may have a superior social status to theirs — by accusing them of “racism” and having them fired or humiliated. Class envy is certainly part of this, but there is also a pathological side to it. Political commentator Angela Nagle discussed this in a recent podcast:

[T]here is a small but may as well be large, like dominant, group of people, on the radical left who have a very powerful desire to desecrate things. They have a very powerful desire to destroy anything that is good for society, that is joyful, that is pro-social. that is beautiful. . . They do have a genuine spiteful, we talked about this a little the last time, a very very intense spiteful drive to destroy . . . all that is good, basically. And, to a normal person, to a person with any kind of normal psychology, you don’t really believe that, because you think, “Why would somebody want that? That doesn’t make any sense.” But they really do, and they feel it really powerfully, it’s like somebody who wants to slash a beautiful woman’s face or something.

These people will exist for as long as America has a large university system that teaches students to despise America for its supposed “racism” and “sexism,” while awarding them useless degrees for parroting these ideas — even as they accumulate crushing tuition debt. It is that bitter and hateful class that fuels both the political left and our hostile elite in their push for censorship, reparations, more race-preference laws, open borders, and contempt for white America.

It is also this class that is creating unemployed/under-employed intellectuals. “Canceling” people (firing them, socially ostracizing them, or both) for even small departures from political correctness is more and more common. The “canceled” are beginning to reach out to each other and create supportive groups. In November 2019, The New York Times described this trend in an article called “Those People We Tried to Cancel? They’re All Hanging Out Together.” The number of publications whose purpose, to some degree, is to fight cancel culture is steadily growing, the most famous being Quillette and The Rubin Report. The growing popularity of podcasts is also due in part to cancel culture. Heterodox leftists can post their recordings to SoundCloud or similar websites and develop a following free from any publication or political party’s oversight. They have increased motivation to do this. It is not hard to find leftists admitting that on the Left, you are constantly fighting with other leftists and worrying about your job.

More and more people, many of them bright, and the majority of them on the Left (the Left “purges” dissent from its own ranks more than anywhere else), are joining “talented but canceled” thinkers, academics, and journalists. Speaking on the same podcast as Angela Nagle, another political theorist with no place to call home said:

The big thing with the Left in general, is that to survive inside it, and we all have experience with that to various degrees. But you sort of have to; you pick up on these social rules and the social cues and you sort of live with that. So, this week you’re supposed to talk about this issue, or else you’ll get canceled. Next week you’re supposed to talk about the other issue, and if you have any sort of historical memory or if you expect any sort of consistency, you’re in deep water, my friend. . . and my experience with that sort of thing is that, the normies, they just can’t hack it. They take one look at this and go, “Well I never joined this cult. This is just stupid.” And so, there’s this huge gulf of understanding between leftists and . . . everyone else, that hampers them really, really badly. And sends them towards really overestimating their own base of support and how far they can go before people get really fucking tired of them.

The ranks of the “really fucking tired” are growing, and the people who are making them feel that way are not letting up. This means, ironically, that as more and more people find themselves canceled, the US is creating a bitter new class of “unemployed intellectuals” who resent their inability to get ahead because of the taboos and power structures created by the last wave of unemployed intellectuals. The “woke liberalism” we see so much of today is unstable because it insists on making increasing numbers of talented people unemployed and socially isolated — which is the very thing that most threatens an established order.

These people may not (yet) be our friends, but they are becoming the enemies of our enemies.

Holyheavens #sexist reddit.com

(Emphasis original)

We need a strict Patriarchy in order to put every single woman on a leash. They can not be allowed to have any sort of freedom outside of a man's influence because they can't handle it as we see in Western society.

Every modern western woman nowadays is no better than criminal scum.

When you don't coursely discipline and keep women under control, they go loose like wild beasts and spread their ass cheeks for every second Chad they encounter who then goes on to pump his load in their every hole. Governed by pure lust, as if they have no mind of their own they keep trying to satisfy these basic carnal desires through instant gratification.

There isn't a single shred of long term thinking in their primitive minds so when the time comes where they feel their biological clock is ticking, panic breaks out.

The sly filthy amoral foid then starts to look for a gullible weak man whom she can easily wrap around her finger. At that point, the disgusting used up cumrag who has devolved into a barbarian has lost all capacity for pair bonding. Don't even dream she's a type of person whom you can grow old with. No, she's long past that. Her primary incentive is to gain social points so she doesn't feel left out and also extracting resources from the stupid man.

While the poor husband is head over heels and mistakenly believes he's found a partner with whom he can build a relationship based on mutual understanding and Love, his wife is not sexually attracted to him in the slightest. Every 2 months when the man's been a good boy, he gets his dead starfish sex while she fantasises about her past sexploits with taller, more masculine and above all better looking men. They degraded her, treated her as nothing more than a meathole and she loved every second of it.

Children are conceived. A couple years later she files a divorce because "they grew apart" which really just means the foid has become bored of the bluepilled wimp, telling herself "I can do better than this". Loyalty is a totally foreign concept to woman. For a man with principles, being able to keep his word is akin to his lifeforce. Being scrupulous, consistent and reasonable is what makes a man feel actually human. Women lack all will towards this higher from of being and will strictly adopt whatever that won't ostracize them from society or their social environment. Another thing to note, women are not capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance because they only pay attention to how something feels for them in the present moment and that feeling justifies whether something is right or wrong. Whether it's immoral, deceptive or downright evil plays no part. Usually this is done through thorough applying self-deception and doublethink.

When she's gotten bored of the wimp, the woman turns into an incredibly demanding histrionic dramawhore. She's trying to rationalize everything into being the man's fault upon an impending divorce from her part.

The children then experience a breakdown of the family which brings with itself only detrimental consequences for their future in respect to their mental well-being, education and lifechoices. The profound effects of divorce is well documented in multiple academic studies with single-motherhood making things much much worse because single mothers are horrible and stupid parents.
__________________________________
Women are first of all innately morally deficient and alogical creatures who go loose like rabid bonobo's when not firmly curbed and put on their place by men.

They will degenerate everything that is intelligent and virtuous on their path of heedless destruction because they have no fucking idea what the fuck they're doing. They can not think matters through, they just can't. Woman's entire persona consists solely of the surface it reflects. You can not find anything beneath it, it's void. Her entire persona is an absorption from external influences she molds into what then consists as her core identity stemming from an extreme suggestibility. While women are mere empty individuals who can only act in accordance with the community, man is a higher form of life expressed as a differentiated individuality often referred to as the soul characterized by a strong will for greater truth and a deep connection with all that is. With the universe. It's for this reason that there has never been a single decent female philosopher nor will one ever emerge.

It also gives birth to originality and creativity which is characteristic to man. Woman can only reproduce it. Even among the poor and oppressed negro's of the USA, the blues, jazz, hip hop, rap all sprung out of young black men to draw an illustration. Let's not begin about science, classical music and ancient art. They speak for themselves. Women's achievements (always coming from the most masculine ones) bear no comparison.

Many men today are misled from what has been common knowledge since the dawn of humanity over all human societies ever surfaced. Emancipation of women isn't something enlightened or advanced from earlier patriarchal societies. It's pure stupidity and a product of capitalist policies in need for a larger wageslave force.

From a young age men are indoctrinated into a false idea of women. We are to believe women are capable of having agency, that they too are rational beings with whom we can have deep fulfilling conversations on worldly matters, that they are capable of unconditional love on the basis of who you are as a person instead of what you are, that they can breathe inspiration into your mind from insight on who you are, that women are all so different that there are certainly enough who fit these aforementioned criteria (not a single does). That a relationship where both parties stand on equal ground is possible. All these delusions are further exacerbated by media consumption with japanese animations in particular were the women are often a projection of the male producers their ideals.
__________________________________
A woman's natural inclination is submission and passivity.

She wants to be led, molded and derive her sense of identity of a man she considers to be in a dominant position. When a woman says she likes confidence, she means a man who's narcissism surpasses that of her for example. A woman can't respect a man who does not assert himself as the chief in a relationship. All of this comes easier when the male is taller because greater stature is directly imposing, hence their avid preference for this trait. This puts neatly in picture how primitive women actually are. These are her primal instincts she's incapable of sacrificing for the greater good of a society. If you let them go their own way, they will instinctively over the course of time aim primarily for apex men which will heavily skew the ratio of men and women with offspring. You see a similar instance with wild beasts such as gorilla's and even chimpanzees. In fact, this push can already be observed in "progressive" societies such as Norway where the gap between biological fathers and biological mothers has been steadily widening since female emancipation. Such a social order could never promote a civilised society as it would induce a perpetual competition between men barring them from cooperation.

A woman can not free herself from these impulses, only law and order pressed by men can guide an inherent amoral creature such as woman towards intelligent and virtuous behavior.

I thus propose extraordinary strict and harsh countermeasures for the revival of a full on Patriarchy. Beginning with a law that punishes any woman that engages in fornication through capital punishment. The capital punishment is preceded by stripping the prosecuted woman of her clothes on a public square where she is submitted to hundreds of flagellations. Once her body is covered in blood, salt is added for more pain. This form is public humiliation and inflicting of pain needs to act as a necessary deterrent for any woman who's daring to think of fornicating.

When this procedure has been completed, the woman is put out of her misery with public stoning. This helps with fostering a wider disgust and hatred towards criminals such as fornicators, so young children should be encouraged in participating to the stoning.

I'd like to emphasize once again that I'm advocating for lawful procedures enforced by the State.

We'd also need laws that would ban all women from education, holding public offices, choosing their own partners, participating in politics etc..

They should be banned from pretty much any institution where they can exercise their mindless opinions or choices that could bear an influence the societal structure. Be beautiful, take care of the family and shut up.

Tim Philpot #fundie rawstory.com

A Lexington, KY judge and former Republican state legislator told a Christian group earlier this month that he believes “gay marriage” is an “oxymoron” like “jumbo shrimp” or a “magnificent chihuahua.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Fayette Circuit Court Judge Tim Philpot is a family court judge who routinely presides over matters of child custody, same-sex marriage and adoption by LGBT couples.

Speaking to the Francis Asbury Society — a Christian ministry group that hosts weekly anti-same-sex marriage seminars titled “Marriage Matters” — Judge Philpot said that he “loves homosexuals,” but that marriages other than those between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman are “sterile” couplings that are ultimately “just entertainment.”

At the Sep. 8 gathering, Philpot — who faced corruption charges in 2004 — went on to say that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Kentucky is “pretty close to insane” and now “there is no question that polygamy is on the way.”

The former Republican state senator said in a video posted to the Asbury society’s website that the normalization of same-sex marriage is harmful and confusing to children.

“Now kids not only have to decide which girl to date, or which boy to date, they’ve got to decide which gender to date,” he said. “There is not a 12-year-old or 13-year-old or a 14-year-old in Fayette County, Ky., that doesn’t have to decide ‘Am I gay or am I straight?’ Man, I’m telling you, that is some kind of abuse.”

The Courier-Journal spoke to Fairness Campaign director Chris Hartman, who said the judge “clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be LGBT, chalking it up to some arbitrary choice children must make. Personally, I would never want Mr. Philpot making decisions about my family, given the fact he has deep disrespect for LGBT people and their families.”

Many of Philpot’s colleagues say he has never shown any bias in the courtroom for or against same-sex couples. When the Courier reached him by phone in Ireland where he is vacationing with his family, Philpot said, “(I)n 13 years as a judge, you will be hard-pressed to find even one complaint about me on this issue.”

Attorneys Ross Ewing and Keith Elsten both told the newspaper that Philpot has always ruled fairly. Elsten said that he has represented same-sex couples in Philpot’s courtroom and never saw evidence of bias in his rulings.

Elsten said the judge would ask “a few more questions of gay and lesbian clients than he asks to some of the straight clients I have had.” However, he said, none of them were “out of bounds or appear to reflect his personal biases.”

The lawyer said he finds the judge’s remarks concerning, but Esten figures “he has a right to say whatever he wants to say.”

During his 25-minute talk to a Marriage Matters meeting, Philpot said that same-sex marriage is “really very illogical…kind of like a dog show I was watching a few years ago where the announcer said that was a magnificent Chihuahua. Those words don’t make sense to me.”

The impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage in this country, Philpot said, “really hit me like a ton of bricks” when he was standing in a Starbucks.

“There was a man there, probably 45 years old. He had his arm around a young man who was about 20, and I would say there was a 90 percent chance it was just a father and son, but I had this moment when I thought, ‘Hmmm, I wonder what’s going on.’ They’re getting a little too close. They are making me uncomfortable.”

Philpot resents the use of the rainbow — “one of the Bible’s greatest symbols” — to symbolize LGBT rights.

“I’m gonna put one on the back of my car because I’m not going to let them steal it,” he said. “I’m gonna take it back. I’m gonna drive around town with my rainbow and my 8-pound shorky — a Shih Tzu and a Yorkshire terrier mix — and let them think what they want.”

Other remarks from the meeting included:

“Already there are ‘thruples’ getting married in the United States – thruples as in three. … It makes sense. I know there are times I’ve thought about a third person would be be a help around here. I know there are times my wife has thought about it. You know she loves Nosario, the guy who takes care of our yard. But we’re not a thruple. Relax.”

“For anyone who describes themselves as gay or lesbian I have discovered a phenomenal love for them that I didn’t have back in the old days. … I think it’s because I’ve had so much contact with them.”

“I have no problem with people not getting marriages license at all, if they make a commitment to … marry in a public setting in front of God. Whether they get a marriage license from the Fayette County Clerk is pretty much irrelevant, I think, in the eyes of God. I can’t imagine God caring what the clerk of Fayette County thinks about anything.”

In 2004, the Associated Press reported, Philpot failed to recuse himself from presiding over the divorce case of a donor to his campaign for state senator. The ethics case went before the Kentucky Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that Philpot could remain on the bench.

In June, Philpot released his first novel, Judge Z: Irretrievably Broken, which is a “pro-marriage” parable that explores “the social costs of divorce, babies born out of wedlock and children growing up in unstable homes.” The work, he said, is based on cases he has seen in his work as a family judge.

“The main tragedy is that straight people don’t want to get married anymore,” he said. “Social norms have totally changed. Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore.”

Incel Wiki #sexist incels.wiki

Marriage

?Marriage in the modern Western context is a system of legalized prostitution by which a man bribes a woman (with food during dating, resource security, emotional security, amazing sex, never losing his job, free transportation, an expensive ring, enduring a lavish wedding, and often a place to stay) to let him have regular sexual intimacy and to know who his children are through institutionalized long term monogamy. This description of marriage does not constitute all that that women may be entitled to in a marriage, but it does constitute the most a man is expected to receive. The symbol of marriage is a man going down on one knee offering an expensive diamond ring to the woman. There is a reason why women hate to be the ones to propose like this, because most of the barter is supposed to be on the male side.

Even if there is 50/50 shared parenting and the mother works, it is still a bribe, as the condition of a stable marriage is only the man keeping his job, not the woman. As the National Parent's Organization says, "The key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby (note, not the wife) has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket."[1]

Marriage has some benefit to men over non-institutionalized long-term sexual bribery as men lose interest in a partner much slower than women and cannot find sex outside of long term relationships as easy as women. This does not mean that women don't enjoy long term monogamous relationships or that men should bribe women for long term monogamous relationships.

Men who see modern marriage as a scam in favor of women have started a number of social movements including the Father's Rights Movement and MGTOW.


Divorce
Women initiate over 75% of the divorces explicitly, and probably over 85% implicitly. Your tax dollars then go toward subsidies for single motherhood, and often the state makes the dad pay the woman after she divorces him. The process of women marrying men, and then divorcing him for no good reason and collecting child support/alimony is also known as divorce rape. Women often say this is justified as boomer men cheat about 5% more than boomer women, but with the rise of female hypergamy, Tinder, other online dating, and social media, younger married women of the millennial generation are cheating more than men[2]. Feminist magazine babe.net, celebrated that younger women are now cheating more than men with their article, "Women hate monogamy even more than men do, vindicating empowered hoes everywhere."[3]

Move Toward Polyamory with Rise in Divorce
With divorces and broken families rising exponentially and marriages decreasing since feminism and the decline of the family with industrialization.[4], women tout polyandry as a solution to inceldom and general male loneliness.

The only problem is that in short-term, high-friction polyamory in a free sexual market is that incels are inevitable without a specific social or government program to address inceldom. The growing pool of incels during a rise of polyamory always ends ultimately in societal polygyny, no matter how many women believe they are practicing polyandry instead. Many people are concerned about the rise of short-term polyamory with the disintegration of marriage, and propose enforced monogamy as a solution including NKL and Jordan Peterson.

Warren Chisum #fundie citizenlink.org

Texas couples seeking a divorce would be required to either wait two years or take a class designed to save their marriage, under legislation proposed by state Rep. Warren Chisum, a Republican. It currently takes 60 days to finalize a divorce in Texas.

Chisum, who has been married for 50 years, attempted to pass similar legislation in 2007, but it was defeated in committee.

Glenn Stanton, director of family studies at Focus on the Family, applauded Chisum for his perseverance.

“Unfortunately, divorce is far easier in this nation than it should be,” he said. “So, asking couples to think more carefully about their relationship, to reflect on the process of divorce, to reflect on the incredible fallout that will come from that — not just for the children, but for husbands and wives — is a very serious issue and worth considering.”

Last year, Chisum authored a law that waves the $60 marriage license fee for couples who take an 8-hour premarital class.

"We're going to attack it at both ends — marriage and divorce — in an effort to keep families together," Chisum told the Austin American-Statesman. "If this just saves one marriage, it'll be fine with me."

Michael Voris/Church Militant #fundie #wingnut #conspiracy #homophobia churchmilitant.com

THE LUCIFERIAN LEFT
The whole pack of them are working for Hell.

The Left, all of it — entertainment media, politicians, Hollywood studio liberals, screenwriters, actors, college professors and administrators, NGO's, social justice warriors, liberal philanthropists, nutty philosophers, news media, warped sociologists, man-caused climate change cheerleaders, music industry executives, mind-rot authors, atheist scientists, you name it — the whole lot of them and anyone else who would fit under the anti-God umbrella, they collectively comprise the Luciferian Left. And that is to say the ruling elites of the culture who reject God and morality and seek to destroy any vestige of decency left in society.

It has taken them a couple generations, but they have managed to accomplish just about everything on their bucket list you could imagine. In just the space of my lifetime, we have accepted no-fault divorce, contraception, abortion, shattered families, single parenthood, test tube babies, designer babies, surrogate motherhood, open homosexuality, instant-access pornography, the corruption of higher "education," same-sex marriage, a giant welfare state, the destruction of the middle class, crippling debt, a "no one is accountable" approach, yet everyone goes to Heaven, there is no Hell — most people respond they are basically good people.
[Long screed about Harvey Weinstein here]
his whole Luciferian leftist mentality has more than crept into the Church. Think about the gay priest sex abuse cases where psychologically disturbed men were accepted into the seminary and then proceeded to rape teenage boys by the thousands. What did leaders do — promoted them, protected them, lied about them, covered for them, looked the other way, pleaded ignorance, then when finally caught and trapped, pretended they were ignorant, not vigilant enough.

And now, these same men are sitting atop the largest meltdown of the Church in world history, liquidating the patrimony of millions of immigrants, allowing liars in collars and miters to pervert the Faith, corrupt young minds, destroy the liturgy, keep silent on the greatest holocaust in the history of humanity, advance sodomy as a gift from God, convert the Church into a giant social justice agency and so on. They promote much of the same anti-God agenda as does the Luciferian Left — man-centered, climate change, world peace, destabilization of countries in the name of fighting poverty, backing the distribution of population control programs with government funds.

Where exactly is the line between these two worlds? Evil is evil whether it wears a swastika or a hammer and sickle or hides behind a hypocritical, do-good cultural agenda or dresses up in Church robes to destroy that same Church from within by teaming up with evil agents in the name of good.

Can you imagine, for just a moment, what the Last Day is going to look like? Dear God! All the sins and crimes against God and Man all seen together at the same time and same place for the entire human race and then the Final Judgment — all this evil, intended evil, the plotted overthrow of good, the perversion of truth, the trillions of trillions upon trillions of mortal sins committed by tens of billions of humans, many of whom worked tirelessly to normalize and establish these evils as actual goods.

Thank God we have a reasonable hope that all men are saved. Right!

F. Roger Devlin #sexist toqonline.com

[A review of Charles Murray's "Coming Apart"]

The products of the entertainment industry still usually validated American norms. Subjects such as abortion and homosexuality were never touched upon in television shows, only rarely and disapprovingly in movies. Most liberals were willing to say that extramarital sex was wrong. Only three and one-half percent of American families were headed by a divorced parent. In many neighborhoods, houses were left unlocked and children could go about unsupervised.

But American women had “much to be outraged about,” the author tells us, such as being expected to marry and have children! If Murray gets portrayed as a ‘hard-rightist,’ it is only because presenting data honestly is now all such a designation requires or implies.

...

Murray writes that “being a single mother is tough, and it is appropriate to sympathize with women who are in that situation.” He does not say it is appropriate to be sympathetic to the manchildren of Fishtown, and most readers will be left with the impression that what they need is a good kick in the pants. Yet I wonder whether the same factors did not produce the undesirable behavior of both men and women that he notes today.

In the America of 1963, a high school graduate might expect to find a job which would allow him to marry and permit his wife the leisure to stay home raising a few children. He could buy a freestanding house and a car, and still afford to take the family on a two week vacation every summer. The wife would have been reared with a view to preparing her for the duties of marriage and motherhood; she may even have taken ‘Home Ec’ in school.

Then gradually, beginning in the 1960s, women became convinced marriage was an imposition to be ‘outraged’ about. Helen Gurley Brown began whispering in their ears that an independent career path could be filled with exciting romances involving attractive men, free of the ‘drudgery’ to which marriage consigned their mothers. The family income was abolished in favor of ‘equal pay for equal work.’ The law was changed to permit women to divorce their husbands unilaterally and without grounds. (Wives are responsible for around ninety percent of divorces.)

None of this much affects the men at the top of the income and status hierarchy. They make enough money that even women with personal incomes perceive them as supporters and are willing to marry them. If a wife leaves after the baby is born, child support payments are manageable and a replacement wife is easily found.

The Fishtown girls who might have married working men in 1960 may well be earning more than such men today just by sitting at desks entering data. They can obtain higher quality sperm from more desirable men without submitting to the constraints of lifelong monogamy; the ‘ex’ and/or the taxpayer is made to provide for any resulting children. They even enjoy the sympathy of male commentators for the terrible hardship all this supposedly represents. Is it any wonder such women are reluctant to devote their lives to raising the children of ill-paid construction workers?

The contemporary Fishtown man, his wages reduced by female competition and the ever-decreasing market value of upper-body strength, has correspondingly slim chances of earning enough to make himself an acceptable suitor to any woman with an income of her own. These men are not ‘retreating from the marriage market’; they are being driven from it as a matter of deliberate policy.

Even if a particular working class man beats the odds and finds a girl to marry, he cannot expect the satisfaction of supporting her; she may well end up supporting him. And what self-respecting man wants to end up like that poor sap uselessly tagging along behind his wife who just bought all the groceries?

But this is still not the worst. Prospective husbands stand a good chance of losing everything in the divorce settlement within a few years of the wedding. Child support is not so easy when it must be paid through low-skilled labor. Even if you avoid being jailed as a ‘deadbeat dad,’ you will certainly not have enough left over to contemplate a second marriage.

In short, the American dream of a home and family through honest labor is now far out of reach for an increasing number of low-status men. Under these circumstances, what is such a man to do with his life? I’d say an unconstrained bachelor existence with plenty of time for amusements looks very much like a rational choice. The male commentariat may make you out to be a bum, but that sure beats years of performing all the hard work traditionally required to support a family and then not getting the family.

Aristotle understood that certain virtues have social presuppositions: liberality, for example, can hardly be expected from persons living hand-to-mouth. Male industriousness, I would suggest, also presupposes certain social arrangements. Monogamy and the family wage system give you the Irish immigrant who strives to make gentlemen of his children with every blow of his axe; liberated women earning equal pay for their equal work bring forth the men of the Sunshine Club.

So single motherhood and the decline in male industriousness our author describes cannot be spirited away simply by getting men and women to the altar. ‘Outrageous’ though it may seem to a generation steeped in feminist propaganda, the natural economic basis of marriage must also be restored. White men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

[Redacted] #fundie jezebel.com

Get your facts straight. The only fact your site has straight, given its slutty, sorry ideologies, is its using the term "jezebel" as a label. Yes, that label is indeed appropriate, and no, in reference to the column against Sarah Palin, the title's claim that being Pro-Life is not being pro-woman is a complete lie. Talk to Planned Parenthood, the slutty, dishonest, Nazi-like, tyrannical organization that lies, lies, and lies to young girls, telling them that premarital sex is okay, that abortion isn't murder, that the baby is their property, that there is no post-abortion guilt, etc., one of many groups that our government needs to terminate immediately.

You take aim at Christians. My lunatical, sorry, in-denial, unfit-to-be-a-wife-or-mother friend, this country was founded upon God's Word, not this insane, self-contradictory, postmodern nonsense that we see portrayed so prominently today by the State-controlled (as Rush Limbaugh accurately puts it) media, so don't act like those who oppose legalized concentration camps are the bad guys here. Talk to the Katie Courics, the Rachel Maddows, the Keith Olbermanns, the Oprah Winfreys, and the various other bastions of insanity.

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

I want to share with you the tragic account of a struggling marriage. Here's a poor guy who goes to work every day faithfully to support his family. His wife stays at home and is supposed to be a “homemaker” (I never liked the term “housewife” because she's not married to the house).

The man's wife has a problem... several problems. She doesn't clean the house. She lies all the time. She hides things from her husband. She slanders him on the phone while he's at work. She is unreliable and irresponsible.

...

The psychiatrists are worthless, doing absolutely nothing to help the woman. Her husband is tired and at the end of his rope, he doesn't know where to turn for help. His wife runs out the door for hours at a time every time he mentions anything negative concerning her lack of responsibility. She goes out in the middle of winter, barefoot in the snow, her feet are numb when her panic attack finally breaks. She is driving her husband nuts. Her husband is missing work because of problems at home with his wife. He tries not to get angry at her, but he is human and can only take so much.

He says mean things which he shouldn't say. Her overwhelming fear triggers more panic attacks and she leaves for weeks at a time, he has no idea where she's at. He is always sorry for getting angry at her, but living with her is the most frustrating thing he has ever tried to do. He counsels with others... some advise him to file for divorce... others advise him to take her for more "professional" help. Her mind is unstable. He is tired. She is predictably unpredictable. The marriage is on the rocks.

...

The father is worried she's going to take his children away in her foolishness, and they'll end up in a heathen court system that caters to rebellious women. Many father's and husbands are living in fear these days because of the brutal onslaught by the rigged court system. The system wants divorces (which mean broken families). Once in the court system, the judge and lawyers take complete control. The couple has no say in the outcome. THERE WILL BE A DIVORCE. The judge and lawyers are required by law to follow rules set by the New World Order, which operates from New York city. Judges are evil to the core in today's system. It's all about money and state control over the children.

His wife told him she wanted to find a new psychiatrist. She didn't drive a car so she asked her husband to drive her to the appointments. For three months her husband drove her to the appointments, dropped her off, and then came back an hour later to get her. We'll, he should have went with her because it turned out that there was NO DOCTOR in the first place. The man's wife made it all up for fear that she was going to be committed to a mental institution. She aimlessly wandered around for an hour each time, waiting for her husband to come back to get her. Once the man's wife found herself on a public transportation bus and didn't know how she got there.

One day she gave her husband a drink. He guzzled the drink down and then noticed soap suds in the glass (with a horrible aftertaste taste in his mouth). She had failed to rinse the Ajax dishwashing detergent out of the glass. Would you be upset? On another occasion the poor guy had food poisoning from eating one of her salads. She was just a walking accident everywhere she went, and her poor husband suffered day and night because of it.

The husband's wife doesn't want to kiss him, saying she doesn't like "mushy kisses." The poor man is frustrated with his wife's lack of desire for sensuality or sex. She tells her psychiatrist that she has no feelings for her husband. She openly admits to her husband that she has been cold-hearted for the past several years. Yet, she continues to be as cold as ice. He gets angry at her sometimes when he sees a pretty woman, feeling like he's been cheated in life. His wife won't spend five minutes in front of a mirror to pretty herself up for him. She just doesn't care.

He gives her a credit card and encourages her to buy whatever she needs to pretty herself up. She doesn't do it. He asks her to buy a book on "How to be Sensual." She won't order it. After several fights, she orders it, but then she won't read it. After several more fights, she finally reads it but won't try any of it. It's a constant uphill battle for the poor husband, fighting tooth-and-nail all the way to get his wife to be a wife. Then she leaves him when he gets angry with her. After 18 1/2 years of marriage she meets a religious feminist who influences her to divorce. That's always the answer of feminists... divorce, divorce, divorce!

Whereas the couple went down into the abyss of life's problems together, a helping hand from a meddling serpent pulls the wife out to move onto greener pastures. The husband is left on a sinking ship and drowns in his burdens and afflictions. The wife goes her merry way with her new friends, saying she doesn't love her husband anymore. It wasn't love, because loveth never faileth. There's no such thing as “I used to love you.” Either you loved then and still do now, and you don't now and never did to begin with! For anyone who's ever been abandoned by a loved one, divorce is the most painful experience in the world. There is nothing any more cruel than to forsake and abandon someone who trusted you with their life, love and future. Woe unto those who file for divorce!

The husband is devastated and refuses to sign the divorce agreement. The lawyer threatens that the judge is a lesbian and feminist who will likely take his children away if he doesn't sign. The lawyer threatens there will be lengthy and costly litigation, and ultimately the wife will get her divorce anyway, because one way or another the judge will give it to her. His wife gets a free lawyer for making allegations of abuse, but it costs him over $50,000 in legal expenses for an expensive lawyer.

BullConnor #racist stormfront.org

True story-when I was in high school, the assistant teacher in my homeroom was a black woman.
I dont remember how the subject came up but one day I was in the room and she and the (white) main teacher were talking about their kids or something, and she mentioned how when her kids were younger her and her husband used to take them to the zoo.

And she said this one time they went, when they were where the gorilla cage or enclosure was, and one gorilla (presumably male) was trying to throw feces toward them and some landed on them.
She then went on to say, how they were the only black people in that part of the zoo at the time.
This is a true story, no BS, straight from a black woman's mouth


SO! the QUESTION IS-if Black people are NOT Apes and races dont exist, then how come when apes/animals, such as gorillas, see a black person it's like looking in a mirror to them as if seeing another gorilla in front of them?????

peppermint #fundie peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com

Commies want to cuck the taxpayers with transfer payments.

Lolbergtarian induhvidualists want to cuck Whites by prohibiting Whites from organizing collectively while letting Japan, which does act as a nation, dump radios and cars on us.

Our economic philosophy is non-cuck-ism, because nature abhors a cuck.

This is the same as our general philosophy. Our core demand is that we not be cucked by being second class citizens our own country.

We can now dispense with the glib nonsense about elites and sheeple and social classes. Intellectuals, defined as people capable of overcoming their ingrained worldview, used to see themselves as superior, but the instincts and emotions that are our inheritance must have been adaptive. The average White man probably couldn’t deal with the PDEs of modern physics, but they can instinctually and intuitively deal with biology, the history of the White race, and make the demand not to be cucked.

— The Harvard Conspiracy —

Who do the ruling bureaucrats and journalists look up to? College professors. Who do college professors look ur to? Harvard professors. Some call it the Cathedral, I call it the Harvard Conspiracy. And what has the Harvard Conspiracy been up to?

— Sexual Mores of the White Race —

Freudianism was always a distraction from the only psychology which is evolutionary psychology and ethology, and always a battering ram against the biologically ingrained sexual mores of the White race. The fact that this obvious bullshit took so long for college professors to dispense with is proof that colleges are worthless.

(1) White women are extraordinarily beautiful, from the ages of 16 to 26 in particular, and that this must have come from extreme selective pressure to be beautiful, which implies that women who can’t get a good husband – this happens between 16 and 26 if it happens – don’t reproduce at all, which implies monogamy; while rice nigger females stay beautiful for longer – until their children are supposed to be grown up – because they need to keep their man’s attention in order to direct his resources towards their children.

(2) Post-christ christcucks, understanding that monogamy implies strict gender roles, tried to subvert gender roles by subverting monogamy, and tried both polygamy and nigger style sexuality with strong independent wywyn who don’t need no man, neither of which Whites were demonstrated to be suited for behaviorally, as demonstrated by the fact that “open relationships”, and single motherhood, left men and women and children miserable – but hey, they don’t have an intellectual perspective, right?

(3) White men, when they meet a strange young man, think the stranger could marry his daughter and pay his pension, while literally no one else would ever think this, because they don’t have the evolutionary history of, not only not being able to get more women themselves but needing to build up their community if they want their grandchildren to prosper. but also of the daughter having a nontrivial chance of missing out in the dating market entirely, not being able to reproduce at all, if there aren’t enough good men in the area.

Intellectuals should warn the other Whites that migrants will never pay pensions nor pay net taxes nor even work and marrying tbèm would be a genetic disaster, but intellectuals are gathered up and gaslighted and terrorized and bribed into treason or silence, which is why universities must be abolished.

— Timeline of Induhvidualism —

Induhvidualistic lolbergtarianism was always an anti-White hoax intended to play to Whites’ biologically ingrained individual industriousness and sense of fair play. Here’s its timeline.

In the ’30s, motivated in no way by scientific observation but by their religious shift from theistic christcuckery to some syncretic blend of that with Marxist “historical inevitability” socialism, which is popularly called liberalism, accepting and promoting the bizarre theory that race doesn’t exist.

In the ’40s, fighting WWII to save the USSR and destroy the alternative to Christo-Marxist liberalism.

In the ’50s, purging the labor movement of “White chauvinism”, as evidenced by giving a Black comrade a chipped coffee cup, and promoting the myth of the dindu Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who plagiarized his PhD and beat White prostitutes.

In the ’60s, the Civil Rights Act making it illegal to have a “hostile workplace” or a “hostile environment” for customers, with treble damages if the employer should have known the employee had a bad attitude. Of course, police and educators had already been covered by similar rules requiring them to be fired for expressing a bad attitude.

The Immigration Act of 1965, and Section 8.

The beginnings of the ethnic cleansing of Whites from the cities is probably in the ’50s as evidenced by Eldred Cleaver’s “brilliant and revealing” (NYT Review of Books) 1969 book bragging about raping White women as “a revolutionary act”.

In the ’70s, the Griggs decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people are required to hire Blacks, even if they don’t pass the test, if the test isn’t substantially related to the work. By 2009, that substantially related fig leaf was dropped entirely in the FDNY decision.

Special treatment for minority owned businesses leads to every gas station in the entire country being owned by a sand African-American or a curry African-American.

In 1980s, police begin to be required to promote Blacks on a quota basis.

In the 1990s, massive outsourcing of industry begins. The economic impact is masked by the continuing productivity gains.

Illegal immigration accelerates following the Reagan amnesty.

In the 2000s, with the end of the dot com boom, it becomes clear that the economy is faltering with all the manufacturing done overseas.

It is decided that, since minorities do not have higher foreclosure rates than Whites, the additional scrutiny they receive from bankers trying to make profitable loans is discriminatory.

Banks are required to make loans that they know will fail. These loans are sold to some sap holding a pension, because fuck you for voting for liberals old guy.

At some point in the 2000s the famous video of a nigger pissing on the corn flakes conveyor belt, thus demonstrating why the jobs went overseas, was made by two niggers that Kelloggs was required by law to hire and possibly promote as well.

And today, as illegal immigration accelerates, new jobs created matches newly employed immigrants.

Adi #fundie #wingnut faithandheritage.com

In a previous piece I noted how resistance against tyranny is a demand of the counter-revolutionary worldview. I argued that the use of political violence was not intrinsically at odds with the counter-revolutionary position. In this piece I would like to emphasise how this can by exemplified with a concrete historical example from the previous century. In the birthplace of the Revolution – where the Enlightenment found its greatest manifestation – France, we also saw the establishment of the first profoundly counter-revolutionary state in post-Enlightenment Europe: Vichy France. This state, which lasted from 1940 to 1944, was instituted by the French Prime Minister at the time, Philippe Pétain.

Pétain was regarded as a national hero because of his heroics in the First World War. Once in power, however, Pétain immediately moved to make peace with Germany and dissolve the Third French Republic, establishing the state of Vichy France.

The new state had to suppress those military forces who remained loyal to the old government and allied regime, called the French Resistance.

The Christian counter-revolutionary nature of the state was nowhere better exemplified than in its replacement of the revolutionary motto of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité (Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood) with its own tripartite motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie (Labor, Family, Fatherland). Pétain himself explained his counter-revolutionary opposition to the ideologies of the Enlightenment:

“When our young people . . . approach adult life, we shall say to them . . . that real liberty cannot be exercised except under the shelter of a guiding authority, which they must respect, which they must obey. . . . We shall then tell them that equality [should] set itself within the framework of a hierarchy, founded on the diversity of office and merits. . . . Finally, we shall tell them that there is no way of having true brotherhood except within those natural groups, the family, the town, the homeland.”

A national counter-revolutionary program, ironically called the Révolution Nationale, was implemented on the basis of the ideology underlying the counter-revolutionary triad. Charles Maurras, an outspoken counter-revolutionary Roman Catholic, was the program’s ideological father.

Maurras opposed the Enlightenment as a negative development on the West and the French people. He rejected equality and democracy and favoured a royalist, decentralized state with a national Church as protector of the moral order. On an economic level he favoured the re-institution of guilds – a kind of corporatism as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism. His theory of integral nationalism stood directly opposed to liberal civic nationalism in its view of the nation as an organic unity, albeit with a strong hierarchical structure.

The Révolution Nationale followed this ideology and made the following reforms in France:

– Measures to oppose the influence of Communists and Freemasons in the country
– Criminalization of homosexuality
– An ethnicity-based form of citizenship and promotion of ethnonationalism
– Corporatist reforms of the economy to oppose both capitalism and socialism
– A pro-agrarian policy that strove to curb the process of urbanization
– Restoration of patriarchal social and familial structures and tightening of divorce laws
– Intensifying the punishment for committing abortions
– Reinstatement of a Roman Catholic curriculum in secular public schools

Vichy France serves as a prime example of how counter-revolutionaries practically acted in reforming their nation and state in a distinctly non-pacifistic manner. Pétain was a war hero and not one to shy away from a physical conflict. The counter-revolutionary program implemented in Vichy France was even called a “National Revolution,” which changes nothing with regards to its counter-revolutionary nature given its anti-Enlightenment epistemic and philosophical basis. Vichy France implemented this all in the midst of strong opposition both at home and abroad. Even though the French government was not violently overthrown, it was a revolutionary shift in political authority that the men of Vichy France defended with violence against loyalists of the French Republic. It is a good example of a major political revolution in the midst of a brutal war, and it has a fundamentally counter-revolutionary character.

Modern-day Christian nationalist movements, such as those in Poland and Hungary and those now emerging all over the West, may in the very near future have to actively intensify their resistance to godless leaders in Brussels, and they would be right in doing so. It is our duty as children of God to engage in active resistance against tyranny – that is, to not remain content with being mere sociopolitical critics and a witnessing voice for the gospel, but, if need be, to actively engage in building the Kingdom of Christ proclaimed by that gospel.

David J. Stewart #fundie lovethetruth.com

The Bill Of Rights and U.S. Constitution only outline our God-given rights. If we disobey God, then we forfeit our right to liberty and freedom. Liberty is a gift from God, the privilege to make our own decisions. Freedom is the reward for making the right decisions. Rights Are Granted By God, Earned On The Battlefield, And Kept By Fighting To Keep Them! We have been making all the wrong decisions (i.e., banning the Bible and prayer in schools, legalizing abortion, legalizing pornography, legalizing same-sex marriage, no fault divorce, et cetera) for so long, that we are LOSING our freedoms and liberties. Why should God bless America? We murder our children in the womb. Now in 2016 children and Christians are being forced to use transgendered restrooms. As of June 26, 2015 same-sex perversion is legal in all 50 states. (In 1962 homosexuality was a punishable crime in all 50 states!) God hasn't changed, our wicked nation has! America will become a Godless communist totalitarian police state over the next 25-years. I assure you of that!!!

President John Adams saw the handwriting on the wall centuries ago. We've been hearing a lot in the newsmedia in recent years about the inadequacy of the U.S. Constitution for these changing times. It is true, because no agreement, constitution or manuscript mankind could ever put together could govern a wicked, out of control, thankless, naked, amoral, adulterous, arrogant, people!!!

Americans have lost their fear of God. No doubt this is why all Hollywood movies take the Lord's name in vain, showing utter contempt and disregard for the God of Heaven, earth and the universe!!! American society is turning further away from God each day! The consequences have been devastating! Faith in God is synonymous with freedom, liberty and God's blessings. Television incrementally becomes worse and worse. Music keeps becoming more degenerate—using foul street language, vulgarity and contempt for all authority. Our entire nation is becoming one giant crime slum. Fear of being a victim of crime is epidemic across the United States. The CIA has admitted to drug-trafficking into the U.S., which has destroyed millions of lives. The U.S. prison system is a lucrative crooked business, kept packed to capacity by the drug industry. Prisons And Profits (things they don't want you to know). The Caging Of America. The Corrections Corporation of America is Evil. Truly, morality cannot be legislated.

The Luciferians behind the subversion of America are sandwiching Americans between top and bottom. They traffic the drugs into the country, and then pass laws maximizing prison sentences for citizens convicted of drug crimes. We've become so accustomed to wickedness and perversion in America that parents are no longer phased, angered or determined to do something about it. Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about—Taylor Swift committing abominable promiscuous acts on camera in her music videos, which is leading our teens into sexual perversion, lasciviousness and premarital sex. This leads to unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock, abortion, a life of fornication, fewer people getting married, cohabitation, sexually transmitted venereal diseases, et cetera. There i absolutely no way that Taylor Swift's shameful behavior can be excused or justified. The not so obvious truth behind such filthy music videos (which has been going on in the music industry for the past 50 years), is that Luciferians are promoting satanism through the music industry. Read the preceding article about Taylor Swift to learn the ugly truth.

Anonymous #racist answers.yahoo.com

Why do black people sound like monkeys?

Every time I hear one of them "speak" I have to ask them to slow it down. They're constantly eeking and ooking, like monkeys. It just sounds like "eek eek ook ook muhfukkuh muh dick" to me. When they try to "speak" in an intelligent manner, I see them scratching their heads, struggling to form a coherent sentence, speaking way too slowly, and using words out of context. Is ebonics actually a separate primitive language, a combination of human and ape speak?

Black males often sound and act like gorillas, showing off muscles, grabbing their crotch and making the monkey noise "ook ook."

Females can be a lot louder and make a high pitched noise that sounds more like "eek eek."

Also, when I visit the zoo, sometimes I notify the zookeepers that one of the monkeys has gotten out of its cage. When they get to the scene, it turns out the monkey was a black person. How can I tell the difference between the two? I usually assume if something looks like an ape, smells like an ape, and acts like an ape, it's an ape.

Atavisionary #fundie atavisionary.com

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #sexist returnofkings.com

It is grim to realise that we have reached a point where our contemporary society is so sick, that it could be healthier for everyone if women were imposed the legal status of property instead of being free individuals. The fact that this absurd method could indeed create a safer society shows how cancerous our “progressive” Western world has become.

...

Women would keep the status of human beings even by becoming property. They would become the asset of a Senior Male Authority (SMA) from birth until his death or their own. In practice, the bond between man and female property would resemble the one between a legal guardian and a minor, incapacitated senior or mentally handicapped adult.

With women being children in adult bodies, the comparison is appropriate. But where the authority of the legal guardian expires in time, the right over female property would not be finite. All decisions would be taken by the SMA (father, older brother, then husband). The auction of a young woman from a father to a suitor of his choice would be agreed upon by setting a dowry.

Purchasing power would be in the hands of the SMA, preventing women to spend male income on frivolous and useless items like female “holidays” (the real sex tourism), designer clothes, drugs, club entrances and the like.

...

This measure would include the right of repudiation for the husband in case of serious misconduct. The decision would have to be studied and approved by a jury of adult all-male peers.

Repudiation would be efficient to keep women in line because they greatly fear being called out, held accountable, and losing resources or status because of self-inflicted behaviour, and this proposal would not deprive them from love. On the contrary, because of the affection that a man shows towards his property (added to the blood or family bound), the women he acquires will be safer. His “investment” has both a financial implication in addition to an emotional one.

To the triggered liberals, women are already property in Islam. But all I hear about it from the left on social media are crickets. Contrary to Shariah law, my theory does not include whipping, gang rape, honour killing, beheading or stoning when women are at fault.

...

10 societal benefits of declaring women legal property

1. No women in the military or police, so men and women would die less.

2. Divorce would plummet and single mommery would become a rarity.

3. No access to funds (under SMA supervision) for women would benefit the global economy.

4. Being a negotiable asset, women would be under constant male protection.

5. Women (and men) would die less of drug, tobacco, alcohol abuse and the heart diseases, cancers and violent or accidental deaths caused by it.

6. Due to heavy competition, women would have to be thinner, reducing the epidemic of obesity and the health risks that it involves.

7. Less child mortality and death during childbirth (women giving birth younger combined with better healthcare hence greater chances of survival).

8. No more left-leaning parties elected as women would be deprived of the right to vote.

9. Conservative governments elected by men would favour traditional families over leeches and degenerates.

10. Less domestic violence as women would avoid damaged men, having no personal resources (and hitting your woman would be like keying your own car: pointless).

...

7 ways this proposal would bring balance to the sexual market

1. No more welfare policies encouraging women to remain single or raise bastards. Welfare would be focused on those who need it the most, like veterans or the elderly.

2. No more inflated ego and instant gratification through attention whoring on social media. Its restricted access would create saner women. Promotion of degeneracy would be greatly reduced in the mainstream and social media.

3. No Instagram prostitution for wealthy sheikhs, being defiled for platform shoes and handbags with “stylish” patterns worthy of a child doodle.

4. Women would actively seek males based on their ability to provide, as they would have no alternative access to wealth.

5. Males would access a healthier sexual market, their hard work being rewarded by regular sexual intercourse, relative loyalty and children.

6. No more violent third world hordes imported by the votes of bitter women. No more homosexual agenda, gateway to the next great taboo, the pedophile-friendly agenda.

7. Professional advancement and success earned by women through sexual favours, like the one popular in Hollywood, would virtually disappear as adultery would be a valid reason for repudiation. “Promotion through horizontal refreshment” would only be used by already repudiated women, nothing of value would be lost.

...

It is not a panacea. The nature of women can’t be changed, but women-as-property would be finally held accountable after the “empowered” ones spent such a long time driving the Western world into the ground.

carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Once people started to deny that sin exists and make up their own "morals" here is what happened:

In the 1960's when the pill was introduced, people began to challenge the idea of "sin" which led them to think that there was nothing wrong with premarital sex. This led to the rise in std's and many more unwanted pregnancies which then led them to figure out what to do with them. So since sin was no longer considered sin, then instead of abstaining from sex, the idea of killing the unborn babies became another viable option. Killing babies then became legalized and many people began to think that we were finally becoming civilized.

Then in then 1970's, premarital sex wasn't enough so the next step was open marriages. This led to swinging, adultery, divorce, and broken familes. Then in the 1980's when adultery wasn't enough, homosexuality began to make its public appearance. This led to the AIDS epidemic which is now considered to be on track as the number one cause of death in the world.

This led to the 1990's where still claiming there's no sin, homosexuals were given socieity's sanction to marry each other. And now the definition of marriage has changed for the first time in the history of mankind from being between a man and a woman to being between one person and another. This shows that the secular world has no clue why people were created male and female. Only religious people know. And it's still being debated about which person can marry which person, i.e. a mother and her child, a father and his child, etc. Now society has to change the definition of a husband and wife! A husband can now be a woman and a wife can now be a man!

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what can happen when people deny sin. Not only do they have no clue what marriage is, but what is right and wrong, period. And this confusion is what we are passing along to our children all to deny that God and sin exist. And then we wonder why our children are murdering people today? An adult first has to know what right and wrong is before he can teach his children anything! This shows that we are definitely not fitter than the previous generations but in an escalating state of decay. And what's sad is that many adults who consider themselves so intelligent can't see that. That's how arrogance clouds judgment. Only Christians appear to understand why the above is decadent and leads people to death because we don't deny that sin exists. And atheists calls us evil. Yes indeed, Satan can deceive people into believing that the truth is a lie and that lies are the truth.

Michael Houdmann #fundie compellingtruth.org

What is radiometric dating? Does it fit with the view of a young earth?
Radiometric dating is the way that scientists determine the age of matter. Radiometric dating techniques are applied to inorganic matter (rocks, for example) while radiocarbon dating is the method used for dating organic matter (plant or animal remains). The idea of a young earth, as presented in the Bible, is not compatible with the findings of radiometric dating.

What does this mean for Christians? Are we forced to accept that the Bible is inaccurate or not literal, based on what radiometric dating has found? It's a good question. First, let's look at what radiometric dating is, and how scientists determine the age of matter.

Radiometric dating is based on the rate of decay of certain isotopes, which is defined as: "each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element." The isotope Uranium-238 (U238) is one of these unstable, radioactive isotopes. Over time, U238 decays and goes through many unstable stages, until it finally becomes stable as Lead-206 (Pb206). U238 is the "parent" isotope, and Pb206 is the "daughter" isotope.

Scientists found that by measuring the amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes in matter (seeing how much of the U238 has stabilized into Pb206), they could accurately calculate the age of that matter. For example, it takes 4,460,000,000 years for half a sample of U238 to turn into Pb206. So, if they found a rock that contained an exactly equal amount of these two isotopes, they could date that rock at exactly 4,460,000,000 years old.

There is no question that radiometric dating is accurate—provided that certain assumptions are true. First, we must assume that the rate of decay of U238 into Pb206 has remained constant over time. Second, we have to assume that no other chemical processes have adulterated the rate of decay (no amount of either parent or daughter has been added or taken away from the specimen). Third, we have to assume we know how much of each the parent and the daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process. The rate of isotope decay will always remain the same, but the accuracy of radiometric dating depends on these assumptions being correct for the specimen in question.

Assumptions two and three are not by any means certain, because how can we really know, having not watched the specimen over its entire life, how much of each isotope was present at the beginning, and whether or not anything was added or taken away? We can't know, so scientists are working on reasonable guesswork there. However, the first assumption (that the rate of isotope decay has remained constant over millions of years) has always been pretty much unquestionable—until recently. New research has found evidence to suggest that isotopes decayed at different rates in the unobservable past. This research is based on yet another element, called helium.

Helium is a gas—very light, with very small atoms, and is unreactive. Helium is a byproduct of the decay process of U238 into Pb206. As the uranium isotopes pass through their unstable stages on the way to becoming lead isotopes, they let off helium. Now, scientists found some crystals called zircons within granite specimens, which still contain a good deal of helium. According to radiometric dating, these zircons (and the surrounding granite) should be 1.5 billion years old. But if that were true, the helium, because of its nature, would have escaped from the rock over that much time (its atoms are smaller and lighter than the atoms of the zircons). However, there was still plenty of helium inside the zircons. It should have slowly seeped out, but it didn't. Because of this, scientists can now assume that the zircons, and the surrounding granite (a type of Precambrian granite that is the same across the entire planet) cannot be more than 4,000 to 14,000 years old.

New research has determined that radiometric dating is not an infallible method. This example shows that there is still so much that we do not know. Scientific discovery is important, and should never be discouraged, but when it contradicts the Bible, it is rational for Christians to reserve judgment and wait for further evidence to be revealed.

Resources:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/accelerated-nuclear-decay

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Carico #fundie christianforums.com

No creation can ever be superior to its creator

Again, this is an incontrovertible truth. A creator has to have the capacity to produce its creation and apes do not. Apes do not have the capacity to speak or form complex analyses and tasks. All anyone has to do is go to a zoo to see that. They therefore can never pass along genes with traits that they themselves do not possess. Evolution is simply a made-up story that tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. And even if the hole is much bigger than the peg, the peg will never "fit" into the hole. And neither does the theory of evolution fit into reality. It contradicts incontrovertible truths like the process of reproduction, and the fact that no creation can ever be superior to its creator. That's only possible in the imagination.

Lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

Women should be locked in chastity belts

Femoids have an unquenchable thirst to slut around with different men, especially Chad and Tyrone. And due to such, they embrace the way of promiscuity since a very young age, and ride the cawk-arousel until they settle with some beta provider. Which is why chastity belts need to be reintroduced to this society once again to control hedonistic pleasures of bitches.

All father's should make a mandatory rule where their daughters should wear and be locked in chastity belts -- and by doing so, it would decrease the number of premarital sex rapidly and would also decrease the epidemic of young single mothers. When a femoid reaches her appropriate age, the father would then handover the key to her partner; the male owner. Who would also keep the femoid locked in the chastity belt until he wants to engage in sex with her. This is not only a very good method for men to avoid getting cucked, but also prevent femoid cunts from succumbing to their deep rooted sluttiness.

Various academics and Tom O’Carroll #fundie telegraph.co.uk

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again. The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.” Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds. Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today. With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”. The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!

The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential. Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.” As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”

Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation. In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts. After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people. Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences. But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular. Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.

Phyllis Chesler #fundie meforum.org

<table>

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

It's become fashionable to draw comparisons between the popular television adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Donald Trump's America.

Margaret Atwood, whose work I have long admired, is now being hailed as a prophet. It is quite the phenomenon. According to the pundits, Atwood's 1985 work, The Handmaid's Tale, which Mary McCarthy once savaged, and the recently-published 2019 sequel, The Testaments, are dystopias which aptly describe the contemporary climate change crisis, toxic environments, the rise in infertility, and the enslavement of women in Trump's America.

Is this all Atwood is writing about? Do the increasing restrictions on abortion in America parallel the extreme misogyny of Gilead, the theocratic state in Atwood's saga? Is the unjust separation of mothers and children, a la Trump on the southern border, what Atwood has foretold? Every review and interview with Atwood that I could find strongly insists that this is the case.

Michelle Goldberg, in the New York Times, attributes the current popularity of The Handmaid's Tale to Trump's ascendancy. She writes: "It's hardly surprising that in 2016 the book resonated—particularly women—stunned that a brazen misogynist, given to fascist rhetoric and backed by religious fundamentalists was taking power."

<table>

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

Gilead-inspired handmaid outfits have become popular at anti-Trump rallies as far away as Poland.

... At the anti-Trump pro-women's rights marches around the country, some feminist protesters dressed like Handmaids in billowing, shapeless red dresses, their facial identities obscured by large, white Victorian-era bonnets, carrying signs that read: "Make Margaret Atwood fiction again" and "The Handmaid's Tale is not an instruction manual."

They have a point. Abortion rights are being steadily challenged and nearly eviscerated in the formerly slave-owning American states. Right-to-life lawyers insist that the protection of unborn children without any gestational markers is the law of the land. We now have free states and slave states in terms of access to high quality, insurance-funded abortions. Pregnant, drug-addicted women are being jailed for child abuse.

<table>

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

Gilead most reflects what is happening not in America, but in most Islamic countries.

However ... [t]here's another contemporary parallel that also gets scant attention. Gilead's system of pseudo-theocratic totalitarian control in both her novels and in the MGM/Hulu versions does not accurately reflect what is happening in America today; it mirrors what is happening in most Islamic countries, a fact that Atwood and her admirers are too politically correct to notice.

Obscuring one's individual identity, masking one's face, sequestering women at home, may have been true of many previous cultures and regimes. However, in this day forced niqabs (face veils) and burqas (head, face, and body bags) are mainly realities for women in Muslim countries and communities in the West. In Iran in July, three women were sentenced to a total of 55 years between them for protesting against the veil.

<table>

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In July 2019, an Iranian court sentenced Yasaman Aryani (left), Monireh Arabshahi (center), and Mojgan Keshavarz to a total of 55 years in prison for protesting against the veil.

In The Handmaid's Tale Atwood does mention Islam twice (to exonerate Muslims as the suspected mass murderers of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Oval Office in Gilead (p.174) and again in a reference to the "obsession with harems" on the part of allegedly Orientalist Western painters who did not understand that they were painting "boredom" (p.69). Atwood's quintessential Bad Guys are Caucasian, Bible-thumping, right wing, conservative, American Christians.

Where else but in the Islamic world do we see forced face veiling, forced child marriage, women confined to the home, polygamy (a "wife" and a "handmaid" under the same roof), male guardians and minders, cattle prod shocking, whipping, hand amputations, stoning, crazed vigilante mobs stomping and tearing people apart, and tortured corpses publicly displayed on city walls or hanging from cranes in order to terrify the populace? Or the torture murder of homosexuals? This is how Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan, the tyrants of Somalia and Saudi Arabia, interpret, correctly or incorrectly, Sharia law.

How could all the reviewers not see what I so clearly see? Perhaps here's how.

I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan—a harem simply means the "women's quarters." It is forbidden territory to all men who are not relatives. If you can't leave without permission or without a male escort, you are in a harem and living in purdah.

<table>

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

"I once lived in a harem ... the property of a polygamous Afghan family."

After a 30-month courtship, I married the glamorous, wealthy, very Westernized, foreign student whom I first met at college when I was 18. We never once discussed religion. Not a word about Islam. He had not prepared me for what life would be like in his country, even temporarily. For example, he had never even mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children, that most Afghan women still wore burqas or heavy hijab, that I would be pressured to convert to Islam, and would have to live with my mother-in-law.

When we landed in Kabul, officials smoothly removed my American passport—which I never saw again. Suddenly, I was the citizen of no country and had no rights. I had become the property of a polygamous Afghan family. I was not allowed out without a male escort, a male driver, and a female relative as my chaperones.

This marriage had transported me back to the 10th Century and trapped me there without a passport back to the future.

I experienced what it was like to live with people who were permanently afraid of what other people might think—even more so than in Small Mind Town, USA.

<table>

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

Read more about the author's captivity in Afghanistan in her acclaimed 2013 book.

I was terrified when I first saw women wearing ghostly burqas—ambulatory body bags, sensory deprivation isolation chambers—huddled together literally at the back of the bus. My Afghan family laughed at my over-reaction, which was considered abnormal, not their practice of burying women alive.

My dreamer-of-a husband kept assuring me that the dreadful burqa and my captivity would both soon pass. He lived to see this dream come true for about 15 years for the middle classes until it was shattered again, perhaps forever.

Many Afghan women have mothers-in-law who beat them and treat them as despised servants. Mine never hit me or ordered me to cook or clean, but she tried to convert me to Islam every single day and tried to kill me by telling the servants to stop boiling my water and washing my fruits and vegetables. I got deathly ill.

Poor woman, she was a deserted and much maligned first wife. She feared me, envied me, hated me—as a woman, an infidel, a Jew, an American, and mainly, as a "love match," something considered too dangerously Western. Afghan mothers-in-law do collaborate in or even perpetrate the honor/horror killings of their daughters and daughters-in-law. So do rural India-based Hindu mothers and mothers-in-law, Muslim mothers and mothers-in-law world-wide, and Sikhs, to a lesser extent.

I got out of the wild, wild East and I moved on. But I never forgot the way it was. I always understood that as imperfect as America and the West might be, it was still a much better place for women than the Islamic world. Forever after, I understood that barbaric customs are indigenous, not caused by foreign intervention; and that, like the West, Islam was also an imperial and colonial power, owned slaves, and engaged in gender and religious apartheid.

I owe Afghanistan a great deal for teaching me this. Perhaps my radical Western feminism was forged long ago in pampered purdah in Kabul.

Islamic or Islamist totalitarianism today and as I knew it nearly 60 years ago in Kabul is the more obvious face of Gilead than the one imagined by Atwood more than 30 years ago.

Like the handmaids and domestics in Gilead, the captive population in Orwell's 1984 is monitored around the clock through "telescreens" that can view every room, each person. The telescreens broadcast Big Brother's orders and conduct daily "hate" sessions. People are always anxious and paranoid; everyone has permanent enemies.

Today, Orwell's Thought Police sound a lot like the Afghan Taliban or like Iran's or Saudi Arabia's Virtue­ and-Vice squads, who arrest men and women for the smallest sign of "individuality" or difference, and who harass and arrest women for showing a single strand of hair, or a glimpse of ankle. Here's Khaled Hosseini's fictional description of life in Afghanistan under the Soviets in The Kite Runner:

You couldn't trust anyone in Kabul anymore—for a fee or under threat, people told on each other, neighbor on neighbor, child on parent, brother on brother, servant on master, friend on friend...the rafiqs, the [Afghan] comrades, were everywhere and they'd split Kabul into two groups: those who eavesdropped and those who didn't...A casual remark to the tailor while getting fitted for a suit might land you in the dungeons of Poleh-charkhi...Even at the dinner table, in the privacy of their own home, people had to speak in a calculated manner—the rafiqs were in the classrooms too; they'd taught children to spy on their parents, what to listen for, whom to tell.

And here he is describing Afghanistan in the Taliban era:

In Kabul, fear is everywhere, in the streets, in the stadiums, in the markets, it is a part of our lives here...the savages who rule our watan [country] don't care about human decency. The other day, I accompanied Farzanajan to the bazaar to buy some potatoes and naan. She asked the vendor how much the potatoes cost, but he did not hear her, I think he had a deaf ear. So she asked louder and suddenly a young Talib ran over and hit her on the thighs with his wooden stick. He struck her so hard she fell down. He was screaming at her and cursing and saying the Ministry of Vice and Virtue does not allow women to speak loudly. She had a large purple bruise on her leg for days...If I fought, that dog would have surely put a bullet in me, and gladly!

Hosseini's descriptions are right out of 1984 or The Handmaid's Tale.

Two memoirs set in Iran, Azar Nafisi's best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran and Roya Hakakian's Journey from the Land of No, describe the savage curtailment of private life and thought—and of life itself—by radical Islamists.

<table>

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

Two compelling accounts of life for women in Iran's Islamic Republic.

According to Nafisi, Khomeini's goon squads closed news­papers and universities and arrested, tortured, and executed beloved teachers, prominent artists, intellectuals, and activists, including feminists, and thousands of other innocent and productive Muslims. The squads constantly harassed women on the street and at work. If a woman failed the dress-code standards even slightly, or by accident, she risked being arrested, probably raped, probably executed.

In Journey from the Land of No, Roya Hakakian describes the in­describable "Mrs. Moghadam," the newly-installed head of the Jewish girls' high school. Mrs. Moghadam tyrannizes, terrifies, and shames the Jewish girls. She tries to convert them to Islam. However, her true passion is more Talibanesque. She informs the innocent girls that, although they do not know it, they are "diabolical," "abominable," "loathsome," "lethal," capable of "drowning everything in eternal dark­ness," capable of bringing the "apocalypse" by showing a single strand of hair. To Hakakian's credit, she presents a rather dangerous turn of events as a dark comedy.

Mrs. Moghadam is definitely an Aunt Lydia, the lead female tormentor of the Handmaids, right out of Gilead, circa 1985.

<table>

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

Many Western feminists mistakenly see the face veil and head scarf as symbols of anti-racism.

As Muslim women are being tortured, honor-murdered by their families, or stoned to death, sometimes for refusing to wear the veil, many Western multiculturally and politically correct post-colonial feminists are deconstructing and wearing the face veil and the head scarf as symbols of anti-racism and as a form of respect when they visit Muslim countries. Such feminists are also silencing and demonizing all other views in academic journals, in the media, and on feminist internet groups.

I've written about this many times. Therefore, while I know that violence against women still remains a burning issue in the West, I agree with Allison Pearson's recent article in The Spectator: "The appalling vanity of Western Feminists who think Margaret Atwood writes about them."

Atwood depicts an all-female power structure in which the handmaids are kept in line by cruel female "Aunts," led by Aunt Lydia, who casually apply cattle prods and tasers, who blame them as evil sluts, punish them with group condemnation, bouts of solitary confinement, exile them to the "Colonies" to die cleaning up toxic waste, etc. Such behavior seems to contradict feminist views of women as morally superior to men and as more compassionate and intuitive.

<table>

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Aunt Lydia (left) and the al-Khansa Brigade of ISIS

Like men, women are human beings and as such are as close to the apes as to the angels. Women are also aggressive, cruel, competitive, envious, sometimes lethally so, but mainly toward other women. I would not want to be at the mercy of a female prison guard—or a female concentration camp guard—in the West. But let's not forget the Wives of ISIS—the all-femaleal-Khansaa Brigade who whipped, beat, and mutilated the breasts of girls and women when their heavy black burqas slipped. Displaced ISIS women continue their anti-woman reign of terror.

Misogynist thinking and actions exist in America today but not only among right-wing conservatives. It is also flourishing among our media and academic elites. Such thinking is flying high under the banner of "free speech," "multi-cultural relativism," "anti-racism," and "political correctness." Dare to question this elite's right to silence and shame those who challenge their views—i.e., that the West is always to blame, that jihadists are freedom-fighters, that the Islamic face veil is a free choice or a religious commandment, that polygamy encourages sisterhood, that Islam is a race, not a religious and political ideology—and, as I've noted many times, one is attacked as a racist, an Islamophobe, and a conservative, and swiftly demonized and de-platformed.

While MGM/Hulu's TV series is dramatically compelling, part soap opera, part horror movie, part Warrior Queen fantasy, the series is radically different from Atwood's 1985 novel. For example, Atwood's narrator, Ofglen, is not an increasingly daring, crazed, female assassin, as Elizabeth Moss brilliantly plays her. She is hardly heroic at all; under totalitarianism, heroism, collective or individual, is quickly ferreted out and destroyed. It exists but is rare.

Contemporary viewers are hungry for multi-racial characters, interracial and same-sex couples, "badass" women. Hulu gives them to us. Hulu's Canada is a multi-racial, politically correct refuge for Gilead's escapees; same-sex couples and feminists are government leaders. This is not true in the novel. On the contrary, in her 1985 Epilogue, Atwood has Canada rounding up and returning all Gilead escapees.

<table>

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Media and academic elites are playing partisan politics with Atwood's original vision.

Atwood the divine novelist is absolutely entitled to depict whatever she wishes. But the current crop of reviewers as well as the filmmakers are playing partisan politics with her original vision and are refusing to see other and larger global dangers contained in her work.

Women's freedom and women's lives worldwide are under the most profound siege. To focus solely on the United States or on the Caucasian, Judeo-Christian West is diversionary. It scapegoats one country, one culture, for the far greater crimes of other countries and cultures.

Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of eighteen books, including Women and Madness, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, An American Bride in Kabul, and A Politically Incorrect Feminist.

Notes:

[1]Commercial surrogacy has been outlawed in India, Thailand, parts of Mexico, Malaysia, and South Africa, as well as in many European countries including Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK. Hence, the campaign to legalize commercial surrogacy in America has gathered momentum.

[2] Contemporary surrogacy has now become a way of slicing and dicing biological motherhood into three parts: an egg donor, who undergoes painful and dangerous IVF procedures; a "gestational" mother who faces all the risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and potentially negative and lifelong medical and psychiatric consequences; and an adoptive mother or father. This vivisection of motherhood makes it impossible for a birthmother to win custody for any reason.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

(NOTE: It is HIGHLY likely this post will not be visible long due to the instability of Lady Checkmate.)

Lady Checkmate's headline:
Praise Report: Alt-Left troll issues death threat and demands we close our Christian channel

Brethren, I come before you humbly and yet boldly to share a testimony. Praise God! God has made us a beacon of light in this dark place where persecuted Christians are compromising and sharing a watered-down Word to cut down on offending bully unbelievers many of whom are spinning their wheels casting pearls before the same user(s) that are utilizing multiple accounts to harass and wear down believers (disobeying God). Not so here. In fact, I have a praise report of persecution that includes death threats and mirrors what Christians are experiencing nation-wide and in fact world-wide. Lets get to it:
There is a lost and very confused alt-left reprobate who hates God and uses Disqus to harass and persecute Christians (same person - just new user names/socks). He is obsessed with our community (has been for a couple of years now). This individual is mentally unstable, highly delusional, literally stalks us, uses multiple sock accounts to down vote Christian comments, issues death threats, posts very vulgar inappropriate comments and when sanctioned immediately turns around and opens new sock accounts through which he continues to troll and brags "You can't stop me." - although he is in fact stopped every time by one click. Again, he is a very deluded and unstable individual possibly self-medicating with meth and other street drugs, mentally and physically ill and prostituting himself from the comments he sends. The man needs Jesus Christ, but has rejected God and Truth. After ministering to Him for a long time and being abused by him constantly, it was obvious that he was reprobate and it was time to shake the dust from our feet and stop casting pearls to be trampled upon.
When he realized his mission to stop the gospel of Jesus Christ from going forth here with lies, twisting scripture and manipulation was futile, he started trolling heavily (character assassinations, lies, manipulations/witchcraft, twisting scripture as Paul said they would, a petition to stop sharing Jesus Christ here, entrapment {he would use various fake user accounts to literally troll our community and when sanctioned, he would cry foul}. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.). So, he started a channel specifically to troll us with and when that didn't work and the sock account he'd selected to lead the persecution was deleted by Disqus for targeted harassment and yet we continued to share Jesus Christ here, he became so "enraged" (his word, not mine), that he started going from channel-to-channel in his attempts. That didn't work either, so he's back and resorting to threats, specifically death threats.
He has made several death threats and I can only share some of the content as his comments are very vulgar, and inappropriate. I will share some of his delusions and lies and then I will share Truth so that others may be edified as to what is going on in our community and how it mirrors the persecution of Christians in the world and is addressed in scripture. I pray the brethren are edified.

His lie: "This is a group of people you have pissed off."
Truth: He is one person, possibly demonized with many evil spirits.
Scriptural reference:
Mark 5:8-10
8 For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” 9 Then He asked him, “What is your name?”
And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country.

His lie: "You opened a door you are unable to close. Shut down your channel now."
Truth: God opens doors of opportunity for believers to minister to others, not us ourselves. And what God opens no man can shut and what He closes no man can open. The unbeliever is trying to make it about believers when it is God's Truth he hates.
Scriptural reference:
Revelation 3:7 (NKJV)
7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:

His lie: "You lie about homosexuals."
Truth: No. We speak only the Truth here. Homosexuality is an abomination. God hates sin, not the individual, but the sin. We will not call evil good nor good evil here. We will not call what God calls shameful honorable.
Scripture reference:
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Romans 1:26-27(NKJV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

His lie: You instantly ban anyone who exposes your hatred. You are evil to your core."
Truth: I love you enough to tell you the gospel Truth even though I know we'll be persecuted for it. We're a Christian community and all are welcome who can comply with our community guidelines. We love you and that is why we joyfully endure the persecution that comes along with sharing Jesus Christ with those who hate Him. It is because believers love you that we share Truth with you...so that it may set those free who are called to Jesus Christ. I only sanction those who ignore our community guidelines, walk through warnings, persecute the saints, come here just to troll, disdain and harass believers and who are not interested in hearing the gospel, but are only here to disparage believers and God, blaspheme, mock Holy Spirit and stop us from ministering to those who want to hear the gospel. Those will not be suffered here. I'm saved by grace. I am the righteous of God through Jesus Christ. His sacrifice redeemed and saved me.

His demand: "Leave now."
My response: No - you were told no years ago. We will be here as long as God allows us an open door to minister and to be light in this dark place. Your threats are empty. You do not intimidate us. Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world. I rebuke you in Jesus name.

Clearly he is attempting to persecute Christians in our small community just as believers are being persecuted all over the world. If one is offended here, it is because of the gospel. I seek not my own. We only share Jesus Christ. We do not interpret it/add to nor take away from it...we only share gospel Truth. Be blessed brothers and sisters as only those who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. Amen.

Theses are the sock accounts he opened in the last couple of days to issue death threats and pepper our threads with colorful words and many vile and vulgar insults (note he follows the same three (3) or four (4) channels for ALL of his sock accounts - no disrespect to any channel owners nor mods, but this indicates he's (satan has) setup a stronghold in those communities and is more than likely operating many user accounts under false pretenses, i.e., brethren you're more than likely arguing with the same person using different user names, yes you're being trolled):
HarrisonShelton, NeilBlandford, LouieBalooie, SandyDenny, BerylWilliams, GordonBrown, MatthewDelacort, FrederickMaloway, WilliamBenneton

Note the dates the accounts were opened and the 1, 2 or 3 comments posted which are not visible because they were death threats, contained profanity, trolled, etc. and were removed from our threads. These are sock accounts brethren, utilized by one (1) alt-left reprobate to troll us and issue death threats:

corpsedoll #sexist reddit.com

This is what I really don't understand. Menstruation and childbirth are painful, exhausting, and occasionally life threatening. And having a uterus is no guarantee that you'll get the ideal procreative outcome. Why would you want something that is so risky, painful, and annoying, especially if you're already set up to procreate in the "fun" manner?

The only explaination I can come up with is that these bodily functions still hold massive amounts of spiritual or subconscious power in the human psyce, despite millenia of patriarchal programming designed to paint them as demonic, evil, and gross. This is the wellspring of women-specific power and no matter how men frame that power, they can't take it from us and they can't get rid of it. For colonization junkies, that's gotta be a real sore spot.

This trans uterus envy seems like a 21st century reversal of Freud's penis envy, which was itself a reversal of men's inherent jealousy of women. So men are back in touch with their most deeply held feelings and are no longer denying them, but sadly their sense of entitlement and their desire to colonize hasn't dissipated. sigh.

Krul #fundie voxday.blogspot.co.uk

Back in college when I first started paying attention, I noticed something bizarre.

The popular perception is that feminists hate men. This is not perfectly accurate. Feminists envy men. In reality, the thing that feminists hate and wish to see utterly annihilated and forgotten is... women.

I came to this conclusion after observing that feminists do not only seek to see traditional "manly" pursuits made available to women. They also wish to prevent women from engaging in traditional "womanly" pursuits, e.g. homemaking and childbirth. Anything that smacks of a distinctive "female" identity is viciously attacked, while "male" pursuits are lauded as worthy "empowering" ambitions. Their ideal world is one composed entirely of creatures which are masculine in appearance, ability, and appetite.

In my opinion, those who say that feminism is a "war against men" have it exactly backwards. Feminism is a war against woman kind.

From this perspective, the well known alliance between feminists and male gays takes on a suggestive new context.

Robert Lindsay #fundie archive.today

I write about this a lot. Women and men inhabit different universes and the reason for that is biological.

Of course I supported women’s liberation as a child of the 60’s. But it opened a Pandora’s Box and most feminists now are just lunatics. It’s not a sane movement if it ever was.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Jewish women are way smarter than Asian chicks but Jewesses were raised under feminism and I understand that they are typical Western hellions.

Before women were like animals in the zoo. Sure, you can make modern zoos as humane as possible, but the animals are still in the zoo. They are not free. Prison is comforting, but at the end of the day, you are in jail and you are not a free man or animal. It wasn’t right to lock women or Blacks or gays in zoos or metaphorical prisons as we did.

Women, gays and Blacks were at best anthropological curiosities. You know, maybe it is fun to feed them and watch them in their cages, but you don’t exactly what them roaming free and really we straight White males are humans and those others are just zoo animals, so they are inferior.

The Liberation Movements of the 1960’s opened up the zoos in which we kept half the population, the queers, the Blacks and the rest. But now really we have the equivalent of lions and tigers running loose in our streets and you can’t call anyone to come capture these dangerous animals because it’s against PC.

Women nowadays are unleashed. They are untamed and feral. Feral women is not a pretty picture. It’s great for some guys and it’s crap for most. They revert to Cavewomen and practice hypergamy and other natural things that civilization was set up to keep in check in order to create a livable society. Women’s Liberation has led to Roissy, PUA’s, the Men’s Movement, Game Theory, the rise of the Republican Party and lots of other strange things. Women hate most of these things, but the truth is that they are children that women birthed.

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

I saw a 48-minutes documentary on TV about a guy that went to Russia to find his dream bride. He married her within two days of meeting her. Most women in foreign nations just want a one way ticket out of poverty by marrying an American husband. They want the good life in America, not interested in being a homemaker or wife. They said it was true love at first sight. When they married and moved to America, she wanted to do her own thing. The man wanted a wife to spend time with him, but she wanted to go places shopping with her friends. He wanted a wife, but she wanted an independent life.

The tragic end was that the husband beat his wife up and the cops killed him when he resisted arrest. She didn't love him at all. She only married him to live in America. It was in the news recently that the rate of singles, people living alone, has been steadily increasing in America for decades. Feminism is to blame! People have become intolerable of each other, particularly because women are ultra-sensitive about THEIR RIGHTS. Men want a wife in their life, but women want a life without being a wife. Pursuing a career is directly against God's plan for a woman's life (1st Timothy 5:14-15). Women belong at home, barefoot and having babies, working in the kitchen.

I heard a woman say that women should always pursue a career so that they will not be dependent upon a man to take care of them. She said that women should be able to support themselves if a husband dies or divorces. The problem with her unrealistic reasoning is that there's no way for a young woman to pursue an education without forfeiting motherhood. What woman is going to earn a college degree, going into debt for $100,000 for a school loan, and then become a mother. It's not realistic. Women who graduate college work careers. Who will take care of the children? Day care? strangers? Your parents? Feminists talk insane! Being a mother is a full-time job. There's no way that you can go to school, pay off a loan, work and properly raise children. Who's going to watch the children? God's way is the only logical way that makes sense and works. Women don't belong in the workplace. Call me old fashioned,, a chauvinist or whatever you'd like, God wrote 1st Timothy 5:14, not me.

Both the husband and his wife were wrong for mistreating each other, but the underlying issue was that the woman married to escape Russia, not to be anyone's wife. She said that he wanted her to be his property and she wasn't his property. I have news for you ladies, YOU ARE your husband's property!

Cat's Paw #fundie sluthate.com

Laws that would benefit incels

Legalize prostitution.

Stop subsidizing abortion and birth control.

Ban abortion except when it threatens the life or health of the mother, rape, incest, or fetal defect.

Abolish privacy laws. Women should not have the right to sue people who redistribute their slutty photos.

Abolish defamation laws that makes slut-shaming illegal and abortion-shaming illegal.

Abolish medical privacy laws that protect the knowledge of a woman's abortions or birth control medications. Taxpayers subsidize abortion and birth control so they have the right to know which women use those services.

Legalize discrimination against sluts, against women who is on birth control and against women who has had or is planning to have an abortion.

Make adultery and premarital sex illegal.

End alimony.

End the welfare state that makes women dependent on the state rather than letting men provide for them.

Make paternalist testing mandatory.

Outlaw all material (including TV shows and music) encouraging promiscuity.

Censor feminism and anything that is pro-abortion.

Ban all women from voting.

Outlaw all tattoos, "emo haircuts", immodest clothing, and anything that is contrary to monogamous culture.

Ban women from working. All women should stay at home to support their husbands and children.

Falic Integralism #sexist archive.is

I'm pro educated females. All the girls I had a thing for went to college or had some form of higher education, I like a female who is able to talk about various subjects.

I believe it's beneficial to educate females and orient them to specific jobs (social, nurturing, assistant etc.). Now It should be a lot closer to how it was in the 50's than now - absolutely and motherhood should be propagandized as well as essential to their happiness - but overall there is no reason to not use the females unique verbal intellectual specialism and nurturing nature in the work force. Part-time (up to 3-4 days at least). Some would still be working full time but it shouldn't be necessary for most (most wouldn't want it after becoming a mother anyway).

I don't believe women should vote on subjects of essence nor that they should be part of political parties. That's because they lack the visual intelligence and leadership quality on average for it to be beneficial to the nation and I believe only the better half of the white male population should be able to vote about such fundamental aspects of a society - with only the top half of the better half actually deciding / leading.

I agree it's not women but the propaganda for decades now which has created this current situation. That propaganda was started and increased by an Alien race created by males mostly - not females (that increased later though).

Lookismisreal #sexist incel.life

A feeble, inpatient femoid mind doesn't have the necessary intelligence to teach or lecture students in any kind of subject whatsoever since their IQ's have been stunted since childbirth. Due to this, these creatures never go beyond the textbook to teach anything new to their students because they don't have the mental capacity to do so. They are also extremely unimpartial when it comes to judging students since they tend to be influenced by things like friendship or their liking of the parent of the student. Most of the time they would side with their kind, in which, they would give much better grades to femoid students rather than to male students. This injustice would go further to a point where they would create a much more closed atmosphere in the classroom to make male students uncomfortable by filling their heads with feminist and SJW propaganda -- this can be experienced in most of the education centers in today's society.

I believe that femoid as teachers should be demolished since they contribute absolutely nothing to students these days. However, they can be of use when it comes to the practical side of subjects like biology simply by having sex with the male students. Every femoid teacher should be instructed to have sexual intercourse with their male students, in which they can give the students a much more comprehensible knowledge about sexual education. They should also be instructed to give more extra practical lessons to Incels because if these cum dumpsters had their way, they would only be fucking with the Chads/Tyrone's who are in the class. Any bitch who doesn't want to comply with such should be sued and sacked from its job.

Cognitive Dissonance Award

Libertarian Fascism is only an oxy-moron if you're not good enough at Doublethink.

BansheeBomb #fundie youtube.com

[responding to a video about anarcho fascism]

Libertarian fascism is the logical conclusion to a coercive state being replaced by property-rights focused private microstates. Degeneracy can not survive without state aid and hence free market incentives and economic natural selection will lead to the development of fascist-esque covenant communities. Libertarian fascism is only an oxy-moron if you base all ideological discussion on the political compass and disregard any deeper narrative.?

.....

If you don't pump out babies and pass on your genes future generations will have less of your qualities. This means that in a free society most people would be productive, neurotypical and heterosexual since those qualities would be encouraged if the only way you can provide for yourself is through hard work and there is no welfare state you can leech off of. It would also be impossible for more fertile races to have 10 children without consequences leading to whites prospering. Both homosexuality, single motherhood, marxism and multiculturalism is upheld through state subsidies, they are concept that can only exist by stealing from the white productive classes through taxes, that is the reason these concept couldn't survive pre-welfare state. Personally I have no idea what kind of rules a free society would have. Property owners would have to try several different types of systems and whatever private microstate doesn't go bankrupt in the free market would be the ideal one. Personally however I would prefer to live in a microstate that deported democrats, marxists and other degenerates since such a microstate would most likely prosper.?

David J Stewart quoting Jack Hyles #sexist #fundie #elitist jesus-is-savior.com

[From Jack Hyles’s advice for how to raise a young girl.]

1. Dress her like a girl. Let her have long hair. Let her wear lace and ribbons. Do not let her wear that which pertaineth to a man. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." The parent who wants to make a young lady of a daughter should see to it that she does not wear revealing clothes, but that she dresses modestly. I Timothy 2:9 and 10 says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

This must be started early in the life of a girl. If she never wears pants for the first time, she will always wear skirts. If she never wears mini-skirts for the first time, she will always wear skirts of a modest length. In these days of hot pants, mini-skirts, and pant suits, may God give us some old-fashioned mothers and dads who well rear some sweet, feminine ladies for our boys and dress them accordingly.

2. Teach her strict obedience. Other chapters stress the fact that obedience is the most necessary ingredient to be required from the child. This is especially true in the life of a girl, for she must be obedient all of her life. The boy who is obedient to his mother and father will someday become the head of the home; not so for the girl. Whereas the boy is being trained to be a leader, the girl is being trained to be a follower. Hence, obedience is far more important to her, for she must someday transfer it from her parents to her husband.

This means that she should never be allowed to argue at all. She should become submissive and obedient. She must obey immediately, without question, and without argument. The parents who require this have done a big favor for their future son-in-law.

3. She should not be allowed to play alone with boys. The parents should see to it that she plays with other girls. This is important for many reasons. She should play only with toys that are uniquely for girls. This, by all means, should include dolls, doll clothes, housecleaning equipment, dishes, pots and pans, etc. She should participate in sports enough to become coordinated but she should not excel in sports. If later she marries a man who is very athletic, she could become more proficient in some particular sport that he enjoys, but if she becomes an expert in a sport that is usually associated with men and boys, it could prove embarrassing to her future husband, and for that matter, it could entice her to become more masculine than she ought to be.

4. Teach her how to be graceful in sitting, walking, etc. Every mother who has a daughter should be careful to show her how to sit like a lady, walk like a lady, and exhibit propriety and grace in her manners. (Note the chapter on MANNERS.)

5. Teach her to be an intelligent listener and an articulate conversationalist. She should read a variety of good books and magazines and have a wide variety of knowledge. It should be obvious to any male with whom she is conversing that she is an intelligent listener and that she can understand and respond to his conversation. She should never seem to know as much as he does (even though she may actually know more) but enough to talk intelligently about his interests and to make him feel that his conversation is falling on receptive ears and an understanding mind. This means that she should learn all she can about everything, especially things that interest men. For example, she should know football, but she should not play it. There is nothing a man wants any more than to be understood by an intelligent listener.

The wise lady will never "take over" the conversation. She will add just enough to make a valuable contribution and to show her intelligence on the subject, but she will always make her man feel that he is the more knowledgeable. Of course, as a girl like chooses a man, she will want to choose the kind that is at least her equal, the kind that she will not have to dominate, and the kind whose mind and conversation will always intrigue her. This means that the wise mother will teach her girl not to be a wallflower and not to attempt to get by on beauty alone. She will teach her to be the kind of young lady who has a beautiful spirit and a beautiful soul, one who can communicate, one who is understanding, and one who is quietly articulate in conversation.

Though she should not be a football fanatic she should know enough about football to enjoy watching the game with her boyfriend, fiancée, or husband, if he so chooses. It should be obvious to him that she is enjoying the game and that she is knowledgeable about it, but that he can teach her even more.

6. Teach her to make her dad feel like a hero. A young lady that can treat her dad properly is more likely to treat her husband properly. If she makes her dad feel like a man when he is in her presence, she will not doubt make her husband feel like a man when he is in her presence. If the daughter is careful to refill Dad's glass at the table, see to it that he gets the best chair, listen to him intelligently when he talks, participate intelligently, yet meekly in the conversion, she will someday transfer this to her husband and her husband will rise up and call her "blessed."

7. Teach her to have the proper heroines. The mother should be very careful to see to it that the daughter does not idolize Hollywood starlets, female athletes, etc., but rather, feminine, yet successful women like the Bible characters Hannah and Elisabeth, and characters in history like Susannah Wesley and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Also point out feminine ladies whose path is crossed by the daughter and lead her to emulate them. It is very important that the young lady, even the girl, look up and idolize the right kind of people.

8. Teach her not to be too forward to boys. A young lady should not initiate a correspondence. If she cars for a boy she may respond to him with courtesy and feminine reserve so as to let him know she like him, but she should not be the aggressor, neither should her respond except within the bounds of propriety and right. It certainly is not proper for a young lady to call a young man on the telephone for a social talk, If there is obvious business, it may be done with reluctance, but it should never be done when the call is strictly for social purposes.

9. Do not show off her talent to others. As is mentioned elsewhere in this book it is far better for a parent to compliment character than talent. Many children have been ruined because their parents were too proud of them and their performances. This not only hurts the child but it disgusts other adults. In such cases the child receives far too much attention and then wants it for the rest of her life. Hence, she becomes maladjusted. Let her gain her own attention by her performance. Let her attract her own audience by her own ability and opportunities, not by the insistence of a mother or father who is overly proud of a daughter.

10. Let her do things that enable her to be a necessary help to another who is in the limelight. This is very important for a young lady. That is why learning to accompany a soloist is good training for a girl. Learning to take dictation is also good training. Both of these things train her to be a necessary helper to someone who is in the limelight. The Bible teaches that a woman is made not for the limelight but to complement and supplement. Proverbs 32:23 says, "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land."

The girl should be taught that her lot in life is to be obedient and helpful to her husband. Hence, if as a girl she can perform supplemental duties that are vital, she will be better equipped to be a well-adjusted lady. It is more important that a young lady be an accompanist on a piano than a concert pianist. Parents who train their daughter in this manner will someday be called, "blessed," by their son-in-law.

11. Teach her to pull for her dad. The wise mother will teach the girl to make a hero of her father and always pull for him. She should pull for him in business and do all she can to help. She should pull for him in any athletic contest and do all she can to cheer him to victory. In everything he does she should stand on the sidelines and root for her dad. She is being taught to root for the biggest man in her life and to cheer and spur him on to bigger heights. When she is married she will transfer this to her husband and will be a great encouragement to him.

The mother must teach the daughter that when the father is a success the daughter is also a success. She is a very vital part in his success, and as a member of the team she can share the victory and the spoils. When this attitude is properly developed she will feel the same way when she is married. When the husband wins a victory it will be a team victory rather than a victory just for him.

12. Teach her to plan for a profession but to hope that it will not be needed. Mothers and fathers should teach their daughters to train for some kind of profession that is always in demand. There is always the possibility that the daughter will never marry or that she will become a widow with children to rear and will not remarry. Because of this she should plan to pursue some profession that will enable her to support herself and her children in any eventuality. She should be taught that if possible, she should not follow this profession when married. This gives her a dependence, if the opportunity arises to be dependent, but an independence if needed. There are many professions that a young lady could pursue such as that of a school teacher, beautician, secretary, nurse, etc.

13. Teach her the sanctity of the body. Teach her that boys should keep their hands off and that her body should be clean in every way. She should care for her body. She should be well groomed and physically clean. Then she should also be moral and virtuous. Talk with her about situations which arise in the lives of most young ladies. Teach her how to handle each situation. Explain to her that that is the reason she should not be in a car alone with a boy. Teach her what to do if improper advances are made. Let her be conscious of the fact that her body is a very sacred thing and should always be treated as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

14. Teach her to do feminine chores. As is mentioned elsewhere it is better for a girl to do the dishes than the yard, to wash the pots and pans than the car, to clean the bedroom rather than the garage. She should do the duties that she will do when she is married and a successful mother and wife.

Much stress should be placed on the importance of her working hard. It is not feminine to be lazy. In fact, it is quite feminine to work hard. It is not working hard that makes one unfeminine; it is the doing of masculine tasks. Wise is that mother who teaches her daughter that good hard work is feminine and that the work a woman should do should be that of feminine chores.

15. Let her be around feminine women. Teach her to associate with ladies who are feminine. Point them out to her when she is a little girl and tell her they are the ones she should copy and emulate. Let these ladies be those who dress like ladies, talk like ladies, walk with feminine grace, sit with feminine charm. Let these be ladies who are good mothers and who have poise, dedication, chastity, consecration, and spirituality.

16. Let her baby-sit. It should be remembered that someday she will no doubt be a mother. She can prepare herself for this and train for it by caring for little ones while she is a teenager. When a girl gets around thirteen, she should becomes acquainted with taking care of little babies and small children. Her motherly instinct will be developed and nourished. This is very important in preparing her to be a successful and happy mother.

17. Let her care for younger girls in the family. Let her dress them, do their hair, wash their faces, etc. Even a girl seven or eight can care for a little sister. She should be encouraged to do so. This will teach her to fulfill responsibilities, to carry the load in the family circle, to work hard, and to prepare herself for motherhood.

18. Allow her to do no loud shouting or hollering. In fact, such should not be a part of anyone's household. The business of rearing children can be transacted without shouting or fussing. Especially should this be true in a girl, for the parent is to try in every way to make her quiet, meek, and feminine.

19. With the passing of the years, let her shop more for herself, and if she has younger sisters, let her aid them in doing their shopping. This will teach her to care for her own person and also for the needs of others.

The most noble goal that parents can set for their daughters is to help them become Christians. The second most noble goal is to lead them to be ladies, for one of the great needs of our generation is Christian ladies. May God use this chapter to make it so.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

The left has decided that they no longer want to live among people who share different views than them. They are plugging their fingers in their ears while yelling racist, fascist, Nazi, and Hitler. They are refusing to yield, compromise, debate, or even accept that their political positions are starting to lose in democratic elections despite suspected cheating that aids them. This has put us squarely in the middle of a cold civil war where both sides of the political spectrum are warming to the idea of killing each other.

A confirmation of the left’s defeat is apparent when you see how their maniacal behavior converts more people, especially moderates, against them. The biggest recruiting tool against the left has become the left. Every time they protest, riot, screech against white people, or show their vulgarity, the remaining mentally sane of America realize that the left’s platform has become so out-of-touch that it no longer represents the basic ideals of the country. The non-cucked right needs to merely show up after temper tantrums and say “Look how crazy they are” for the converts to come pouring in.

The left is out of options

Many people are wondering why the left has become a recruiting agent for the right by promoting or engaging in violence. First, they simply don’t know what else to do. When a parent tells a child that he can’t eat candy for every meal, and the child doesn’t have a logical argument about the merits of eating that candy, what does he do? He cries, stomps his feet, threatens to run away, throws out insults like “meanie” and “jerk,” and may even hit his parent to get his way. Donald Trump and his supporters are the parents who won’t yield to an emotional child.

The second reason why the left is hurting their cause with violence is because its billionaire controllers, particularly George Soros, want to divide America to such an irreparable extent that a hot Civil War is forced, giving them an opportunity to increase their power. Soros wants to create so much hate, animosity, and chaos that any resulting conflict has a chance of him holding absolute power, compared to the current situation where he has “only” a moderate amount. In other words, he rather take the chance of war to solidify his grip further.

The leftists that Soros sponsors in the Woman’s Marches and the antifa outbursts may also want a Civil War, but a quick look at their physiognomy shows they would struggle to even go one day without electricity, and that they possess the same psychological directive as the child who is angry that he can’t have candy. Soros is the creepy old neighbor who promises them the candy they crave because he wants to build their trust and get them alone. The child, naive about the extreme danger that lurks behind the likes of Soros, decides to follow him into a van parked in the alley to spite its own parents and their righteous authority.

The reason the right has been reluctant to respond with violence is because they’re winning. Violence comes not from a position of strength, but desperation, when every other option has been extinguished, and should serve as a signal to you of what the real score between the left and right really is. Without violence, the left currently has a 100% chance of losing, continuously and humiliatingly, for at least the next eight years. All the gains that took them decades to achieve will be lost if we ravage and rape their power structures.

With a hot civil war, the left has a 25% chance to win, a bet they are willing to take even though there is a high chance they will be among the first to die in the conflict. A logical person would ask why they would push for a conflict that is sure to destroy the infrastructure of the urban centers they live in, and one where food, water, and other basic necessities would be lacking. The answer comes upon realizing that a child does not realize that eating candy every day will make him sick. The child must therefore be commanded for its own good, because it does not have the capability to take care of itself or understand the consequences of its actions.

We all lose in a hot war

Before the warrior in you gets excited at the prospect of crushing the left in a hot war and killing antifa members with high-powered weapons as they wield sharpened mop handles at you, understand that any war in the United States would quickly become a proxy war involving all major military powers, particularly China and Russia, who would rush to spend billions of dollars to have ultimate control of the country. It would be protracted and match the first civil war in terms of brutality, where 2% of the population died.

With the current population, a 2% death rate would result in over 6 million deaths. Compared to the 3,000 that died on 9/11, which was seen as the greatest national tragedy of modern times, a hot war would effect every single American in a profoundly negative way. No sane person with a family would wish for this outcome, which further highlights the insanity of much of the left in pushing for this very result. They rather see millions of people dead and the country ruined than accept a democratic process where their crazy ideas lost.

Even if we avoid a hot war, the underlying problems are not solved. The left will constantly subvert against the country in hopes of achieving a hot war, use both economic and physical violence against those on the right whom they disagree with, and inevitably descend into terroristic violence that rivals ISIS. It’s intolerable for things to proceed as they are, but if we remove a hot war from the table, what option is left?

1-800-DIVORCE

I recommend the long divorce option, which has three components. The first is extreme law and order. Starting with the Federal government, every single instance of leftist threats, intimidation, and violence must be investigated, prosecuted to the maximize allowable by law, and publicized. The left have been getting away with their illegal acts for too long, to the point where violent protesters don’t even fear arrest, thanks to Democratic mayors and police chiefs who allow it. The FBI must uphold the law and punish those who break it, and municipalities or universities that allow illegal acts must be punished through withholding of Federal funds. This will immediately shrink the number of violent agitators on the left and limit the power of their institutions.

The second component of the long divorce option is to excise the left from all centers of cultural power so that they cannot actively convert the youth. The fake news, already on its last legs, must be replaced by organizations that are not so vehemently anti-American, academia must be purged, and all globalist traitors working in government, both on the Federal and state level, must be removed from positions of power.

The media is hemorrhaging money and viewers, millions of citizens are getting red pilled to the subversiveness of the academic system (particularly its anti-male and anti-white agenda), and Trump has begun to right the ship in the Federal government, which will certainly trickle down to the local levels. Because the leftist establishment is losing control over their narrative, the younger Generation Z is already showing signs of rightward thinking thanks to being raised on 4chan memes more than TV programming. This means that we simply need to remove millennials from power and wait for them to die of old age or AIDS while preventing them from causing further damage to American institutions.

Halting immigration is the third component of the long divorce option. The left has not been able to show how immigrants benefit American citizens besides more diverse restaurant options, and emotional pleas of “human rights” and “compassion” is not sufficient enough to turn the United States into a big welfare office. Open-borders immigration is hurting existing citizens, serving as a cynical means for leftists to gain more votes in elections while browbeating their enemies with “hate speech” codes that demand you love non-Americans more than Americans.

We must also advocate for a white population that increases from where it currently stands, because America is no longer America if that number dips below 50%, and will instead look something like an international airport. Once immigration is stopped, and illegal citizens are deported, it will become monumentally more difficult for open-borders politicians to win nationally again. This can be absolutely ensured if woman’s suffrage is repealed, a proposition that I know many find unpalatable, but one that would usher in an era of permanent winning.

[Submitters note: trying to repeal women's suffrage is probably why the hypothetical leftists want to kill you Roosh]

For us to win without a hot civil war, we have to retake the reins of power and peacefully co-exist with bitter leftists over the next fifty years while the culture slowly heals itself. Once institutions are purged of anti-American leftists, the new left will exist in more of a classical liberal form and believe in nominally nationalist ideas while accepting cultural values that are shy of traditional. The long divorce option will not excite you because of the length it takes to see a resolution, but it’s one that will preserve life and the existing infrastructure of the United States.

Four future outcomes

There are four outcomes that can proceed from the juncture of which we stand. The first is a globalist resurgence at the polls thanks to demographic changes that push the vote far to the left, starting in 2024. If this happens, we will have a president that is more authoritarian than Hillary Clinton. The boot will come down on all facets of American life, especially speech, and we will essentially be living in an open-air prison.

The second outcome is a hot war where we win. The country will be ravaged and millions will die, but at least most of the deaths will be leftists.

The third option is a hot war where we lose because of foreign involvement. Not only are we much more likely to die in this engagement, but the globalist boot will come down with such a viciousness that those on the right who survive may hope that they had died in the war.

And the fourth option is the long divorce, one that we will easily win if the recommendations I made above are taken. Very few people die and life can proceed with high stability and prosperity for the majority of the country.

The globalist left has so damaged the country from the decades they’ve been in power that there is no quick fix, and those of us who are alive today will likely not see a resolution that can be argued as “complete victory” during our lifetimes. I understand the frustration that many on the right have, and the desire they have to be immediately cured of poisons that the left has unleashed, but we must carefully analyze any outcome that results in the deaths of our loved ones and even ourselves. There is a time and place to die for what you believe in, but I hope I have convinced you that we have not yet reached that critical moment and that we can avoid the downsides of a hot civil war and the globalist boot by taking on the option of the long divorce to still win in the end.

The laws we have on the books are enough—let’s enforce those and allow the country to focus on itself instead of empire building and policing while the media and universities collapse upon the weight of their own lies and degeneracy. Besides, the entertainment value in watching the left screech and yell for the next several decades is sure to bring us reams of pleasure. That’s a better outcome than outright war.

onetimer #fundie reddit.com

[On an LGBT message board. Original post: "Screw Gay Marriage. Screw Marriage. Period. And make it civil unions for all. If people want to go and get married in a religious ceremony, good for them, but it shouldn't be recognized by the state any more than communion should be."]

America is a majority Christian nation, there is currently nothing wrong with the state recognizing marriages.

This is just a case of the jealous homosexual who wants nobody to enjoy such religious matrimony because they are unable to experience such feelings in their fake relation. Homosexuals always tell us that they aren't out to destroy marriage, I think anybody with half a brain can deduce the idiocy of this.

[Reply: "I think the 50% divorce rate in America has already pretty well gutted the holy institution of marriage. Gays and Lesbians just want the equal protection that come with the word."]

Divorce is an entirely different factor to 'gay marriage' so stop comparing them, by doing so you even admit that that it is undesirable.

Because many people enter unstable marriages we should further wreck our morals and values by letting gays marry/civil union??? This logic is so absurd, gays already have equal rights, you can marry the opposite sex just as I cannot another man. People are getting so sick of this constant moaning coming your kind.

Cactus Clawfinger #racist reddit.com

Here's what the Libertarians need from the Alt-Right:

A realization that all their political values are doomed to irrelevancy under a democratic system considering mass immigration and disproportionate birth-rate induced demographic change with the way various ethnic groups consistently and predictably vote. This is just as true for harder-line minarchists as it is for more conventional conservatives. The future at this rate will have Hillary Clinton - style neoliberal progressivism representing the right while the left devolves into a blatant dysfunctional 3rd world communist horror-show. An eventuality where traditional conservative American values of limited government and personal autonomy are totally politically dead, and where the American flag is spat upon with as much disdain as the Confederate flag for it's racist history, is a huge wake up call. Thankfully the Trump phenomenon has made the Republican's strategy of cucking themselves into continued relevancy less doable without creating a blowback shitstorm from their own base, but the trends persist.

Race realism and an understanding of how aspects of HBD can affect the larger civilization in a way that is not conducive to creating a free and prosperous society. While ethnic groups hardly have inevitable political opinions and biological contributions to larger social issues are extraordinarily difficult to tease out, suffice it to say that having a large amount of people with lower IQ's and higher impulsiveness is less than ideal for the smooth functioning of a modern, technologically advanced society. In a way, libertarian concerns about "negative" freedom and personal autonomy are luxurious indulgences of relative material comfort and basic security. If anything, a more free society is going to require a lot more conscientious, morally altruistic or at least reciprocal behavior than the one we have now. People worried about not getting shot or feeding or housing themselves don't give a fuck about tax-cuts and are going to support whatever regime can promise to offer them these basic necessities while they input the minimal amount into the system. If you want to weasel your way out of this, you can fully blame minority dysfunction on culture, but I'm not sure that this is sustainable long-term because it gives you little moral/rational leeway to determine immigration policy at least partially on racial background, which is probably a better strategy to realistically preserve the kind of free society a libertarian might want to live in. Although, there are ways to "implicitly" screen immigrants that would disproportionately favor white immigration, which might reach the same result without being needlessly controversial or insulting to minority groups.

What the Alt-Right needs from Libertarians:

A moral justification for voluntary segregation of people based on racial grouping. Autonomy, self-determination, and freedom of association are all mainstream libertarian values. If they were protected, instead of being openly attacked, in law, it seems like that would be an easy way to create de facto whiteopias without demanding absolute racial purity or actively removing people. Clearly, the 1965 Civil Rights act violates property rights as understood by most libertarians. In fact, I remember the moderate Rand Paul getting some heat for this on an interview in which he evasively Bill Clintoned his way out of. Obviously, repealing the act is the consistent libertarian position.
Support for secession, or at least heightened federalism/local control. Let's face it - whites are not going to rise up and subjugate the darker peoples of America in an apartheid system, or start throwing Jews into ovens, or shipping everyone browner than a paper bag back to Liberia. It's just not happening. You're not even going to get whites to firmly in-group themselves independent of all other criteria in a more severe way than current minority groups already consider themselves vis a vis mainstream identity politics. It would have to get MUCH worse for that to happen, and by that point, it might already be too late (think Suidlanders in South Africa). So, if you're talking about anything approaching an ethnostate, you're talking about secession. In the United States, the implicitly white Red vs implicitly brown Blue divide is a great place to start. You can even encourage the left to do the seceding for you (Calexit). If aware Identarianism can latch on to Libertarian or conservative secession movements, I can see a viable, even if unlikely, route that could hijack pre-existing American ideals and mythology. What

I see many on the Alt-Righters or white nationalists proposing is a sort of raw, Nietzschean will-to-power based on vulgar racialism and requiring a sociopathic view towards non-whites, independent of political affiliation (a libtarded trans-dimensional communist pedophile that is white is in the in-group, while a conservative, productive, traditional Hispanic is out). I think you are setting a very low-ceiling for appeal and success by taking this approach. Let me put it this way, minorities, Jews, etc., did not usurp European societies via in your face, over the top racial chauvinism. They successfully infiltrated a stronger opponent by using universalist arguments in line with (at least some) of the host populations stated values, for self-centered tribal ends. If white's want to win this, they can't be afraid to do the same. If you're willing to condone genocide for Christ's sake, you shouldn't be afraid to argue like a Jew. Being edgelords and pranksters leaving Nazi graffiti on the bathroom stall wall of the internet has gotten you this far, but at some point, that shit is limiting if you want to win. Whites would be nearly ready to come to your side in an absolute landslide if they didn't have the trepidation of being associated with genocidal murderous Nazi race cleansers, and I'm not talking about false smears from the Left, which increasingly no one is taking seriously. I'm talking about from your own mouths.

James Wilson #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Speak Now is the 2010 liberal album by noted succubus, harlot, and nominal Episcopalian degenerate Taylor Swift. This album is a testament to the rejection of the lordship of Jesus Christ, makes a mockery out of substitutionary atonement, and promotes greed, lust, and selfishness.

Proponents of this album have noted its "pure" and "family friendly" allure, but this is treachery placed upon intellectually devoid parents of impressionable teenage girls by Lucifer himself. This lyric from the song "Better Than Revenge" contains explicit references to bedroom conduct, as well as prideful arrogance. "She's not a saint and she's not what you think /She's an actress, whoa /She's better known for the things that she does / On the mattress, whoa" James 4:6 says " But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

Another example of this wickedness is in the song "Sparks Fly" which contains "And you stood there in front of me just / Close enough to touch /Close enough to hope you couldn't see / What I was thinking of" as well as "My mind forgets to remind me, your a bad idea /You touch me once and it's really something / You find I'm even better than you, imagined I would be" and if THAT was not enough see "I run my fingers through your hair / And watch the lights go wild / Just keep on keeping your eyes on me /Its just wrong enough to make it feel right" So, Taylor Swift admitted to lusting after the flesh as well as engaging in premarital relations, and is therefore encouraging her audience of susceptible teenage girls to do the same. Ephesians 6:11 instructs us to put on the whole armor of God, and Matthew 5:28 says that lustful thoughts are the same as adultery. Taylor Swift is a wicked sinner, no better than other wicked sinners like homos and murderers.

The accompanying tour to this album, the Speak Now World Tour, was a flop and managed to convert no one to the false religion of Taylor Swift and her traveling "church" of sexual impurity and prideful boastfulness. However, more Americans are indeed coming to conservative Bible believing Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, and rejecting the wicked sinful "church" of Taylor Swift and her wicked hymns of unrighteousness and this false religion is crumbling as more and more find their faith in the everliving and One True God, the Lord Jesus Christ!

James Wilson #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Speak Now is the 2010 liberal album by noted succubus, harlot, and nominal Episcopalian degenerate Taylor Swift. This album is a testament to the rejection of the lordship of Jesus Christ, makes a mockery out of substitutionary atonement, and promotes greed, lust, and selfishness.

Proponents of this album have noted its "pure" and "family friendly" allure, but this is treachery placed upon intellectually devoid parents of impressionable teenage girls by Lucifer himself. This lyric from the song "Better Than Revenge" contains explicit references to bedroom conduct, as well as prideful arrogance. "She's not a saint and she's not what you think /She's an actress, whoa /She's better known for the things that she does / On the mattress, whoa" James 4:6 says " But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

Another example of this wickedness is in the song "Sparks Fly" which contains "And you stood there in front of me just / Close enough to touch /Close enough to hope you couldn't see / What I was thinking of" as well as "My mind forgets to remind me, your a bad idea /You touch me once and it's really something / You find I'm even better than you, imagined I would be" and if THAT was not enough see "I run my fingers through your hair / And watch the lights go wild / Just keep on keeping your eyes on me /Its just wrong enough to make it feel right" So, Taylor Swift admitted to lusting after the flesh as well as engaging in premarital relations, and is therefore encouraging her audience of susceptible teenage girls to do the same. Ephesians 6:11 instructs us to put on the whole armor of God, and Matthew 5:28 says that lustful thoughts are the same as adultery. Taylor Swift is a wicked sinner, no better than other wicked sinners like homos and murderers.

The accompanying tour to this album, the Speak Now World Tour, was a flop and managed to convert no one to the false religion of Taylor Swift and her traveling "church" of sexual impurity and prideful boastfulness. However, more Americans are indeed coming to conservative Bible believing Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, and rejecting the wicked sinful "church" of Taylor Swift and her wicked hymns of unrighteousness and this false religion is crumbling as more and more find their faith in the everliving and One True God, the Lord Jesus Christ!

Roderick Kaine #fundie amerika.org

[How does awareness of genetic differences between the sexes factor into understanding a Neoreaction or right-wing platform?]

The over-arching goal of most western right-wing movements is to preserve western civilization for ourselves and especially make it available for all of our descendants. By “our” I am very specifically referring to white Europeans and their descendants throughout the world. Two very major problems are caused by female “emancipation” which are in direct contradiction of that goal. There are of course other things of concern, but I am only referring to gender relations here. The most important is the lowering of the birth-rate of ethnic Europeans. It is well-known that most European populations have a birth-rate under replacement level and that if this continues European ethnicities will eventually cease to exist. Unfortunately, our time to fix this problem is much less than it could be because of our mass importation of swarthy people from around the world. Most of these groups have a higher birthrate than the native populations and won’t hesitate to subjugate them once their numbers reach a critical mass. If we don’t do something in the next couple of generations it is very likely we will start seeing the events that have destroyed South Africa and Rhodesia repeated in most western countries. At that point however, there won’t be a strong US or European countries to suppress white interests from overseas like in those cases so I imagine things would get very bloody indeed. This is something that could and should be avoided.

Female education and employment are directly causal of this low birthrate. Setting women on paths other than motherhood obviously has a direct negative impact on birth rates. However, it also has an indirect negative impact on birth rate because it interferes with the male ability to signal provider status to the satisfaction of female hypergamy. If you take jobs from men and give them to women artificially through government regulations, you cause a lot of men to not be able to get jobs at a level they are capable of. These men are much poorer than they need to be and thus their ability to attract wives is substantially reduced. Mass immigration policies, affirmative action for swarthies, and free trade agreements do something very similar by increasing labor competition and even giving unfair and unearned advantages to the new-comers. All these policies are extremely bad for working class whites (and blacks descended from the original slave population in the US). Some men may be consciously choosing not to have kids and just play video games, but it shouldn’t be underestimated how much the lack of decent employment opportunities for white men are killing the west.

There is also another problem, not as dire but still important. As is shown in the book, the most capable humans a population is able to produce are going to be almost exclusively male. By setting up quotas for women you introduce massive inefficiencies in the economy which reduces the wealth of the country as a whole and thus its ability to maintain itself and a good standard of living for its people. This is partially the result of putting women into positions they aren’t psychologically or intellectually suited for and also through the creation of make-work jobs which require massive wealth redistribution from taxpayers. Most taxes are paid by men and that is all wealth those men can’t use to have 1 or 2 additional children.

Understanding the biological differences in intelligence, then, are very important in articulating why what we are doing today in these massive wealth redistribution plans are ultimately pointless and actively harmful. Our policies are based on a false premise: gender equality. By knocking out that premise you destroy the justification for some of the worst policies that are causing the collapse of the west. These are all things that traditionalists have all addressed before, but now that have more ammo for their arguments that didn’t exist in such a condensed form before.

...

[What do you hope will happen in the future, if things go really well, and what would life in America and Europe look like after that?]

Affirmative action would be abolished. Most of the university system would be dismantled leaving only training in demonstrably useful and needed fields. The people who would have previously pursued useless degrees would instead focus on motherhood (women) and technical vocations (men). These people would not be encouraged to take on massive debt. 3-4 White children would be born in wedlock to every family and divorce would not occur at all, or at least not until after all children were raised to adults. Alimony and child support would not exist. Focus on GDP growth would be heavily tempered by concern for the cultural and economic health of native populations. Immigration would be all but halted. New arrivals would be given strong incentives to move back to their country of origin with their children. Anchor babies would not be a legal possibility. Ethnic groups which dislike whites and for whom repatriation is impractical would be given countries of their own where they would be expected to move, and they would have full self-determination. Islam would be banned completely in all western countries. Africa would learn to control their insane population growth. Enforced diversity in housing would be abolished. Freedom of association would be an enshrined right of every person and group. I am sure there is more things I could think of, but I think you get the idea.

Dr. Stephen Kim #fundie nycpastor.com

10 WOMEN CHRISTIAN MEN SHOULD NOT MARRY

By Dr. Stephen Kim

In a former post, I detailed 10 men that Christian women ought to avoid when considering marriage.  Today, I present to you my list for Christian men.

“I have perceived among the youths, a young man lacking sense, passing along the street near her corner,taking the road to her house” (Proverbs 7:7-8).

1. The Unbeliever. Scripture is replete with exhortations against such marriages (in both the Old and New Testaments).  Contrary to popular misconception, God’s prohibition against marriages to foreign women in the Old Testament was not due to racism.  Instead, God was simply preventing the spread of idolatry.  Israel, God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, represented what Christians would later represent in the New Testament.  Hence, God’s prohibition against marrying an unbelieving woman in the New Testament (2 Cor 6:14) is simply the extension of God prohibiting a Hebrew man from from marrying a Canaanite woman in the Old Testament (Deut 7:3-4).  “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you” (Deut 7:3-4).

What then, is a believer?  A Christian essentially is someone who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What then, is the gospel?  The gospel is: 1. God is holy, loving, and just.  He therefore, must condemn all sinners to punishment in the flames of eternal hell;  2. You and I are all sinners who deserve nothing but God’s wrath in hell after our deaths; 3. God loved humanity so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus (who was fully God and fully man), to die on the cross for your sins.  Jesus paid the debt for your sins and absorbed God’s wrath on your behalf.  3 days later, Jesus resurrected from the dead; 4. If you repent (turn from) all your sins and personally put your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, God and Savior, then you will have eternal life. (For more information on the saving message of the gospel, click here.)

2. The Divorcee. Jesus clearly taught that unless the first marriage ended due to a partner’s sexual infidelity, a second marriage is to be considered invalid and adulterous (I explain this teaching further here).  A divorced woman, therefore, is off limits for a Christian man–unrepentant adultery being a sin that prevents one from obtaining eternal life (1 Cor 6:9).  “If she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:12). “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
ultery” (Matthew 19:9).

3. The Older Woman. Not a sin, but certainly not God’s ideal.  God expects men to be the spiritual leaders of the home (Eph 5:25) and it certainly requires an extra measure of grace to lead a woman who’s older than you.  Again, if you’re a man and you’re already in such a marriage, then honor it till the day you die–it’s still a valid marriage and divorce is not an option!  However, if you’re not yet married but thinking about an older woman I want to remind you that God intentionally (with good reason!) created Adam before Eve in the First Marriage.  Scripture informs us that God created man first chronologically for the sake of authority!  Listen:  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13).  Evidently, within the First Marriage, God intended chronology (age) to be a reason for authority.

Apparently, even secular researchers are now beginning to discover results that back up God’s wisdom as demonstrated in the Bible:

“If you’re a woman two or more years older than your husband, your marriage is 53 percent more likely to end in divorce than if he was one year younger to three years older.” (Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability,” Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009.)“Marriage generally improves life expectancy, but the age gap between a couple affects the life expectancy of men and women very differently.  Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.” (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/12/marrying-younger-man-woman-mortality“A new study shows that women who marry men seven to nine years younger than they are increase their mortality risk by 20 percent. This is the opposite of the finding for men who marry much younger wives – their life expectancyincreases. The new study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, changes assumptions about how marriage can extend life, owing in part to improved support systems spouses can provide for one another, and the supposed psychological benefit from having a younger spouse, who could become a caretaker should the older spouse become infirm.” (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/
married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/

4. The Feminist.  There’s no room within Christendom for the “Christian feminist.”  Though women and men have equal value in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28), they certainly have different God-given roles.  Any woman who tries to usurp her husband’s authority or even claims to be a co-leader with her man is gravely dishonoring the God who created her to be subject and obedient to her husband (Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Pet 3:1).   Eve was distinctly created “for” man, a point that the apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 11 when he writes, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).  Men, your wife is to be your “helper” (Gen 2:18)–not your leader and certainly not your equal in terms of authority.  Look for a woman who agrees with you in this very vital God-ordained relational dynamic.

5. The Immodest-Dresser.  Sexy might inadvertently catch your eyeballs, but it shouldn’t catch your heart.  The way that a woman is willing to expose herself says much about her heart: “And behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10).  The text in Proverbs explains that a woman will dress in a certain way to catch a certain type of man.  Don’t be that man.  Don’t be the fool who’s led by his hormones instead of the Holy Spirit.  Remember: you want godly, not gaudy.  

6. The Gossiper/Slanderer.  Women may love to talk, but there’s wisdom in looking for a woman who speaks with wisdom. Gossip and slander are not good things to have in your marriage. Desperate housewives make for desperate husbands.  “Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.” (1 Timothy 5:13).

7. The Childbirth Avoider. Do not marry a woman who is not willing to have children of her own.  In the Christian worldview, there is absolutely no room for two married, biologically capable, human beings to remain intentionally child-less.  If you are adverse towards having children, then there’s a simple remedy for that: single-hood.   However, if God has called you to marriage, then He actually expects children.  Both the New and Old Testaments are very clear on this teaching: “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15).  “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Timothy 2:15).

8. The Wander-Luster.  There’s nothing wrong with the occasional family vacation.  There is something very wrong with a girl who regularly needs to be “out of the home.”  The constant desire for new experiences, new places, new faces, and new forms of entertainment only serves to clearly manifest the fact that the woman has not found her rest in God.  Believe it or not, Scripture speaks repeatedly about such women:  “She is loud and wayward; her feet do not stay at home” (Proverbs 7:11); “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13).

9. The Career-first Woman. Now, I want to clarify something here.  There is nothing wrong with a woman who works (Acts 16:14), what’s wrong is a woman who puts her career ahead of her family.  Modern American society might hate to hear this, but God made men to be the providers and women to be the nurturers of the home (in most instances).  It’s okay for a woman to be a doctor, attorney, or any other professional.  However, if her career is coming at the expense of her home, then something is wrong.  If day-care is raising her young children while she’s working, then something is wrong.  I understand that there might be a season of life where the wife might have to be the main bread-winner due to her husband’s unemployment, but it should not be the desired norm. The woman ought to be willing (and even desirous–to some extent) to give up her job for the sake of raising her kids in the Lord.  “So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander” (1 Tim 5:14).

10. The Devotion-less Woman.  Is the woman having a regular, daily devotional time with her God?  If she doesn’t love the Lord now, chances are, she won’t love the Lord after marriage.  (Don’t delude yourself–you’re not going to change her.)  You want to marry a girl who has an intimate relationship with Jesus.  Jesus (not you) has to be the first man in her life.  Here are some good questions to ask: Does she have an active prayer life?  Does she have a heart for evangelism?  Is she hungry for God’s Word?  What does her pastor think about her?

Do you remember this account from Scripture:

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” [41] But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42 ESV)

Marry the Mary (no pun intended).  Such women have picked “…the good portion, which will not be taken away” from them. God be with you men.  Strong families start with strong wives.  Choose wisely and choose in the Lord!

KnightOfTheRoundTable #fundie christianforums.com

Ok guys, some things that we should all admire about Franco.

1) He restored Traditional Values
2) He went to daily Communion
3) He expelled Communism from Spain
4) He dealt with Basque Terrorists
5) Homosexuals were arrested
6) Tranvesties were Arrested
7) Criminals were Arrested and were Appropriately Punished
8) Death penalty For Murderers
9) Non Vulgar media
10) Healthy sexuality was promoted
Wouldnt we as Christians want especially from number 5 Onwards to be positive things that we could have now in our wonderful Democratic countries?
(P.S. : I highly suspect this guy to be a troll. Seeing as he did not hang around long, possibly confirmed. Also, please do not generalize.)

Mary Sue Award

for the most blatant self-insert wish fulfilment fantasy in history.

DonkeyPunch19 #fundie reddit.com

Average day for incel VS average day for Chad:

Incel: Rolls out of bed at noon. Has shitty cereal with old, weird tasting milk. Takes a shower and notices hair at the bottom of the shower and in his hand when he shampoos. Takes a look at his skinnyfat physique in the mirror and wonders why he can't gain any muscle despite lifting 5 days a week. Leaves his room for the first time in a few days to buy groceries hoping his NEETbucks for the week haven't run out. While out he is stared at by small children and avoided like the plague by women. The cashier at the grocery store treats him rudely and doesn't make eye contact. Spends the entire rest of the day binge watching anime, fapping to porn and eating shitty Ramen Noodles. Falls asleep at 3 in the morning alone.

Chad: Wakes up at noon in his room at his parent's huge mansion to a bj from his blonde 9/10 Instagram model gf. They shower together and he bangs her doggy style in the shower. Realizes that he missed class, oh well, he'll just have some nerd take the final for him. Hops into his Ferrari and meets his posse at a posh restaurant and has a delicious breakfast. Meets up with his side chick and they go shopping downtown. All expenses go on his dad's Amex. Next he hits the gym with his bros and hits a 315 lb PR on bench.

While at the gym he has a chance encounter with his VS model ex girlfriend. She throws herself at his feet and begs him to take her back, that she'll be his perfect submissive fucktoy and let him screw around all he wants. He decides the bitch is just too much damn drama and kicks her to the curb, though he has her number in case he wants a booty call. That night he throws a wild party at his parent's mansion. He has a threesome with two sluts in the hottub and gets into a fight with his gf because of it. She of course forgives him. That night he falls asleep in his bed with his gf and 4 other random girls dog-piled on top of him.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

If Christians want to lower the divorce rate in their churches, it would be as simple as kicking out those who frivolously divorce, and treating divorcées as adulteresses. As it is today, abandoned husbands are usually the ones left in the ditch by churches, so this would be a major change. But if churches want to stay true to Christianity, they would do well to recognize that from the beginning, Christian women were not allowed to sue for divorce. There is no precedent in ancient Hebrew, Greek or Roman law for women to divorce their husbands. This is why the Christian church is so ill-prepared to deal with the revolutionary idea of granting women the right to divorce. Even today, Orthodox Jews do not allow it, nor do Muslims (civil law differs, but here we are speaking of ecclesiastic law). Rabbinic and Sharia courts may order men to divorce their wives, but women cannot legally divorce without their husband’s consent.

Women were first granted the right to divorce in revolutionary France, in 1792. This was rescinded shortly thereafter, in 1804, and French women had to wait another 80 years before regaining the right to kick their husbands to the curb. The revolutionary edict was a first in civilized society (if you could apply that moniker to revolutionary France), to be followed some decades later by Great Britain with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. Naturally, some fifteen years later mother custody became the norm in the UK.

The transfer of marriage from ecclesiastic to civil law has continued apace since “reforms” of the 19th century, with devastating consequences for traditional marriage. However, this doesn’t mean that churches have to follow civil law — at least not in the United States (not yet, anyway). To this day, rabbinic courts have authority over Orthodox Jewish marriages, including in some civil matters. Given that it contradicts core Christian doctrine, I’m not sure this would be appropriate for Christian churches, but it probably isn’t necessary in any event.

The point is that granting women the right to initiate divorce goes entirely against Christianity, as well as all other major religions. According to the Christian faith, a woman who leaves her husband is an adulteress — even if he consents. So why is it that divorced women are so quickly forgiven and fostered by “Christian” churches? I’m fairly certain that it’s about the money they bring to the table (divorced men are often impoverished), but if Christians looked deep within themselves they’d have to admit that there’s nothing Christian about such an arrangement.

Don #fundie yahoo.com

https://youtu.be/LD8kgAx8dl8
DEMOCRAT Has BECOME A SYNONYM FOR HOMOsexual
After being a life- long Democrat, since Carter ,I’ll be voting Republican for several reasons such as the disproportionate proliferation of HOMOSEXUAL TV programs and movies and the GUN GRAB ATTEMPTS by the Democratic Party. But , these next reasons really burn me up ! Recently, an openly HOMOSEXUAL teacher in EFLAND , N.C. recently read the book,” KING AND KING “, TO HIS 3RD GRADE CLASS. It’s the story of TWO HOMOSEXUAL PRINCES getting married and it shows them kissing. Also The Girl Scouts of America has been FORCED, by HOMOSEXUAL Groups, TO ACCEPT BOYS WHO IDENTIFY AS GIRLS.
There even pushing to have sex education taught in Kindergarten "Chicago Passes Sex-Ed for Kindergartners -
ABC News"
"Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners 'Is the Right Thing to Do'

Obama directive forces schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity !

In the state of California, heterosexual married couples can no longer be referred to as Husbands and Wives , Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that not only redefines marriage, but eliminates any reference to husband and wife, replacing each with the Generic Term Spouse !

People this is beyond the pale. The rampant proliferation of this kind of behavior is what we can expect if we continue to let the 2% TAIL OF THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION continue to WAG THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The REPUBLICAN PARTY is our last hope in maintaining some kind of MORAL COMPASS AND TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES that are the foundation of this Country . Voting in a another Democratic president will give them the opportunity to appoint 3-4 new Liberal Supreme Court Justices giving the Court a LIBERAL MAJORITY FOR GENERATIONS. Meaning we can expect more of this. The following is the Genesis of a Lawsuit filed in 2006 against the reading of the HOMOSEXUAL BOOK.”KING AND KING” TO 7 YEAR OLDS IN A CLASSROOM.

Funny how you can’t read a lesson from the bible in a classroom .but you can PROMOTE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE TO 2ND AND 3RD GRADERS !!!!

In 2006 Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Eastbrook Elementary School, which their second graders attended in Lexington, Massachusetts. The Wirthlins' son's teacher had read King & King aloud to the class as part of an educational unit on weddings. Parents countered that the school's job was to teach about the world and that Massachusetts sanctioned same-sex marriage The plaintiffs claimed that using the book in school constituted sex education without parental notification, which would be a violation of their civil rights and state law. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying
“ We felt like seven years old is not appropriate to introduce homosexual themes. My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be. Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion. ”

HERE’S WHAT THE LIBERAL JUDGES RULED: IF THIS IS THE KIND OF RULINGS YOU WANT , ELECT ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT


The judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. The Wirthlins and the Parkers appealed the decision; a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the school. Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that their religious beliefs were being singled out as well as their argument that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated, writing, "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights." The court also ruled that the parents' substantive due process rights were not violated, as these rights did not legally give them the degree of control they sought over the curriculum.

This same ruling could apply to reading a life lesson from the Bible !!!!!

TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS !

Here's a small % of shows with Homosexual Characters or Content without doing an in depth search ,let's see we have the one that started it all Will and Grace, then STAR TREK BEYOND, Guilt , The Interestings , Sequestered , Ballers,Transparent, Mr. Robot, One Mississippi, Aquarius , True Detective ,Bosch, Grace & Frankie ,Red Oaks, Zoo ,CSI- New Orleans ,Six Feet Under , Complications ,Entourage , Angels in America ,Community , Girls, The L Word, The Walking Dead , The Following, Empire , Backstrom , Chicago Fire , The Royals ,The Big Bang Theory, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Bored to Death , The Cleveland Show, King of the Hill, South park, The Simpsons, Glee, The 100,Black Sails, Madame Secretary , Gotham , Kingdom, How to get Away With Murder, The Modern Family, Dominion, Tyrant, The Night Shift, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Penny Dreadful, Nurse Jackie ,Star Crossed, The Fall , Peaky Blinders , Wentworth , Defiance, Hemlock Grove, Hannibal , The Bridge , Under The Dome ,Ray Donavan , Orphan Black, Banshee, Betrayal , House of Cards , Alpha House , Masters of Sex , Nashville, Da Vinci's Demons , Arrow, Sons of Anarchy ,Orange is the New Black, Sherlock ,Skins , Lip Service, How I met your Mother, Xena ,Prison Break , Homicide Life On The Streets , East Enders , Teen Wolf , Torchwood, Sex and the City , Bad Girls ,True Blood , Spartacus ,Game of Thrones , The Vampire Dairies , Shameless , Queer As Folk , The Wire ,The Office , Weeds ,Ripper Street , Schitt’s Creek , Eye Candy ,Transparent, The Flash ,Chasing Life ,Hit The Floor ,Dracula , Dates , The Originals ,A Place To Call Home , The Fosters , The Carrie Diaries , Undateable , and American Horror Story just to mention a few there are dozens more.

The HOMOsexualS are 2-5% of the population ,but 90% of the TV Shows have HOMOsexual content . Don't you think that's a bit disproportionate.

Sheppsoldier #fundie reddit.com

We cannot simply deal with zoo haters. They have a brain disorder. They see only one side of the picture due to a one side dominance of their brains function.
They cannot fathom the idea of sex without love, or sex at all because they are split to one belief that "Love is all you need" In order to understand what zoo haters are thinking, we would have to look at the situation from the perspective of somebody who has a sexual dysfunction resulting from trauma.

In other words, a person who has been castrated, has gone through degenerative hormonal changes, or otherwise was born without sex organs and abused by or for it. They are living in a state of sex-free bliss or nightmare, where they do not have to think about or feel the urges of sex in a functional way and they want everybody else to be in this twisted bliss like them.

Degenerative and dysfunctional bliss. They're like the cartoon characters on television, who love and play and make friends and get into all sorts of innocent antics, with the twist that everything else is considered to be evil. Life is not a childrens cartoon.
However that too is only one small portion of the zoo hate picture. There are more unfortunately.

As people were growing up, they were hand fed stories of the "rightness" of same-species and heterosexuality, while the stories contained a hidden "wrongness" of cross-species and homosexuality by the threat of impeding doom. Noah's Ark, for example. More recently "The Last Man on Earth." These stories induce the feeling of "Doom" if one were to choose their own path of love and sex, instead of the path to procreation with their own kind.

Fear mongering extinction, even though we live in a modern time where such an event is unlikely. Those people who were traumatized by these extinction stories might go on to invade the choices of others, playing the role of a divine savior, to save the human race. Zoophilia, homosexuality, mastrubation, anal sex, oral sex and anything that is not heterosexual, same-species, or procreative sex acts as a "trigger" for this trauma. These acts can trigger the feeling of extinction, impeding doom, anxiety. It is similar to PTSD.

The afflicted might feel as if they need to "save" the people from this doom, by putting zoophiles, homosexuals, etc in prison or torturing them away from the trauma triggers with abusive therapies and drugs. Conversely, some people might deal with these feelings of impeding doom by murdering the people who trigger these traumas, as it is felt that anyone who is not heterospecial are "causing" the extinction of the human race. This is the leading cause of things such as "conversion by rape"..."honor killings"..."electro-shock therapy"..."cultural, racial, genocide" which are all caused by traumas being triggered in people who were not properly reintegrated into the reality of the modern world.

In order to "deal" with zoo haters, they must be introduced to zoos in real life, away from the internet where the plague of lies and corruptive degeneration are obviously plentiful. Introduction by internet serves no purpose other than recruitment into groups of hateful, destructive, doomsday cults.
The ideal solution is to remove from influence anybody who does not respect the personal choices of others or aims to corrupt and punish people away from their own choices, from anybody who is in the process of being healed and released from their trauma inductive prisons.

People need to be rehabilitated to know they have a choice, and that their choices will not be punished as long as these choices do not greatly impede on or sever the choices of others. There is nothing wrong with healthy bigot free discrimination, that is what gives us our choices. Hate is different. All hate is the product of trauma, whether accidental or deliberately induced, and in order to free themselves from it they must first accept that their hate is not themselves speaking.

They were played and are being played like puppets, to induce these traumas on others to conserve this degenerative cycle of unhealthy bigoted discrimination.
Do not be discouraged this year. The advantages given to the negative influences serves the purpose not to hurt us, but to illuminate them. Use it to your advantage.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy lovethetruth.com

Evangelist Lester Roloff saw clearly over half a century ago that that three evils would destroy America—drunkenness, abortion and homosexuality. Please hear, “Steps In The Degeneration Of Our Nation” (MP3 sermon by Brother Roloff). The answer to America is not more guns or the willingness to use them. We've already seen where Civil War leads, between 1860-1865! I do support gun ownership, as deadly force is sometimes the only language that tyrants understand. The 2nd Amendment is our only protection to ensure that the government honors the other nine amendments in our Bill of Rights. In 1936 Spain, “The people found themselves helpless... forced to register & surrender arms!” Watch the video clip, as the Communists shoot innocent citizens in the head, and their bodies fall into the graves which they literally dug for themselves!!!

And by the way we are U.S. “citizens,” not military “civilians.” The people of Spain never should have surrendered their guns to the government! The Bloody History Of Communism Over The Past Century (a 2:08 hour full documentary). Do you know the name of the only European country who were left alone during the World War II conflict? It was Switzerland. Yes, the Swiss, who were known for their infatuation with guns. Shooting is a family activity in Switzerland. From the earliest age, Swiss children are taught to respect, handle and use firearms!

History always repeats itself! If you don't think that your American wife and daughters couldn't be gang raped by invading thugs, and your American sons tortured and murdered, and American fathers enslaved as caged animals, think again my friend!!! Please read Dr. Ron Paul's insightful article, “IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!” Shameful secretary of state, the butcher of Waco, Janet Reno, said it is not a matter of if, but when, American's guns will be confiscated. You should be very worried why the government wants to take away your guns so badly! Now it looks like Hillary Clinton will be our next commander and thief in the White House in 2017. She is Janet Reno's lesbian clone, and she will take away everyone's guns, at gunpoint if necessary! All of these false flag public shootings; such as Sandy Hook and now it appears also the Orlando incident, will be used to demonize gun owners and confiscate their weapons.

Know this friend, unarmed citizens effectively have no rights in America! Remember that! Likewise, if you cannot afford to pay tens-of-thousands-of-dollars to hire an attorney, effectively you have no rights in the United States! If Child Protection Services (CPS) targets your family and accuses poor parents of neglect, you are not entitled to a free attorney (as provided for in your Bill of Rights). The thug government gets around the 6th Amendment by charging parents with neglect, which is not legally considered a crime. The state fully knows that hardly any parents can afford to hire an attorney (which are ll very expensive), so by charging the parents with an administrative offense instead of a crime, they can easily confiscate your children and put them up for adoption, drugging and then raping them (even in government custody). There's a special place in Hell for CPS thugs, judges, lawyers and everyone involved who ruin families! You have seen the definition of “evil” until you've met an administrative CPS judge! What scum and filth! America has one of the worst legal systems in history, caging human beings like animals, and then calling it “humane treatment.” Proverbs 12:10, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The average animal at the zoo in America has a much better life than the average incarnated inmate. God will punish the punishers!

tek #fundie iidb.org

The fool saith in his heart there is no God... I want to tell you that God exist and God created the world, evolution is not a fact its a religion, you have to have faith to believe in evolution. The bible ALL of its prophecies have come true. Take a look around you if we were any closer to the sun we would all burn to death, think please... all I have to say is that the best explanation is God exist, I mean thinking we all came from monkeys lol I woulnt be going around telling people im related to BOBO from the bronx zoo. no PROOF, BIG BANG, no proof lol yea the world just got up and walked and said im gonna make myself that makes sence (notice the sarcasm) Creatism is the best argument no doubt about it. P.S. God Bless everyone

FadedAgony #sexist #psycho reddit.com

Re: Stacy establishing her territory

image

Those sluts show themselves off like animals they are. They should be treated as such tbh. Average dog is more intelligent than those foid creatures, why should they have voting rights or any rights at all? They should be basically caged and used only for reproduction until human race creates artifical wombs and then exterminated. This is the only logical conclusion after all.

Henry Makow #conspiracy henrymakow.com

Feminism is a Depopulation Program

The world birth rate has halved in the last 50 years from roughly 3.6 births per woman to only 1.8 This coincides with the rise of feminism as the official world gender ideology.

Makow - "I am one of many who missed the opportunity to have a normal family thanks to feminism. Depopulation strikes close to home for countless millions."

We have been conditioned to scoff at the idea of conspiracy. The idea that people might plan to harm others without first warning their intended victims is too preposterous to consider!

We are like the passengers on a bus that keeps having "accidents" which cause untold death and suffering. These are wars, depressions and epidemics etc. We have just completed the bloodiest century in human history: Auschwitz, Dresden, Ruanda, Hiroshima, Cambodia. Over a hundred million people were murdered, and that's not counting abortions.

We keep changing the 'driver' but the accidents do not cease. This is because the drivers all take their orders from the same diabolical source.

Because the human race keeps running off the road, we are not reaching our destination. The road is God's plan. For Christians, this is Jesus' Gospel of Love. The destination: to know God.

Mankind evolved for this purpose. God wishes to be known by His Creation.

A reader "Pat" wrote last week that he has "a hard time believing that a group of elites could agree on anything, let alone a far reaching evil agenda...[It] seems like the process of achieving this agenda is too slow for any bad people...requires too much flawless, seamless, secretive, cooperation...The only entity with that kind of plan and patience with that kind of plan and patience would have to be the devil himself, wouldn't it?"

I replied that he was on to something. At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. What is monopoly but the desire to "have it all," and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in God, but in limitless material acquisition and sensual excess.

It was not a large leap for a J.D. Rockefeller to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. Rockefeller and his foundation have been in the forefront of the population "control" and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for J.D. and his cronies.

The elite just loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, vaccines and feminism using the United Nations and "US Aid." Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last 50 years, billions of public dollars have been spent on "family planning" designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide.

In "The War Against Population" (1988), Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). "The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control," she wrote ( p.211).

For the same reason, the Illuminati are behind "sexual liberation" and mainstreaming homosexuality. Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a spiritual bond (i.e. a loving marriage) resulting in children.

The modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood.

In the bible of modern feminism, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963) Betty Friedan makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:

"They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..." (306)

Clearly Friedan is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist , fellow Jew, Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."

Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. We are condemned to look into mirrors that don't reflect reality. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why I am self published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play "The Vagina Monologues" on HBO. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.

ELITE DEPOPULATION AGENDA

Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In "The Broken Hearth," William Bennett writes: "Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4)."

We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 1.88 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia (1.6 children) has remained steady. In the "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.

Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.

Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."

Friedan's comparison of mothers with concentration camp inmates is perfect. Betty Friedan, agent of the Illuminati cabal, put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim indeed is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work?

caamib #sexist caamib.wordpress.com

We could also say that men are simple biological machines as well, as they would fuck basically anything if allowed.

That’s why we need extremely strict rules and harsh punishments for both genders when it comes to things like adultery. A man who commits adultery with another man’s wife must know he will, if discovered, die.

Also, you’re once again incredibly naive. If you support women’s suffrage you can’t support female premarital chastity. I mean, you can, but that’s insane, as it makes no sense and is contradictory.

A woman's suffrage is a feminist policy and means that women will vote themselves priviledges that will enable them to be sluts.

It’s like saying you support democracy but won’t support something the demos votes for – not possible.

Your ideas are like saying “I support billions being thrown into war machine but I oppose war.”

C’mon.

Anonymous #racist smartpunters.com

If we were to re-design the hierarchy of all things living it would have to go like this....

Niggers, maggots, cockroaches, the bacteria in a mexican's ass, insects, land creatures, sea creatures, humans.

Ropes to make nooses can be purchased at any local hardware store. Buy one because when the day comes (and it will) Niggers will again be our property and they will be cutting my grass and cleaning my gutters for the bones of the chicken wings i bring home from buffalo wild wings.

I will be honored and do the white salute once they get all the zoo animals out of the white house.

BoycottAmericanWomen #fundie boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

throwaway680603 #fundie reddit.com

Cockblocking sluts deserve the absolute worst

They deserve to be called out for what they exactly are - insecure whores that lock their beautiful friend from the compliment of a classy and eloquent gentleman. Death? Absolutely not. They deserve the key to a cage that they are being locked into to be sewn inside their mother and unless they kill her, then they will be stuck forever, that's what they deserve.

A man can simply not handle one dime and two additionsl demons orbiting around her, would I had lived in the 12th century then I could just unseathe my sword ( a katana) and show those sluggish sluts my superior sword knowledge, but sadly this does not happen in modern times. I guess I was destined to be with an ugly 300 pound lardo whilst im the finest of gentlemen.