Similar posts

IncelKing #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

High IQ post.

IT won't touch this

No, they wont, they only ever share low IQ posts from this forum onto their sub-reddit. Thats why i wish there were less low IQ posts on the forum, because the only thing low IQ posters are doing is providing IncelTears with the material they need to misrepresent the entire forum as being full of low IQ retards so that nobody takes us seriously (which means the few high IQ and knowledgeable posters here are never able to spread the blackpill to normies).

I think feminism might of had some progressive aspects to it but this aspect was aborted by the female strategy you mention is the root cause of feminism .

Women consider serving their husband and children in return for food, clothing, shelter and all their needs being accommodated for, as being "enslaved," but they don't consider being a wageslave for government and corporations (in order to accomodate those same needs) as "slavery", which makes me think that feminism was never about female empowerment but about liberating themselves from being married to those evil, unattractive men who kept women in concentration camps known as "homes", enabling them to chase Chad dick and have their fill while society foots the bill.

Women are enjoying this new system which has given them so much freedom, although its not women (but society rather) which is paying the price of increased violence and social instability.

Bangkok or bust #sexist #crackpot incels.co

Foids admitting most men are not good looking enough for "shallow hookups" is an admission that SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS ABOUT LOOKS

Can't get sex from Tinder? Got ignored in college while girls fucked your drunken douche Chading Tatum lookalike roommates?

"Shallow hookups/one night stands," IT says.

OK, idiots. Here's the problem with that. You are admitting that when people want to just seek out enjoyable sex, they go for attractive people (as an aside, if looks are subjective, why didn't WE get offers for shallow hookups? Hmmmmmm).
So what does this mean? It means that enjoyable sex is about having it with someone foids find physically attractive. If it weren't, college girls and Tinder users would be looking for personality connections (or whatever stupid shit you guys think we should be striving for) when looking for enjoyable sex.
So what you are indirectly saying is that ugly or plain men like us should accept that no women will ever be SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to us, nor enjoy sex with us the way they would with men they find physically attractive Chadums. And that we should be excited about a potential passionless bourgeois relationship with a woman over 35 who used to ride the cc and is with us because we're "good for her" in the same way a health nut shoves raw spinach down his throat and says that he prefers spinach to pizza because "taste is superficial anyway."

No, thanks. We want women to think we're hot. We want them to want to rip our clothes off and have passionate sex with us. And we have no interest in the depressing "settling" alternative. There is nothing noble about settling for mediocrity. You are not successful just because you can create a facade of what you consider to be salvaged dignity and condescend to others about how you're "adulting."

---------------------------------------------------

Incel: I can't get laid because I'm ugly.
IT Becky: Just getting laid and hookups are shallow, it's nothing serious, sex means nothing sweets.
Incel: You don't even want to consider us for "shallow" hookups, but according to you, we are good for "serious" relationships. Does not make any sense.
IT Becky: Lmao where did I say we consider you for serious relationships?
Incel: Well then why are you saying hookups are shallow? Hook ups lead to relationships. How is that relevant? I am confused.
IT Becky: Dis y u inkweasel, are so toxic, that's a big turnoff for me and all my galfwends. Sought your mental problems out. Teehee.

W. F. Price #fundie web.archive.org

We are supposedly living in an age of merit, where the best rise to the top through a selective process that rewards valuable traits. This so-called meritocracy is often used to explain away our growing economic inequality. Those who make it, you see, just have the right stuff. This idea of merit was largely invented and is fostered by elite institutions, which pride themselves on selecting for what they call merit. Perhaps it’s a relic of Calvinist predestination, in which a member of the “elect” is destined to be graced by God.

While it’s true that having talent, determination and grit still matters a great deal, we ought to take a closer look at the meritocratic process and what traits it professes to value. Additionally, the traits it fosters and its results are important indicators of what these people and institutions call “merit.”

So, what do we find? A notion of merit that has no room for the traditional virtues yet encourages what used to be known as sin. We find a glorification of pride, greed, lust and gluttony, among others.

Using the seven deadly sins as a standard, let’s examine our “meritocracy” and how it measures up:

Lust

Promiscuity, licentiousness and all manner of sexual practices are cherished and valued in our elite institutions of higher learning. Not only are they protected, but often celebrated by students and schools alike. Extramarital sex is seen as a “right,” while traditional marriage is frowned upon and ridiculed.
Gluttony

Gluttony is not strictly about overeating; it also applies to those who do not eat simply, who seek out strange foods, and who have elaborate rituals around eating. The urban trends of shopping at Whole Foods, eating out at chic restaurants frequently, and seeking out trendy foods fits right into the category of gluttony. Obsessive preoccupation with health food is another example, as is binging and purging. Eating disorders are, for the most part, examples of gluttony, and are common among the people of merit.
Greed

This one goes without saying. An important reason people strive to become members of the meritocratic elite is to make more money. They dream of fancy homes in upscale neighborhoods, isolated from the great unwashed. They want to take trips to Paris and Rome, own the newest, trendiest gadgets and wear the finest clothes.
Sloth

Most people who make it into meritocratic institutions are not layabouts, but they do often fail to put any significant work into developing their spiritual/humanitarian side. Instead of striving to become better people, they focus on networking with the powerful, and thereby betray a general lack of sincerity in their contrived humanitarianism. An example of this is the filler “humanitarian” work they do only to pad out their applications and resumés rather than for any real concern for people in need. On the academic side, they have begun to cheat with alarming frequency, which demonstrates a form of laziness.
Wrath

The rage many of our elites feel toward the common American people is all too obvious. Their searing contempt for what they call “ignorant” people, particularly the more humble, religious sort, can manifest itself in almost demonic denunciations and displays of ethnic and religious hatred. This is especially true of feminists, who have an inordinate fondness for hate porn, particularly when directed against those they perceive as part of the “patriarchy.”
Envy

Envy is often what is behind the desire to join the meritocracy in the first place. For many students and finished elites alike, the institutions themselves provide the tools and opportunities to seize that which they covet, and to profit from the losses of others.
Pride

Pride is the foremost of sins, and it is also the defining characteristic of the new elite. They take enormous pride in being elevated above their fellow countrymen, and wallow in this pride to no end. The American meritocracy is, above all, a collection of the very proud, secure in their superiority.

Of course, we can point out sin in all sorts of groups of people, but my little exercise here was intended to get people to think about what it means when we throw terms like “merit” around. There’s no doubt that people who make it to the top usually possess admirable qualities and talents, but when these are put to use in rotten ways, what they call merit is actually meretricious.

I could find it in myself to excuse some of the excesses of the elite if they compensated for them with good works, but because they have rejected what most of us see as virtuous, it’s difficult to find much redeeming about them at this point.

Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

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

Anonymous #racist #conspiracy #fundie #wingnut archive.4plebs.org

Jews, as servants of Satan himself, are a very ritualistic and legalistic people, not dissimilar to those demons and the rules that bound them as recanted by our mythologies. They are particularly concerned with numbers, years, moons and seasons. The fact that this is taking place exactly 100 years after the last mass-uprising in Europe should not be discounted.

We can also trace the actions of the subversives through recent history with extreme ease. The Paris Commune, which existed 150 years ago, was the first instance of the 'Reds' taking over a city. It was a victory for the Free Masons and Jews who had made Paris their home, and who had endeavoured to corrupt and defile its legacy as a city of beauty. There are many records concerning the Paris Commune, and its ties to Judaism and Free Masonry, and of course Communism (they literally flew the Red Flag) is undeniable. They were known, amongst many other evils; for coining the phrase 'Patriarchy' and pushing feminism. They were known for rounding up Christians, particularly Bishops and Priests, and murdering them; in their place they pushed atheism. They were known for hunting down the Middle-Class and small businesses and their owners; and either seizing them or destroying them.

Were the many other 'coups' in Europe that would follow truly natural and just against oppressive authorities/power structures; they would be supportive of Christianity and the meritocratic, self-made Middle Class. The working class was wholly Christian and it was very important to them. The Middle Class are an obvious ally to those opposing the 'tyrannies' of Monarchs and Nobles. Instead we see EVERY instance hunt down the Church and the Middle Class. We see it in the Spanish civil war, we see it the battles between Communists and Fascists in Italy, we see it in Bolshevik Russia, and we see it pushed in America with McCarthy vainly trying to stop it. All of this evil is pushed by those same Jewish Subversives.

This is not some modern phenomenon. This is not some natural occurrence. This has been engineered for at least a century.

[…]

I feel that it's very important that people realise how connected all the troubles of the previous century were. That the revolutionary fervour that engulfed Europe, and which threatens to engulf us once more; was not FROM Europe.

It all came from the same small group of jews, who honed their skills in the Paris Commune and then took what they had learned elsewhere. One by one, they were pushed out by native Europeans; at which point they simply moved to a new city. After their defeat in Paris, they went all across Europe. After their defeat in Spain and the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, and then the rise of Stalin; they fled to Britain and the USA, where - just like before - they began to subvert the nations.

We can see the British fighting them all across the Empire as jews fomented rebellions and uprisings. In the USA we have McCarthy identifying them and seeking to remove them. This is the very same enemy, instigating all of these different uprisings. They are not natural. They are foreign. And they are still waging this same war against us, now using everything they have learned through their many defeats.

If they win, they will kill us all. We have seen this happen in Paris and across the Soviet Union. We've seen instigated all across the former British Empire. We are seeing advocating for our murder right now in the USA. This is not new. This is not natural. This is our eternal Enemy trying to destroy us.

red_establishment #fundie reddit.com

Re: How Would Prostitution Work Under Communism?

Why would it? Sexual exploitation is a patriarchal phenomenon. This pseudo-woke take that women are "free" under capitalism-imperialism-patriarchy is bullshit.

So getting paid to do the most pleasurable thing in existence is exploitation? And it needs to exist because a lot of guys are incels and they should be treated equally under communism should they not?

Sex does not need to be a commodity for it to be enjoyed. In fact, it's best enjoyed by all parties when all parties consent.

Sex is still consent even if someone takes money for it, as long as it's voluntary

The only people who can get sex for free are rich anyway

This is liberalism. The fetishization of the notion of "free choice" fails to account for the diverse and numerous factors that lead to making a choice. A poor single woman who needs to feed her kids. Technically she chooses to engage in prostitution, but for anyone capable of digging a little deeper can see that this choice is a fraud.

I went to a private high-school. After graduation many people got huge cash gifts from their parents. They often paid each other for sex with that money. Everyone involved already came from wealth and yet they still choose to take that money. It became a big scandal where i lived and the police made arrests but never pressed charges.

Are you willing to tell me this is exploitation? When it's literally the bourgeois throwing money around at each other?

Yes, because sexual bodies should not be treated like commodities.

Why not? Providing one is willing to sell it, who are you to tell them otherwise?

See the earlier responses. We communists don't fetishize the fraudulent notion of free choice.

So is freedom not a good concept to communists? Do communists claim to support freedom?

I thought communism is suppose to represent everyone? As a bourgeois incel who was willing to be open minded you're not giving a very good reason for me to support the idea

So you don't want the people who will actually hold power in the future to support your ideal? I'm probably taking over my dads investment banking firm, but of course it would be more valuable to your cause is some broke worker supported communism i assume.

This isn't an insult to poor people, but is it not irrational to drive away people like me?

Lookismisreal #sexist incel.life

While society is to blame for the degeneration of femoids, the internet should also be accounted for since it is also largely responsible towards the cause. How, you may ask? By simply giving access to a vast number of femoids to use what they do best for their advantage. That being; attention whoreing. However, in this instance, it is increased to a tenfold thanks to the internet existing. A cum dumpster can simply access the internet, create a profile in a some social media application, upload pictures (especially half naked), and get tons of likes and comments in a small amount of time, in which, would give the bitch a huge ego boost that it had never experienced before.

Also, the internet has expanded the limited options bitches previously had. Now, by simply creating a profile in some online dating application, a cuntrag has access the top Chads/Tyrone's around its area. Unlike in the good old days where they had to pick a male from their social circle, which actually gave average/below average men a shot at scoring. And it is worth to mention that, If femoid organisms are not whoring themselves on social media or online dating applications, they are attention whoring on message boards by saying shit like, "hey, female here!!! XD", because they know that they have nothing useful to say so they go their way to mention their gender so the beta cucks could provide them with endless attention and validation.

It is quite apparent that the internet has turned cuntrags into entitled, narcissistic, attention whoring cunts of the highest order. And to combat this issue, a few measures must be taken: firstly, ISP's should stop selling their services to femoids. Secondly, every femoid profile on the internet should be deleted. Thirdly, fathers should restrict their daughters from accessing the internet. And finally, if a cum dumpster is caught mentioning its gender or putting up pictures of its appearance, the cumrag should be publicly stoned for death violating the law. The combination of these options would most likely make femoids stay away from the internet for good.

Dr Lisa Nolland #fundie virtueonline.org

BORN GAY' IS DEAD

Dr Lisa Nolland spells out why the idea is wrong and must now be consigned to the cemetery of thought

Both the church and society have long struggled with the issue of homosexuality.

Is it a crime? Is it an illness? Is it a sin? Is it simply a normal variant of human sexuality? And what difference do the answers to these questions make in the 'real world'?

A brief recent history

In the 1960s, American singer Anita Bryant campaigned against homosexuality, saying that gay people are made, not born, and that they had to recruit youngsters in order to maintain their numbers. This frightened the heterosexual community, and gay people in turn felt under threat.

Then, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was pressurised by gay activists into pronouncing that homosexuality was not an illness, but a normal variant of sexuality. This decision is widely recognised as having been political rather than scientific, but it laid the foundation for the decisive game-changer that was to come.

A game-changer

In 1989 two brilliant Harvard graduates, Kirk and Madsen, wrote the seminal After the Ball, which argued that 'for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been "born gay"-- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood...'

The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: by arguing for 'born gay', gays were able to qualify for special treatment as a vulnerable 'minority group'. Also this strategy elicited much more sympathy for them in the public domain because 'it's not their fault'. That public sympathy remains to this day, and 'orientation' is considered to be immutable.

Ignoring inconvenient truth

In 2007, Professor Michael King made a submission to the Church of England on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Embarrassingly for the College, the document was criticised by CORE Issues Trust as having made no reference to twin studies, which had been central to the scientific discussion for several years.

These studies showed that if one identical twin grew up to be gay, the other usually did not. The inescapable conclusion was that, since both had the same genes and hormonal experiences in the womb, the difference in sexuality must be accounted for mainly by their different experiences and perceptions during early childhood. Gay people were not born that way.

All of this was absent from the College's submission. Missing too was any reference to a major Danish study, published just the previous year, which found 'evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.'

The Royal College's submission claimed that:
• Causation was 'biological', so a person is born gay
• One's sexual orientation is 'fundamental' and thus immutable
• If one tries to change one's sexuality (by therapy) one is liable to be harmed and cited several scientific studies to support these claims.

Importance of postnatal

Unfortunately, the studies didn't support their arguments and, when challenged, the College quietly issued a new position statement in 2014 which says: 'Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors' -- exactly what Kirk and Madsen had recognised but concealed 25 years previously. The College also now acknowledged that 'it is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent during a person's life'.

The word 'postnatal' in the above affirmation is very important because it refers to events that happen after birth -- so the person was not born that way. Yet Professor King continues in denial: 'It is deeply misleading to state that people are not "born gay" and that their sexual desires can change.' He cites inter alia the work of the respected lesbian scholar Lisa Diamond.

Out of the bag

Unfortunately for Professor King, Lisa Diamond's research cannot be enlisted to support his claims. In July 2015, the New Scientist published her remarkable article, 'Sexuality is fluid -- it's time to get past "born this way".' She states: '... whenever someone comes up with a tag line like 'we're born that way', they ultimately do everyone involved a disservice. It is time to just take the whole idea of sexuality as immutable, the born this way notion, and just come to a consensus as scientists and as legal scholars that we need to put it to rest. It's unscientific ... it's totally irrelevant and just politics.'

This amounts to a complete unravelling of the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. But 'born gay' has done its work: the general public has been duped. Now they need to hear: 'You were misled. "Born gay" is dead and was never true!'

This does not of itself mean that therapy can help every individual to change their sexual 'orientation'. It does, however, open up that possibility, which gay activists have long sought to close down.

In California, now, the most draconian legislation to date is being promoted; will the church even realize what is happening and respond?

However, brave clients who have benefited from therapy are beginning to make their voices heard. CORE Issues Trust's excellent (but banned!) DVD, Voices of the Silenced, is being well received. One can purchase it here: https://www.core-issues.org/vos-dvd

May I suggest ordering a copy and seeing for yourself? If you think it beneficial, do pass it on to your church team.

Truncated responses

Some other groups are unwilling to explore the possibilities of change for those who have unwanted Same Sex Attraction (SSA). In my opinion, they are unable to offer a full analysis of what is going on, or engage with how best to respond.

Though individuals are undoubtedly helped through these ministries -- and God bless all the good they do -- the real threat is a pernicious ideology: Cultural Marxism, with its determination to stamp out 'bourgeois' values, and its totalitarian instincts. LGBT issues are but one aspect of what is far more encompassing, and which is rapidly enveloping the West, even the church.

Indeed, there appears to be little awareness that basic freedom is being destroyed, professionals forced to spout the 'Party Line', and millions of children force-fed a diet of LGBT rights. And on and on...

Getting on the front foot

Apart from exposing 'born gay' fraud and promoting the value of ministries like CORE, I would like to leave my readers with three comments.

First: Christians must fully re-engage with both Genesis and Jesus across issues of human sexuality. Who is immune from the damage of sexual brokenness? But here, to note, homosexuality is not an equivalent to heterosexuality: The former is post-Fall while heterosexuality is God-made and God-given. Our very bodies (with a tiny exception for intersex) are heterosexually designed. There is no such thing as a gay body!

Secondly, why has one narrative of SSA been privileged above others and allowed to dominate and silence them? How is that fair? Sadly, those with different stories are ignored and tacitly marginalised. A few years ago, an ex-gay friend preached at an evangelical church; afterwards he was told by half a dozen or so individuals (separately) that they too had the T-shirt but few knew. It was too risky to 'come out' in that way. Voices of the Silenced allows those who have been helped by therapy to speak. Please listen to them: I think they count too.

Thirdly, a dear friend has long struggled with unwanted SSA. He could locate no apparent reason why he had been cursed with it. Recently, though, there has been progress. Now with his third therapist, lights are coming on. But this would not have happened had he accepted he was 'born gay' or must be gay but celibate. In fact, his SSA is but the symptom of profound trauma, which God is beginning to heal.

So 'born gay'-- and all that is claimed along with it -- must go!

An Lê Quý #racist #moonbat facebook.com

NOTE: amerikkkan refers to white settlers. I don't believe there are "African Americans", Black people are their own colonized nation.
People often ask me: "An Lê Quý, what will decolonization look like, are you gonna just deport all white people back to Europe?"
Well, I'd love to do that but unfortunately it's not logistically feasible. So what would decolonization actually look like? Well...If you want a serious answer, any decolonization process would fulfill a vital task of the bourgeois democratic revolution: land reform. All land will be confiscated from the white settler nation, the amerikan suburbia won't continue to exist as it is today (no, you don't get to keep your suburban homes, it's not "working class personal property"). amerikkkans will be forcibly relocated, their residence will be confined in certain northern states to make room for the republics of internal colonies that will inevitably de-link from the u.$ empire - the Black Nation, the Chicano Nation and of course, the First Nations.
Aside from that, one of the top priorities would be reparations. This can come from a couple of sources:
1) One might think that there aren't many "means of production" left in the u.$, so there won't actually be much to "seize". In actual fact, there is still a fair amount of infrastructure and technological equipment in the u.$ that the global proletariat can expropriate: medical equipment in hospitals, teaching equipment in schools which are taken for granted by amerikans but are actually rare in the third world (computers, projectors, lab equipment), automated manufacturing technologies, vehicles, advanced construction equipment that aren't available in the third world, tractors, chemical fertilizer, etc... You get the idea. All of this will of course be brought back to the oppressed nations to aid their process of development - which the u.$ has obstructed for so long.
2) Personnel. Scientists, engineers, programmers, doctors, skilled workers or even managers with organizational skill be forced to go to the third world - where they are desperately needed for industrialization. Ultimately, this must be done to reverse the decades of brain drain that the third world has suffered. This measure combined with the abolition of intellectual property rights mean that the imperialist monopoly on technology will finally be relinquished. For the first time in history, substantial technological transfer will be a reality.
3) Land reform necessarily implies that the the white settler nation will be excluded from the decision making process with regards to what will be done on the land. Buildings maybe demolished, new farms and factories maybe built as the global proletariat sees fit. The amerikkkan population will be put to work in these newly constructed facilities (as well as any industrial & agricultural facilities left in the u.$ that haven't disappeared due to outsourcing). They will produce goods which will be taken back to the oppressed nations as reparations. This is also done to rehabilitate (or if you want to be crude, "re-civilize") them as functioning members of a future socialist society.
Needless to say, the white settler nation will be stripped off of any political rights, at least in the early years of the proletarian dictatorship - which, in case my point isn't obvious to you by now, will come from the outside. amerikkkans will not be allowed to take part in any political life until the global proletariat finds that they have been sufficiently civilized. Of course, I'm not purely fantasizing about this. You don't even have to imagine, these measures were all used in East Germany during the Soviet occupation. The problem is, Germany isn't a settler colonial empire, amerikkkans are far more reactionary, their culture much more decadent and rotten, and there's no tradition of proletarian internationalist politics among them (for obvious reasons). They will resist these measures, far more than East German workers ever did, and thus the "re-civilizing" stage will be far longer.

ZGuy0fSci #homophobia #transphobia youtube.com

"Human Rights" are just simply Human Rights, ya know like the things Red China are in grevious continuous violations of against? ^_>


There are no such things as "Gay Rights" or "Trans Rights" or other "Etc Rights" Etc, or so there should not be or need there be needs be there for nor of, rather that simply "People are People" just as Love is not Sex and Sex is not Love but rather simply "Love is Love" such without the issue of Sex til after or as a separated matter;


So no. "Shitty People" are not or aren't exclusively those who take issue with the LGBT-1000 going off about offshoot "rights" seeking to segregate people and humans into categories of varying kinds with each being less than equal and having or lacking their own sets of "rights."


But hey. I'm just some "Cyst"Gendered Straight White Guy of varied decents who greatly values Genuine Equality & Meritocratic Fairness over and in opposition against wrongful segregations based upon artificial bullshits.


/)' GLHF's to all and Good Gaming

BuddyDogeDoge #fundie reddit.com

[Comment under "This "Periodic Table of Dictators, Despots, and the Despised" rates Stalin's "evil" as a "9/10" - more than all 94 others on the table except Hitler"]

@Onlyinmizzou

you can't be simultaneously pro-secret police and pro-democracy. as a socialist, it is unacceptable to be anti-democracy.

nonsense. the point of proletarian dictatorship is that it's dictatorship for the capitalists, democracy for the workers. what you are talking here, is liberalism, is nonsense, is bourgeois equality. i will quote lenin at length to back this up.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm

But why not reach this goal without the dictatorship of one class? Why not switch directly to "pure" democracy? So ask the hypocritical friends of the bourgeoisie for the naive petty-bourgeois and philistines gulled by them.

And we reply: Because in any capitalist society the powerful tell lies to either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while the small proprietors, inevitably, remain wavering, helpless, stupid dreamers of "pure", i.e., nonclass or above class, democracy. Because from a society in which one class opposes another there is no way out other than through the dictatorship of the oppressed class. Because the proletariat alone is capable of defeating the bourgeoisie, of overthrowing them, being the sole class which capitalism has united and "schooled", and which is capable of drawing to its side the wavering mass of the working population with a petty-bourgeois way of life, of drawing them to its side or at least "neutralizing" them. Because only mealy-mouthed petty-bourgeois and philistines can dream — deceiving thereby both themselves and the workers — of overthrowing capitalist oppression without a long and difficult process of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters. In Germany and Austria this resistance is not yet very pronounced because expropriation of the expropriators has not yet begun. But once expropriation begins the resistance will be fierce and desperate. In concealing this from themselves and from the workers, the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners betray the interests of the proletariat, switching at the most decisive moment from the class struggle and overthrow of the yoke of the bourgeoisie to getting the proletariat to come to terms with the bourgeoisie, achieving "social peace" or reconciliation of exploited and exploiters.

in fact, you yourself make this point, so i do not understand why you say that you cannot be for secret police and for democracy now!

Every state that has ever existed has forcibly silenced its enemies. It is unavoidable. In the same way the the US silenced labor unions and socialists who sought to subvert the government in the early 20th century, socialist countries silenced western-backed counter-revolutionaries. Others can provide more detail into how specific socialist countries dealt with dissent, but I hope that at least shows you why this argument is dubious at best.

@Onlyinmizzou

but stalin's legacy was, in my opinion and in the opinion of many leftists, mostly counterproductive.

you would call the ending of the NEP and the building of a planned economy, the liberation of europe, unprecedented achievements in healthcare, education, literacy, space, farming, the supression of revisionists, counter revolutionaries, kulaks, etc etc - counterproductive?

it is not "great man theory" - it is looking at history as it actually was! the only liberalism here is to disregard stalin, to deny facts, to refuse to look into the actual situation! the USSR is like a machine - you cannot pick and choose which bits you want to praise, you must take it in it's entirety. you cannot simply call some crucial elements "bad, counterproductive".

infact i will ask directly - what do you think was "counterproductive"? what actions? what specifically

keepitcleanthistime #fundie reddit.com

Ultimately, Transgender ideology, as it is currently being represented, should be viewed as bourgeois reactionism. The bourgeois ideals of 'real man' and 'real woman' must be preserved at any cost (the system of domination and submission depends on it, after all), even to the point of ceding that they are not natural and are entirely social constructs.

What's 'important' now, is that people conditioned to desire conformance with one or the other construct be supported in that desire. We are not permitted to look too deeply at the causes of that conditioning (pervasive drugs and pornography and the resulting decadent culture, the general BDSM economic structure of contemporary capitalism) for obvious reasons.'

"The sheer range of appetites catered to, desires that didn't exist until we invented them" - Littlefinger

Value is socially constructed, but we aren't allowed to ask whether these constructions are good for society or the individuals they affect.

AC #fundie moonbattery.com

Children are being indoctrinated in the practice of Kwanzaa as a way to slowly introduce them to Marxist thought by another name.

These children are too young for this stuff.

Festive Marxism is still Marxism, and it shouldn't be clandestinely taught to impressionable children too young to critically examine the subject, often time without parental knowledge of what's going on or what's behind Kwanzaa.

How do you explain to a first grader that a certain philosophy requires mommy and daddy be slaughtered in a reeducation camp for being counterrevolutionary bourgeois pigs? What should they be told as the justification for participating in an armed insurgency along lines of skin color?

There's no good way to introduce impressionable children to the ugliness of this philosophy. Let them study it in late high school or college when they're mentally capable of understanding evil in proper historical context.

BlkPillPres #sexist #psycho incels.co

[Serious] Why I Can't Fault Rapists (Society Let's Women Play The Game Of "Schrodinger's Assault" - An Act Is Only Assault When They Decide [Criteria = Looks])

1. Rape Is A Man Rebelling Against The Corruption Rampant In The "Sexual Market" (Whether He Knows This Or Not)

Women like to (and are allowed by society to) pick and choose WHEN something is a violation or not, it can't work that way, that isn't logical and it isn't consistent, and that makes it prone to bias and in a way "corruption" as women are the "higher class" hoarding a scarce and valuable resource and controlling its distribution in a manner that does not allow "upward momentum" within the social hierarchy of the sexual market (the rich get richer so to speak)

Let me put it to you in the simplest way

I can't DECIDE that someone stabbing me isn't an assault (the police will still detain and question the assailant regardless of whether I refuse to press charges)

I can't DECIDE that someone taking my belongings at gun point isn't robbery (same as above)

I can't DECIDE that someone burning my house down isn't arson (same as above)

Etc, etc, etc

IF WE APPLIED THE SAME RULES WOMEN APPLY TO ASSAULT BY MEN, TO OTHER CRIMES, EVERYBODY WOULD BE OUTRAGED AND CALL IT OUT AS A CORRUPT SYSTEM

You see a system like that is inherently corrupt and open to bias, every white person can just say every black criminal that assaults them has assaulted them, and every white criminal that has assaulted them didn't (and vice versa)

IT CREATES A RIGGED SYSTEM

YET SOCIETY LETS WOMEN DECIDE WHEN AN ACT IS RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT, EVEN WHEN THE SAME ACTS ARE COMMITTED BY TWO DIFFERENT MEN (VARYING IN LOOKS) ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS

Here's what I mean by that:
Attractive man (Chad) forces his tongue down her throat - "he's being forceful, kinky"
Average/below average man forces his tongue down her throat - "help, I'm being raped"

IT CAN'T WORK LIKE THAT

Oh and yes I've seen shit like that happen in real life, attractive men get away with outright assault, because to women its only assault AFTER THE FACT (WHEN THEY HAVE REVIEWED YOUR LOOKS AND DECIDED WHETHER YOU GET A PASS OR NOT)

Women shouldn't be deciding AFTER THE FACT that THE SAME ACT is only now assault because they don't think the man doing it is attractive enough TO BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT

OH AND YES, THIS IS THE NORM AND WOMEN DO THIS SHIT EVERYDAY!

IT IS IN THAT SENSE THAT I CAN'T FAULT RAPISTS

BECAUSE IF WOMEN ARE COMPLICIT IN THAT KIND OF SYSTEM (AND THEY ARE)

THEY HAVE ALREADY ASSERTED MY ROLE/POSITION AS A RAPIST IN THEIR EYES

AS MY "ADVANCES" WILL ALWAYS BE TREATED AS ASSAULT (BEING A LOW TIER MALE), WHEREAS I WILL ALWAYS WITNESS ATTRACTIVE MEN DO WORSE, ONLY TO BE REWARDED

YOU SEE, MY SIDE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR ME, I'VE ALREADY BEEN MENTALLY PLACED IN THE ROLE OF "OFFENDER" BY WOMEN

EVERY INTERACTION BEING INTERPRETED AS AN OFFENSE, WHILE I LOOK ON AND SEE EVERY ACTUAL AFFRONT BY ATTRACTIVE MEN BE TREATED AS "ENDEARING" OR "CHARMING" (EVEN FUNNY)

2. Women Only Feel Violated Because They Feel They Were Not Compensated Fairly (Either By The Validation Of Said Male Being "High Tier" Or Monetary Payment)

What is rape (to women)? - having sex with a man you don't actually want to

What is prostitution (to women)? - having sex with a man you don't actually want to for money

I find it funny how easily "the most unspeakable act in the world" becomes completely acceptable and not traumatizing at all, the moment a woman accepts payment for it :feelskek:

AN AVERAGE/BELOW AVERAGE MAN HAS VAGINAL SEX WITH A PASSED OUT WOMAN AND SHE CAN'T REMEMBER A THING THE NEXT DAY (IS TOLD BY A FRIEND):
#METOO
#1IN4
#SURVIVOR
#RAPECULTURE

"RAPE IS THE MOST EVIL AND UNSPEAKABLE ACT IN THE WORLD, IT MUST HAVE BEEN SUCH TORMENT, SHE WAS VIOLATED SO HARSHLY"

AN AVERAGE/BELOW AVERAGE MAN PAYS A WHORE/ESCORT TO USE ALL HER HOLES, DOES ANAL, MAKES HER CHOKE ON HIS DICK, CUMS ON HER FACE, ETC:
#SEXWORK
#SEXWORKISREALWORK,
#YAAAAASSQWEEENGETDEMDOLLAS
#INDEPENDENTWOMAN

"SHE'S JUST EXPRESSING HER SEXUALITY IN HER OWN WAY, STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN'S SEXUALITY, SHE'S USING WHAT MOTHER NATURE GAVE HER TO GET AHEAD IN THIS WORLD, WHY ARE WEAK MEN SO AFRAID OF FEMALE SEXUALITY" (THE IRONY)

Do you think whores aren't being fucked "roughly"?, they are, they are handled more roughly than the average woman in a date rape who barely remembers anything, and whores do this with multiple men, day in and day out

THEY ARE VIOLATED IN THE TRUEST MOST LITERAL SENSE

NOT IN THE "I DECIDED IT WAS VIOLATION BECAUSE THE GUY WASN'T ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH" SENSE

But for some reason, like magic, there is no "outrage" like the woman who gets raped once in an alleyway or gets "date raped", now ask yourself, WHY IS THAT?

Its simple really:

IN ONE CASE THE WOMAN FELT LIKE SHE WAS DULY COMPENSATED (VIA VALIDATION AND/OR MONEY)

IN THE OTHER CASE SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS ROBBED OF SOMETHING (THAT SHE IRONICALLY WOULD HAVE GLADLY LET GET TAKEN AWAY IF THE ASSAILANT HAD A BETTER LOOKING FACE)

That's the only difference, the difference between rape and prostitution is the feeling of being compensated (be that validation from males she desires and/or money, its the lack of compensation that women see as the TRUE VIOLATION, not the act itself, AND THAT MAKES "THE SYSTEM" CORRUPT)

IT IS IN THAT SENSE I CAN'T FAULT RAPISTS

AS THE VERY SCHEMA BY WHICH WOMEN DECIDE WHAT IS ASSAULT OR NOT, I AM BY DEFAULT IN THE "OFFENDER CATEGORY" AND ONLY IF I GIVE PROPER MONETARY COMPENSATION DO I GET A PASS

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MY SIDE WAS DECIDED FOR ME BY THE FEMALE COLLECTIVE AND THEIR STATUS QUO, IF I'M PUT IN THE ROLE OF MONSTER, I WILL NOT CARE FOR OR COME TO THE AID OF HUMANS, I WILL LEARN MY PLACE AND ACCEPT MY ROLE
Last edited: Today at 8:33 PM

JamesDanko55 #racist reddit.com

Would a 50%+ Asian Harvard be a good thing? That would create massive resentments against Asians in this country. That hatred would effect the prestige of Harvard for sure.

Harvard admissions aren't meritocratic. You can say its selection process against Asians is unfair, but they are still taking up a much larger proportion of seats than their population. A multicultural society won't be possible unless compromises are made.

scribbles #fundie wehuntedthemammoth.com

And this is why the no-calls-for-violence policy is idiotic. Nazis are a direct threat to all of us who aren’t middle class white dudes like Futrelle. Whenever bourgeois white people are in charge they ALWAYS work to support those systems that destroy and rape the rest of us, no matter their nominal political affiliations. Bourgeois liberals have always and will always not only tolerate but work together with nazi scum. That’s the sad fact that makes places like this no good for any real change.

Middle class whites gonna white.

Socalist Musings #fundie facebook.com

A quick note on what we mean by "ultra-leftist."

An ultra-leftist is someone who clamors for things for which the material conditions don't exist yet. For example, with regards to the Syrian conflict, most MLs support the Syrian government against the "rebels" *even though* the Syrian government is a bourgeois nationalist government. Why? Because in a fight between the national bourgeoisie of a country and the imperialist bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie represents the progressive force. This of course does not hold if the conflict is between say the national bourgeoisie and the working class, in which case the workers would represent the progressive force and we'd switch our allegiance.

This is a basic application of dialectical materialism: the fact that what is reactionary in a particular situation can be a progressive force in another situation. Things aren't static and rigid but are continually changing. Capitalism was a progressive force against feudalism but is reactionary against socialism. The French Revolution was a progressive advance against feudalism even though it was a bourgeois revolution. This is the Marxist position.

The ultra-leftist position is: no, full communism in Syria! This ignores the existing material conditions in Syria, misunderstands the strength and position of the proletariat, and jumps to establish the ideal society by ignoring the messy present. This, of course, results from a gross misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of dialectics which make them hold to the position that nationalism or the bourgeoisie are always and always "bad."

This is what an "ultra-leftist" is. It's not someone who's the farthest left on the political spectrum (please) and it's not something to be proud of (at least if they understand the way Marxists use the term against them).

maoism123 #moonbat #conspiracy #crackpot reddit.com

Yes, the "Holodomor" is a fascist lie. It was regarded as such in the mid-1930s, when major fascist organizations such as those of Goebbels and Hearst invented it and promulgated it: even major bourgeois newspapers in the U$ rejected it as the rubbish that it was. After World War II, however, the imperialists revived it with plenty of help from the Ukrainian "nationalists", often of Nazi pedigree, whom they rehabilitated to serve as spies and propagandists against the international communist movement (especially the glorious Soviet Union). Tottle exposes the history of this fascist project right up into the mid-1980s, and an article that appeared in the <i>Village Voice</i> gave further details about fraudulent propaganda (a film, a set of textbooks, a whole institute at Harvard) produced to spread the lies through the schools, television, and elsewhere. In Kanada, an ethnically Ukrainian organization with a long communist heritage (it was in fact smashed by the Kanadian state decades ago but came back in a different form) also denounced it in a couple of articles published in the late 1980s. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of the Kanadian group's articles.

Please do not use the word "Holodomor", which only lends the lie legitimacy. The word was designed to look like <i>Holocaust</i> so as to suggest that the great Soviet Union had targeted Ukrainians for extinction in the manner of the Nazis' genocidal program. It is not a standard term from historiography (see the references to bourgeois scholarship posted here by other comrades); it's just a piece of bourgeois propaganda that we should reject.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

I actually think that White Privilege is a real thing in the sense that we have superior genes, most people have a more positive view of Whites than blacks (which is primarily based on real world racial differences rather than on baseless racist stereotypes), and we're in the majority. But where I disagree with the Left is how they try to use this concept to advance an anti-White agenda. White Privilege is only a problem if you're trying to create equality both within a racially diverse society and globally. If you abandoned those neo-Marxist, globalist agendas and allowed White people to enjoy their high standards of living in racially homogeneous White societies, then White Privilege doesn't really affect non-Whites.
I also think that leftists are greatly exaggerating the systematic racist aspect of White Privilege. East Asians are doing even better than Whites in America. How would that be possible if a White Supremacist conspiracy to hold back non-Whites was actually a real thing? And studies that looked at White kids and black kids from poor families with IQs of about 100 showed that both the White and black kids were capable of escaping poverty and entering the middle class. So, American society is much more meritocratic than leftists like to admit. The real cause of chronic black underperformance is their inferior IQs/genes, not White racism.?
But of course leftists will never admit that I'm right because then they'd be admitting that the evaaal White racists were actually on the right side of history.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy lovethetruth.com

The level of “corruption” (a gentle word for massive treason, mass-murder, trillions of stolen taxpayer dollars and numerous heinous unthinkable crimes) is staggering in the U.S government. Of course, this is all sanctioned by Zionist lobbyists and the Frankfurt Illuminati Jews themselves, since they are the perpetrators behind it ill. ...

My friend, the Rothschild-led International Banking Cartel is behind every subversive agenda eating away at America today, particularly the morals and stability of our youth. As you just read, the banking cartel control the media and entertainment.

This is why Taylor Swift started off as a good girl, wearing long dresses, the kind of girl most parents would like their daughter to be; but now she has stripped down her clothes, opening her crotch in her recent video, “BAD BLOOD”! In the video a perverted man is looking up her skirt, as she sticks her private area in his face! This is the sicko trash being pushed off on our youth today. If that offends you (and it should), then this will shock you. The Illuminati (aka, Freemasons, Rothschilds, Wall Street, international banking barons, Zionists, Communists, et cetera) are behind the moral subversion of the United States. They are behind the legalization of same-sex perverted unions (they're not marriages in God's eyes). Why do this? It is because a Godless society is a vulnerable society, easily recruited to serve the state, big government, the Antichrist, and not the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trotsky corroborator and Marxist-insider, Christian Rakovsky, openly said that Christianity is the biggest enemy of the World Revolutionary Movement. “Christianity is our only real enemy since all the political and economic phenomena of the bourgeois states are only its consequences,” Rakovsky, says. (Griffin, p. 264). ...

You won't learn the truths I am sharing with you from most history classes, nor will you learn this in a public institution of indoctrination. In Karl Marx's 10th Plank of his Communist Manifesto, he called for a public school system to enable the state to indoctrinate the children. Marx's 5th Plank called for centralized banking (aka, the Federal Reserve banks). America is largely a Communist nation today. Research and you will find that only homosexual men rise up in promotion in the military ranks of power. Our U.S. military is a cesspool of Sodomites and sexual degenerates!!! It was in December of 1011 that President Obama passed NDAA< which now permits sex with animals (bestiality) in the military. I'm not kidding, see for yourself!!!

IncelKing #fundie incels.co

How can any incel hate Elliot Rodger, who was responsible for bringing inceldom to the spotlight.

Without ER, inceldom would still be as much of a barely known concept as it was before he committed the attack. He was the one who first brought attention to our plight and problems by being vocal and explicitly detailing his social isolation and complete lack of success with women as being the main motivations for going ER, as evidenced in his youtube videos and 137 page manifesto. It was the first mass-murder by a self-proclaimed virgin and incel, so media and news channels were definitely quick to broadcast this story publicly in the state headlines. As soon as whole state knew about this attack, it spread to other states in the country.

Later it spread to other countries in the world. Information has no borders because these greedy news corporations and media outlets only care about money from selling this information to news corps/media in other countries, irregardless of currencies because they can be easily converted using the ER- "Exchange Rate", a tool created by the jews to rank each currency by assigning it a value in comparison to other countries currencies, creating a pyramid-like hierarchical structure where the stronger a country's currency, the more power they have in the global market of resources.

Thanks to the internet, international trade of information has become a much faster, simpler and efficient process. Elliot Rodger used the internet in order to broadcast himself as an incel and give voice to the incel movement. If he had not done this, the same news channels and media would instead be broadcasting propaganda about female superiority and ignoring the treatment of of low value men in the west, further distancing society from the truth. Instead, the world became more aware of inceldom which was no longer a concept but a reality, one which the west still silences discussion of (we are lucky to have this forum tbh). Fuck Internet censorship.

This forum which acts as a centre of learning and enlightenment through the teaching of the blackpill in its numerous forms, wouldnt even exist if it wasnt for ER because we wouldn't be able to find out that there are other people in the world who share the same experiences as us if the news corps didnt spread ER story and open the curtains to reveal a glimpse of inceldom to the crowd. If this forum was created only a couple of years later than it was created, an extra 1 million males would be dead from suicide around the world including many people here, who are only still alive today because of this site which is their main/only cope, without which they would chosen the rope.

You cannot hate prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and claim to be a Muslim. You cannot hate Jesus and claim to be a Christian. You cannot hate Moses and claim to be a Jew. And you can't hate Elliot Rodger and claim to be an incel. Elliot Rodger is the saint of the Incel brotherhood and his manifesto is our bible. To hate him and claim to be one of us (Incels) is an act of disbelief and should be punished seriously. Yes he took innocent lives but nothing comes without sacrifice. Elliot envisioned a bettER world in which incels would be treated like actual human beings and not socially ostracized, bullied, alienated and disconnected. He believed in something and sacrificed EVERYTHING.

While it should be obvious, i dont condone taking out your frustrations by harming innocent people no matter the circumstances. Elliot Rodger shouldnt be loved for what he did, which was a terrible crime. Rather, he should be loved for the long-term impact he made in the world, as he saved many more lives than he took by preventing thousands of potential incel/low-tier men suicides. He took a few lives and ultimately his own because he believed it was a price to pay for the greatER good.

Elliot Rodger is the true messenger of our ideology. His messages will influence the future beta uprising. He is viewed as a villain by the world. But in an evil world, the villain of the story is the true hERo.

communistroader #fundie iheartradfems.tumblr.com

Sure! To get started there’s this video where they discuss the amount of funding the trans lobby has accrued in a very short time. And there’s this post by Miranda Yardley. He touches on the rich autogynephiles in positions of power in trans lobby organizations, and how these same organizations get millions of $$$ in bourgeois patronage from Starbucks, Apple, NBC, etc. Here’s another blogger who noticed how much elite support transgenderism has received.

Wealthy white men are at the top of the trans lobby. Magdalen Berns even responded to a VICE video which gave a glimpse of how many rich autogynephiles live in New York. Spoiler: there’s a lot. Not only do they tend to be wealthy, but they were inundated in strict conservatism growing up, so they tend to gravitate to a wholly stereotyped vision of “womanhood” that looks like it came out of the 50s. Unsurprisingly, their foray into transgenderism is always sexually charged and there’s at least an implied fetish element. So transgenderism is under the ideological leadership of the world’s least oppressed people.

Transgenderism accomplishes a ton of bourgeois goals all at once. It promotes woman-hatred. It is obliterating the concept of womanhood in popular discourse. It is completely destroying feminism through a divide-and-rule strategy; liberal feminists are employed as flying monkeys and radical feminists are subjected to extreme censorship and violence. It is an automatic backlash against the meager gains for LGB rights in the past couple decades; it has rebranded conversion therapy as progressive; it has declared lesbianism transphobic; and it has introduced “gender identity” into anti-discrimination laws, which completely nullifies protections on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. It has given privileged white men an oppressed card, which has completely slowed down the black liberation movement and the socialist movement, as both these movements try to reconcile fighting for the oppressed while obeying the whim of whiny narcissists. It helps spread imperialism when it starts getting exported into the third world and picks up “culturally specific genders” as its pawns.

It’s also extremely profitable. At the base of transgenderism are some utterly reactionary philosophical assumptions. Transgenderism is idealist, meaning it elevates the mind and subjective feeling above material reality. It is mechanical, meaning it encourages the view that reality is made up of frozen parts, instead of the dialectical view that reality is a dynamic whole. In practice it relies on sophistry and fascist violence. Of course it hasn’t introduced these ways of thinking into capitalist society, but it is fundamentally a product of these ways of thinking.

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

Ross Douthat, the NY Times’ token youngish conservative, came out today with an op-ed provocatively titled “Social Liberalism as Class Warfare.” This is a theme I’ve been hitting on a lot recently because I think it’s an overlooked but nonetheless very important component of politics in the US. Douthat, in his usual roundabout, overly-sensitive and borderline deferential way (I wouldn’t count on that kind of kid glove treatment from the other side), argues that the values espoused by upper class elites are toxic to the middle and working classes.

In his piece, he addresses an argument made by Randy Waldman, who called efforts to resurrect traditional marriage a “cargo cult” (you see, Mr. Douthat, these are not very nice people), and points out that while socially liberal norms may work fine for those with plenty of money and connections, they have had disastrous consequences for the rest of us.

...

Obviously, they do not have the greater good at heart. Their clear hatred for the majority bears this out. As a resident of a deep blue city filled with people with elite pretensions, the viciousness toward anyone not on board with the socially-liberal, politically correct message is right out in the open. Unabashed, naked hostility toward dissenting points of view and advocacy for traditional values is what passes for progressivism in Seattle. No “live and let live” here… But I’ll let Douthat make his point.

...

Ah, there’s that word “meritocracy” again. Am I still the only one who fails to see the merit in these people’s values and lifestyle?

...

Here’s where Douthat constructs something of a strawman on behalf of social liberals. He’s saying, essentially, that there’s no conspiracy at work, and that they do in fact sincerely hold the beliefs they profess even if they don’t act on them. Well, this may be true, but you don’t need a conspiracy to explain a collective effort to do harm. There’s a much simpler explanation: malice.

These meritocrats just don’t like us. That’s why they use terms like “cargo cult” to explain our values. That’s why they instinctively take positions that are the exact opposite of ours. When they push policies that harm their lessers, it’s because it makes them feel good to see us brought low. Maybe some people think this is a far-fetched explanation, but who can deny that hostility toward outgroups is a fundamentally human characteristic?

Lawful Evil Award

If you want a picture of André du Pôle's vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

André du Pôle #elitist #wingnut #psycho #sexist #fundie returnofkings.com

5 Essential Life Lessons From The Hindu Law Code Of Manu

Most ROK readers should find the idea of vocation intuitive. Women have purposes specific to their sex and should not attempt to steal or destroy manly places. However, the caste hierarchy and relative leveling of vocations may seem extraneous to American readers: the US were founded over the idea that neither a centralized Church nor a nobility should exist. Did not the Founding Fathers reject the caste system from the start? Indeed—but I am neither American nor conservative enough to put them on the same footing as sacred texts.

...

A hierarchy where manly men have authority over feminine women works well. Each one has a role fit to its nature and can realize one’s own purposes with the help of the other. An inverted, matriarchal hierarchy where women would rule, on the other hand, is dissatisfying: women would look like caricatures of men by being bossy, let their defects such as conformism and group-thinking tendency express, and turn men into slaves or short-term driven pleasure-seekers. None of the parts would be able to realize its better tendencies, such as loving and caring for women, or meeting with challenges for men.

Likewise, the four-caste hierarchy is the good or fairer one. A society following it and having proper individuals at each level would be the most harmonious one, even in poverty. When the regular order gets messed up, so does the whole society: Kshatriya pretending to spiritual authority start subordinating it to political interests, just as the Protestant princes of Europe did in the sixteenth century; Vaishya pretending to power end up commercializing everything, turning politics into a marketplace where lobbyists and sellouts abound. “Inferior” castes cannot help but bring their essential ethos with them no matter where they go or what they pretend to be.

The lesson, here, could be that modernity has been mostly synonymous with a “vaishya-ization” of society: universities have turned into an academic niche market, politics have become a market as well, and the process have been aggravated by women trying to play men—especially upper bourgeois women pretending to political power. Each “inferior” caste denythe “superior” ones their rights and prerogative have made the world poorer.

As for myself, I have no problem with the idea that some, even men, should not have the right to financial independence: libertarianism may work well among men of Mensa, but a 70-IQ people clearly need some paternalist management not to drown into their own stupidity.

“Even a capable Shudra must not accumulate wealth, for when a Shudra becomes wealthy, he harasses Brahmins.” (10.129) Some wealthy people fund seditious, divisive groups such as BLM, some who enjoy a small authority act like power-tripping small chiefs, some women get beta orbiters and management power… A fair hierarchy is not one with equal chances or opportunities to get promoted, but one where each one can reach his rightful place.
Conclusion

Alt-Right blogger Lawrence Murray contrasted Buddhism, which enjoys some cultural status and association with the upper classes in the West, with an “intensely alien Hinduism.” Practicing yoga, reciting a handful of mantra and mingling with other bourgeois bohemian while sipping fair trade green tea seems indeed easier than vindicating such a frankly non-modern order.

Modernity in general and the so-called American Dream in particular entertain a deep trend of anti-traditional, anti-dharmic thinking which promotes an abstract and formally autonomous individual able to do has he wants. “Gender” or the negation of biological sex in the name of a chosen or psychological sex is but the last product of the trend.

If you could choose between a society where Hillary Clinton had won the election and a society with castes and sacred fires, would you have the guts to choose the second option—knowing that women would be women but also that you may be, say, a Vaishya and thus not entitled to (for example) give a scholarly opinion about what the Bible says?

Whatever your answer, remember that modern ethical theories come and go with the Zeitgeist, whereas dharmic cultures still exist today side by side with modern technology. I could bet anything that in a hundred years the Law Code of Manu will still be studied while Anita Sarkeesian’s name will be forgotten.

David #fundie #wingnut nowtheendbegins.com

If Trump is re-elected in 2020, the brainwashed leftists that believe President Trump is standing in the way of their Utopian Socialist Progress and causing “Climate Change” conditions will lose their minds, and this could possibly lead to violence.

If Trump is not re-elected and a lawless, socialist, One-Worlder is elected...well then, I give our nation about 2 years before our Nation completely implodes.

One World Order is going to happen, I have no doubts about that via Scripture. As far as when, to me, it looks imminent based on what I’m seeing Nationwide & Worldwide.

I say get ready for Christian persecution to be ramped up significantly in our USA...we Christians, along with President Trump are all that’s standing in the way of the Lawless Socialist One-World Utopia that I believe “they” will go to ALL extremes for...I think things will heavily ramp up in 2020 irregardless of election 2020 results.

Spartacist League of Britain #fundie spartacist.org

In last year’s Brexit referendum, Jeremy Corbyn carried the baton for the City of London and trampled on his working-class and minority supporters by campaigning to remain in the EU. Crime hasn’t paid. Corbyn may have capitulated, but the Blairites will be satisfied by nothing short of his political annihilation. As New Labour’s prince of darkness Lord Peter Mandelson ranted at a 20 February Jewish Chronicle event: “Why do you want to just walk away and pass the title deeds of this great party over to someone like Jeremy Corbyn? I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”

The bourgeoisie and its Blairite agents despise Corbyn for his talk of socialism, his support to trade union rights and his stated support for unilateral nuclear disarmament. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Corbyn’s opposition to the Trident nuclear missile system in particular makes him unfit to govern. On Remembrance Sunday in 2015, the head of the armed forces, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, made that view clear in a thinly veiled coup threat during an appearance on the Andrew Marr show.

Mandelson and the rest of the cabal led by Tony Blair spent two decades trying to transform Labour into an outright capitalist party. They abandoned even lip-service to socialism, abolished Clause IV and attempted to cut Labour’s ties to the unions. Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in September 2015, and his resounding re-election a year later, called the Blairite project into question. Driving the Blairites out of the Labour Party would constitute a step towards the political independence of the working class, despite the bankruptcy of Corbyn’s parliamentary reformist programme. For Marxists, it would offer an opportunity to expose the pretentions of the Labour lefts to speak for the working class. It would also further the struggle to win the most advanced workers and youth to the perspective of building a revolutionary workers party.

Corbyn continues to accommodate the Blairite agents of capital within Labour. Despite having the support of the majority of the party’s hundreds of thousands of members, Corbyn has not insisted on mandatory reselection of the despised Blairite MPs, or the removal of witch-hunting general secretary Iain McNicol. To avoid a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party last November, Corbyn and his allies John McDonnell and Diane Abbott absented themselves from Parliament during the vote on a motion by the Scottish National Party (SNP) calling for Blair to be held to account over the Iraq war. This unrequited peace offering was an offence against the hundreds of thousands of members who flooded into the Labour Party to support Corbyn, in large part driven by justified hatred for Tony Blair’s crimes.

The class war in the Labour Party poses the question: what type of party is needed to represent the interests of working people and the oppressed? The old Labour Party that is Corbyn’s model prided itself on being a “broad church”, meaning that it had room for a wide spectrum of political currents and opinions. Bloc affiliation of the trade unions to Labour ensured that the pro-capitalist union bureaucrats called the shots. In practice, such a “party of the whole class” necessarily submerges the most advanced layers of the working class into the most backward ones, with the result that the right wing dominates and the left bends to it for the sake of unity. Such parties are inevitably chauvinist, based on the dominant ethnic grouping and tied to the defence of the imperialist interests of their own ruling class. Corbyn’s leadership of Labour illustrates what that kind of party means in action — subordinating the needs of workers, immigrants and the oppressed to the likes of Tony Blair and his bourgeois cronies.

A Leninist vanguard party, in contrast, consists of the most politically advanced layers of the working class and oppressed, as well as elements of the petty bourgeoisie who have been won to the cause of proletarian revolution. A vanguard party would not tolerate the existence of pro-capitalist elements and English chauvinists in its ranks. It would champion the defence of immigrants, women and minorities, whose liberation must be tied to the proletariat’s struggle against capitalist class rule. Actually fulfilling the burning needs of working people and the oppressed cannot be achieved through a Labour majority in Parliament — it requires breaking the power of the capitalist exploiters through socialist revolution. To that end, the workers need their own steeled and tested combat party, modelled on the Bolshevik party of VI Lenin and Leon Trotsky, which led the working class to power in the Russian October Revolution of 1917!

John Derbyshire #racist vdare.com

Part Two of my answer: Jews are white, Asians are not, and while any overclass is resented, a racially distinctive overclass is resented more than one that barely looks any different from the resenters.

Anti-Semites know this; that's why they put out drawings of the hunch-backed, hook-nosed cartoon Jew when they want to inflame anti-Jewish feeling. It makes the Jew plainly a different race.

Part Three of my answer: even under the current covert quotas, Asian Americans are enrolled at elite colleges in numbers far above their five percent share of the U.S. population.

Yes, they're being held down: on a strictly meritocratic basis their numbers would be much higher yet, because of the arithmetic of those distribution tails. Still, strictly measured by demographic proportionality, they're high.
So yes, we were importing an overclass a hundred years ago. Elite universities dealt with the issue by fudging and chicanery—just as they are dealing with this repeat performance.

There are some key differences, though. Jews are white, which makes things easier to fudge.

Also, the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is more verbal than visuo-spatial, leading to that dominance in the shaping of opinion.
Asian Americans, by contrast, are much more visible as a group. And their high IQ is more visuo-spatial than verbal, giving us more engineers and scientists, fewer writers, lawyers, comedians, movie and newspaper moguls.

But in both cases, non-Asian gentiles get squeezed. We un-squeeze blacks and Hispanics with Affirmative Action, but that just squeezes white gentiles even more.
Under our current state ideology, the orthodox approach to that hovers somewhere between "Who cares?" and "Serve them right!"

Whether that ideology can be sustained going forward through the 21st century, is an interesting question.

Second point main point raised by readers: any merit-based immigration system imports an overclass.

I agree. Consider for example India. The mean IQ of that country is 82. The mean IQ of Indians in the U.S.A., on the other hand, is 106—higher than the mean for white gentile Americans.

So there's an overclass we've imported … from a low-IQ population.

The same applies to Africa. The mean IQ in black Africa is 70, which is very low. Assuming a normal distribution with mean 70 and standard deviation 15, Microsoft Excel tells me that only 0.0032 percent of the population is higher than 130 IQ.

That's a teeny-tiny percent; but there are an awful lot of black Africans: 1.2 billion is the latest number I've seen. Point zero zero three two percent of 1.2 billion is 38,000. Every one of those 38,000 very-smart Africans is applying for a U.S. student visa.
Caribbean blacks are, for complicated reasons, somewhat smarter than black Africans. Add them into the mix and we're importing a small black overclass.
Is this something we should be bothered about? We-e-ell … there are contrary factors to consider.

Under the present regime of chain migration, for example, all those smart Indians and Africans can bring in their way-less-smart siblings, brides, parents, and even cousins. You could argue that long-term that evens out the mix.

There's also regression to the mean. The offspring of these high-IQ immigrants will regress towards their population mean — although not all the way to it, or else Natural Selection wouldn't work. Given the likelihood of assortative mating, in fact — smart immigrants marrying other smart people — regression all the way back to the population mean is highly improbable, even after many generations.

So, no, this is not a great issue. It is an issue, though — an issue that lurks behind all the happy talk about a merit-based system of immigration.

The first time America imported an overclass, we did so accidentally. When that Great Wave of Ashkenazi Jews came in after 1881, we had only the vaguest ideas about population differentials in intelligence and personality. Psychometry as a quantitative science was just getting started.

Now we understand much more, and can make better decisions. If we import a new overclass today, we'll be doing it deliberately. We know enough to not do it.

And any overclass we import now will be nonwhite. That follows just from the balance of races in the world being much different than it was 100 years ago.

If you're a nonwhite who doesn't like white people, you are fine with that. If you're a white person living in one of the globalist-bubble districts — big coastal cities, college towns — you may think it's no big deal, we can all get along.

The rest of us are shaking our heads.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

When whites are driven out of affluent middle class areas which then become terrifying run down burned out urban jungles, it is not Jews that they are fleeing.

The inner city used to be where the affluent, the rich, and the upwardly mobile lived. It is not Jews that destroyed the inner city, Detroit, Ferguson, and are now destroying Chicago.

Female bad behavior comes from desire to fuck taciturn narcissistic assholes, starting at age eight or nine. If it was Jewish influence, they would want to fuck neurotic talkative dweebs resembling Woody Allen. Margaret Mead fucked people of both sexes and numerous races, but did not fuck Franz Boas.

Blaming Jews is yet another good news religion, because it is easy to gas the Jews, but considerably more difficult, and more disturbing, to keep women under loc parentis supervision from eight to menopause. So the program of restoring civilization sounds a lot easier if all you have to do to get things back on track is gas the Jews.

If we blame the Enlightenment, in particular and especially the extravagantly absurd claim that all men are created equal, if we blame blacks, single women, and the holiness spiral, then it looks like a harder problem, that requires us to do things that are inherently unpopular and unholy, whereas exterminating a market dominant minority is always popular, and you can very easily get away with representing it as holy. Jews are a market dominant minority, and we whites are about to become a market dominant minority.

People who hope to win an election with a universal franchise have to blame the Jews, or else blame whites in general. You cannot shut down a holiness spiral in a democracy except with another holiness spiral.

Muslims in Europe and America are very close to successfully representing gassing the Jews as holy, and shortly thereafter will go to work on similar representation of whites.

Notice eager Jewish collaboration in Muslim efforts to represent gassing the Jews as holy. This falsifies the doctrine that Jewish misbehavior is collectively rational behavior that advances the interests of “the Jews”.

I have often said that going after the Jews is goring the matador’s cape, rather than goring the matador. You have to shut down the holiness spiral itself, rather than a category of people that contains a disturbingly large proportion of exceptionally enthusiastic demon worshipers.

Shutting down the holiness spiral requires something like an inquisition. We don’t need to burn people at the stake, though Charles the second did need to burn a few people at the stake, in particular one alarmingly and excessively holy female heretic, whose holiness was inconveniently and irritatingly genuine, and whose Unitarian Christian derived belief system was alarmingly twenty first century. But mostly what Charles the second did was fire everyone in state and quasi state jobs, and invite them to re-apply for their old jobs. In the job interview, the applicant was asked whether he would “conform” – conform to the new standard of moderate holiness, which prohibited excessive holiness in general, and the old form of holiness in particular. If one declined to say he would conform, he did not get burned at the stake – but neither did he get his old job back. Many who declined to conform departed under their own power to New England. A few said they would conform, got their old jobs back, but then engaged in apostacy, and those ones Charles came down on pretty hard, but usually they got ridiculed and their careers got ruined, rather than burned at the stake. Looks to me that only one genuinely sincere and genuinely holy heretic got burned at the stake by Charles the Second, and all the others that were burned were two faced slimy lying hypocrites, and that most of the apostates just got laughed at and their careers stalled, rather than burned at the stake, or even fired. But you really do need to sometimes take firm measures against stubborn and excessively ostentatious holiness.

The problem with Jews is that they are a market dominant minority with a strong identity. Being a market dominant minority with a strong identity they are particularly subject to potential persecution, plus, in even in the absence of actual persecution, they still have an extremely strong persecution mythos, which makes them paranoid and hostile. Since one is going to get treated as a persecutor no matter what, one feels inclined to actually persecute them.

Jews are are inclined to attack the fabric of the host society, because when it’s strong it attacks them, and when it’s weak it lays off. The fabric of society is essentially everything “fascist”, so they are naturally anti-fascist insofar as they identify as jewish. Obviously this pattern has been reinforced. The reform jews most so because they are actually trying to integrate, which they can’t if everyone is Nordic Catholic “Fascists”.

When they engage in a holiness spiral, they don’t have any personal attachment to the things that their utopian schemes will destroy, or any concern about the reasons it won’t work. Whereas a white man would say “what about my job, family, community, ancestors, people, church, business”, your typical academic jew would say “Certain elements of the bourgeois will feel the move to equality as oppression (and I never liked those dumb goyim anyways)”.

Their talents make them useful to short-sighted elites, which puts them in the position of High, but with more mobility, more of a mobile bandit; they can always go elsewhere and feel just as at home. In addition to the insecurity they feel as a persecuted minority, they are naturally aligned with High which has in our recent history been engaged in destructive anti-fascism.

Their talents further mean that they are quite good at the subversion, which, lacking attachment to their host society, they naturally get into.

But the problem is not Jewish participation in subversion, it is that subversion is profitable, respected, and rewarded. Make it unprofitable, despised, and dangerous, and there will not be a Jew in sight.

Civilization is the art of people living together in large numbers: The basic problems of civilization are shutting down violence, ensuring that men and women agree to stick together for richer or poorer, or better or worse, and are forced to stick by that agreement, and securing property rights. Leftism is an attack on all of these, leftism is siding with the forces of entropy for political advantage, and Nazism is just leftism that has been left behind by a hundred years of movement even further left. “Fascism” is freedom, freedom is made possible by law, law is made possible by first establishing order, order is made possible by peace, peace first require victory, and victory requires war. Leftism reverses this chain of causation and moves us back towards the war of all against all. Leftism weaponizes covetousness and envy to attack property rights and female sexual lust to attack marriage. Single women, rather than Jews, vote for the mass import of rapeugees, because unconsciously they hope to be sold naked in chains on the auction block.

Observe what is happening with the Rohingya. The Rohingya correctly believe that a good Muslim should live under Muslim rule, and that a Muslim should establish Muslim rule wherever he lives. They attempted to establish a Muslim state in Burma, the Burmese were not having any, and are now expelling them. The expelled Rohingya don’t want to go to the USA. They want to go to a Muslim state, but Islamic states fear that if they accept the Rohingya, the Rohingya will decide that their hosts are insufficiently Islamic, or the wrong kind of Islamic. The US government wants them, wants to dump the on marginal electorates in flyover country, and you really cannot blame the Jews for this. You cannot blame the Rohingya for this. They don’t want to go to an infidel state. It is single female lust for men manly enough to subjugate them. If a bunch of east europeans were fleeing some place, I bet the PUAs would be keen on bringing them here.

Menushod #fundie reddit.com

Historically speaking, not all communists and communist-led governments have been anti-"LGBT". What many of them have been is anti-homosexual male. Albania is a good example of a country that was hostile to the homosexual male, but not hostile to the lesbian.

In the 'American' context, the (white) homosexual male rules over the LGBTQ community. It is the white homosexual male who sets the political agenda of the group, and this has been clear to radical queer critics of the 'gay rights' movement. This is why the trans-woman has been marginalized for so long, and 'gay marriage' has been pushed to the forefront. The white homosexual male in 'America' wants bourgeois respectability, and only tolerates the other identities in the alphabet-soup as is politically necessary.

As the user /u/__Zeik__ has said, it is actually quite normal for communists to be anti-gay. If you wanted to go down the "revisionist" road, you could make a strong argument being pro-gay is form of revisionism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all anti-homosexual. Engels most explicitly so, and Lenin indirectly. Almost all communist-led governments have been anti-homosexual, with basically the exception of modern day Cuba (though they were historically anti-homosexual too). Even most communist parties that have significant mass-support are anti-homosexual, such as the KKE in Greece.

Beyond all that, the greatest attacks on the male homosexual identity came from queer theorists. Queer Theory is basically a body of work that deconstructs the idea that the male homosexual is born that way. This work should be seriously studied by Marxist-Leninists. People are not born homosexuals, they are turned into them somehow. In fact, there was no such thing as a homosexual until fairly recently in history.

Some male homosexuals will deny this, and assert male homosexuals has always existed. This isn't true at all. It is true men have had sex with other men (and boys) for a very long time, but this doesn't mean anything. Even in today's world, the psychological and erotic motivations for men to have sex with other men are different. A good example is the bug-chaser, the homosexual that has an erotic fantasy about getting infected with HIV. In the erotic imagination of the bug-chaser, the object of desire is not the typical homosexual erotic fantasy object of a hyper-masculine male, it is a degenerate male homosexual with HIV, usually close to death and emaciated (and decidedly not masculine). That they have eroticized the male homosexual, rather than a mental image of a hyper-masculine man, has led many bug-chasers to say they're the 'true' homosexual. To a lesser degree, you see this in the bear/twink dynamic that exists in the male homosexual community. The bear is supposed to eroticize the effeminate homosexual, and the twink is just looking for the hyper-masculine male. The androphilic transwoman, the type of person who Western homosexuals will say countries like Iran are forcing to have a sex change, takes this the furthest, and refuses to even have any homosexual male partners, preferring to obtain sex exclusively from heterosexual men.

These are the types of people who rule the LGBTQ community in the West, and they are completely allied with imperialism and Zionism. The imperialists put them in charge, as opposed to bisexual men and women, or lesbians, or trans people, because the white male homosexual is the most opportunistic of the lot. The closeness of the male homosexual to the bourgeoisie is well known historically, and even in the earliest days of the development of the European labor aristocracy, you can see them maneuvering themselves into influential positions. This is partly why Marx and Engels hated them so much, and why the Bolsheviks associated them with fascism. They just looked at the rampant homosexuality in the early days of the Nazis, and put two and two together.

BlkPillPres #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

BlkPillPres #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

André du Pôle #fundie returnofkings.com

5 Qualities That Dying Empires Lack

André is a young European who left his decaying country in 2012 for greener pastures. He enjoys exploring subterranean places, reading about a host of interconnected topics, and yearns for Tradition.

Along with blue pill and global governance comes the Hollow Empire. We live in the golden age of marketing, public relationships, and propaganda. Many people are good at crafting appearances and virtue-signaling by the standards of the degenerate mainstream. The cities are littered with awesome, hip images, but this world is full of it.

Cities are full of useless bureaucrats, con artists, effeminate men, and man-jawed women. People are fake. Interests and excessive desires are either veiled under passive-aggressive forms or openly communicated through sheer assholery. No mystery why stoicism came back into fashion among conscious men: when your day is full of fake smiles, you’re better off working on your inner fortress. (And when you’re stoic and poor, bulking on a budget makes you better off as well.)

In such a world, some human qualities are sorely lacking. They are often perceived as signs of weakness, naivete, or as antics. Or some start counterfeiting and misdirecting them.

1. Loyalty

Sheep dogs are amongst the most loyal breeds out there. Have you seen a lot of them in metropolises? Bourgeois bohemians prefer small, frail dwarf dogs that cost a small fortune. Or cats, whose displays of egoism and moodiness are always overlooked because they’re sooo cute.

Loyalty is a noble trait. It supposes courage, constancy, straightforwardness. A loyal parent cares. A loyal citizen does his duty and tends to become a pillar of his community. A loyal friend is someone you know you can count on. Unfortunately, loyalty has been both abused and derided. Since the 60s, the media started associating it with purportedly “oppressive” and narrow-minded people while encouraging sheepish behavior towards the latest craze.

Being loyal to a girl who would only remain if you treat her badly would be foolish. Beyond this, it is hard to be a loyal patriot once you know how much nation-states sent Europeans kill each other for nothing but neoconnish interests. As French writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline said, “you think you’ll die for your country but what you’ll really lose your life for is bank vaults.”

2. Kindness

According to the dictionaries, being kind means having a benevolent, friendly, helpful disposition. In a normal society, kindness would be the sign of a good nature and it would be rewarded. In The Current Year, kindness towards women or strangers will have you exploited then called a loser or hypocrite. Men with low self-esteem started to serve women in exchange for absolutely nothing: this warped beta niceness has become a patron for kindness in general.

‘I’ve tried speed dating and all the dating Apps, but every time I put my real age, all I get are idiots and losers,’ she told the New York Post. ‘I figured, why not make them useful and have them help me around the house?’

She found a match with a man wearing overalls and wielding a hammer in his profile photo and invited him over to install her air conditioning… After he successfully carried out the installation, Bloom asked him to leave and didn’t answer his messages asking her to go on a proper date. (Daily Mail)

Displaying kindness towards freewheeling female hypergamy is the same than being loyal to a brand that makes millions out of sheeple. A sane mind doesn’t do it.

3. Politeness and courtesy

Both words refer to a kind of high culture: refined interests, a genuine concern for arts and belles lettres, a tactful and gallant temperament. Polite, courteous manners thrived during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. They were derided as bourgeois by Bolshevists and promiscuous bohemians. Today, loud-mouthed girls know nothing of it, and both have been turned into either mild-mannered spinelessness or pure snobbery.

The arts associated with politeness, such as theatre or classical music, were appropriated by old money whereas the masses are fed with pop garbage. Actually, you can be polite and courteous if you hop in the right context, then use it as a folding screen for game, Sandor Szavost-style. Otherwise you will come across as formal or distant or snobbish. Indeed, neither do boyish immaturity nor grrly aggressive narcissism provide good grounds for taking a woman’s hand and leading her through an impeccable tango.

4. Forgiveness

Jesus Christ extolled forgiveness beyond revenge. Clear the slate, turn the other cheek. Just like toleration, forgiveness works best when it is reciprocated: I’ll forgive your misdeeds because you will forgive mine, I’ll tolerate your antics because you will accept my eccentricities. When the reciprocal aspect wanes, these qualities turn into sheer weakness. Forgiving a BLM activist who sent your brother into a coma only means giving him a pass so he’ll do the same to you.

The Golden Rule, just as any of its derivatives, only works within a context of reciprocation and mutual trust. German jurist Carl Schmitt noticed the Latin Bible told about forgiving the inimicus, the disagreeable guy you’re squabbling with, not the hostis or foreign enemy who will take your head as soon as he can. There is no point being forgiving towards an enemy you have nothing in common.

Unfortunately, the chaotic Current Year destroyed most boundaries. It is sometimes hard to say who’s an inimicus or occasional yet brotherly rival you can forgive, and who’s a hostis you should always be vigilant of.

5. Patience

Arno Brecker did nothing wrong

As the saying goes, the early bird catches the worm. Being patient, planning, delaying gratification, is part of achieving great things. (Unless you’re picking up a Western whore whom you should bed early). The occult elite does not want you to be like that. Rather, those on the top want you to look for instant gratification.

The social media crack pipe, junk food, porn, and video games are designed so you get a massive rush of dopamine early on and get back there for more. If you go down this road you’ll become impatient, addicted, unable to work long hours without some unnatural gratification.

Of course this mindset makes you dependent, frail, unable to provide for yourself over the long term. Impatience is often associated with neuroticism, immaturity, and seeking external validation.

Being patient—without being passive—is required to tread the long path towards the top of the mountain.

Conclusion

Patience can be exercised alone on a purely Stoic fashion. Being patient only requires mastery of oneself, not of others. The four other qualities are essentially social but hard to exert in an anomous, low-trust society. Our natural propensities, from loyalty to the desire to provide, were misdirected and exploited. This made us wary of society in general and of other individuals in particular. When people are foreign to each other they are bound to screw and get screwed.

The better angels of our nature, yet, are still there. In spite of constant bickering and backstabbing the dissenters are closer to each other than to degenerate normies. Some girls can become reliable housewives. Hipsters who snark at old-fashioned qualities are the kind of people who build nothing. If we manage to build thick relationships again, we will effectively foster a civilization renewal.

Dichotomic Dumbfuckery Award

Dennis Prager #fundie townhall.com

Source of Human Rights
Left: government
Right: the Creator

Human Nature
Left: basically good (Therefore, society is primarily responsible for evil.)
Right: not basically good (Therefore, the individual is primarily responsible for evil.)

Economic Goal
Left: equality
Right: prosperity

Primary Role of the State
Left: increase and protect equality
Right: increase and protect liberty

Government
Left: as large as possible
Right: as small as possible

Family Ideal
Left: any loving unit of people
Right: a married father and mother, and children

Guiding Trinity
Left: race, gender and class
Right: liberty, In God We Trust and e pluribus unum

Good and Evil
Left: relative to individual and/or society
Right: based on universal absolutes

Humanity's Primary Division(s)
Left: rich and poor; strong and weak
Right: good and evil

Ideal Primary Identity of an American
Left: world citizen
Right: American citizen

How to Make a Good Society
Left: abolish inequality
Right: develop each citizen's moral character

View of America
Left: profoundly morally flawed; inferior to any number of European countries
Right: greatest force for good among nations in world history

Gender
Left: a social construct
Right: male and female

Most Important Trait to Cultivate in a Child
Left: self-esteem
Right: self-control

Worth of the Human Fetus
Left: determined by the mother
Right: determined by society rooted in Judeo-Christian values

Primary Source of Crime
Left: poverty, racism and other societal flaws
Right: the criminal's malfunctioning conscience

Place of God and Religion in America
Left: secular government and secular society
Right: secular government and religious society

American Exceptionalism
Left: chauvinistic doctrine
Right: historical reality

Greatest Threat to the World
Left: environmental catastrophe (currently global warming)
Right: evil (currently radical Islamist violence)

International Ideal
Left: world governed by the United Nations, and no single country is dominant
Right: world in which America is the single strongest entity

Primary Reason for Lack of Peace in Middle East
Left: Israeli settlements in the West Bank
Right: Palestinian, Arab and Muslim denial of Jewish state's right to exist

Purpose of Art
Left: challenge status quo and bourgeois sensibilities
Right: produce works of beauty and profundity to elevate the individual and society

Guns
Left: ideally universally abolished, except for use by police, the armed forces and registered sportsmen
Right: ideally widely owned by responsible individuals for self-protection and the protection of others

Race
Left: intrinsically significant
Right: intrinsically insignificant

Racial, Ethnic and Gender Diversity at Universities
Left: most important
Right: far less important than ideological diversity

Black America's Primary Problem
Left: racism
Right: lack of fathers

Greatest Playwright
Left: entirely subjective; there is no greatest playwright
Right: Shakespeare

War
Left: not the answer
Right: sometimes the only answer

Hate
Left: wrong, except when directed at the political
Right: wrong, except when directed at evil

Cultures
Left: all equal
Right: some are better than others

America's Founding Fathers
Left: rich white male slave owners
Right: great men who founded the greatest society

Purpose of Judges
Left: pursue social justice
Right: pursue justice

National Borders
Left: a relic of the past
Right: indispensable for national survival

View of Illegal Immigrants
Left: welcomed guests
Right: illegal immigrants

Nature
Left: intrinsically valuable
Right: made for man

Arthur Gordian #elitist #racist socialmatter.net

A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

Returning to the topic of Indo-European mythology, there are two distinct ways that Indo-European societies organize themselves. The first is by means of caste, which Georges Dumézil defines as an order built on the concept of function. He argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans organized themselves into three groups, the famous trifunctional hypothesis of Priests, Warriors, and Laborers, and that this caste system evolved into the various manifestations we see from India to Ireland. While there were numerous permutations of this system, each changing in some way the specific character of the castes, the same foundational rules applied across the board, namely that society should be divided along the lines of the function men play in the maintenance of order.

The alternative method of organizing society, also indigenous to Indo-European societies, is the class system which dominated the post-Medieval world. The major distinction between class and caste is that class system organizes people by socio-economic status rather than social function. What one does in society does not matter in a class system. What matters is the amount of wealth and status you can accrue from your function. Members of the upper class can be politicians, businessmen, or generals, but these roles are insignificant to the class system. It is certainly true that upper-caste members tend to be wealthier than lower-caste members in traditional economies, but the material differences are incidental to the caste system and central to a class system.

In Dumézil’s Mitra-Varuna and his two volume work on Ancient Roman religion, the author shows the conflict which emerged in the Roman Republic when the class system began to eclipse and replace the ancient religious caste system. Like most European religions, especially among the Germanic peoples, the priestly caste was largely absorbed into the warrior caste and retained only ritualistic significance, which Dumézil traces in the various priesthoods of the Monarchy and Republican period. What distinguished the Romans was the rise of a system where men were divided into socio-economic classes, such as the Senatores, Equites, Proletarii, and so forth. While there were hereditary roots to these classes, after the Republican period they were primarily economic, as the poet Juvenal tells us:

Would you not like to fill up a whole note-book [of satirical writings] at the street crossings when you see a forger borne along upon the necks of six porters, and exposed to view on this side and on that in his almost naked litter, and reminding you of the lounging Maecenas: one who by help of a scrap of paper and a moistened seal has converted himself into a fine and wealthy gentleman? – Satire 1

Juvenal’s complaint should sound familiar to modern ears: unscrupulous foreigners who lacked any respect for the Roman virtues or laws usurped the positions of power, authority, and wealth from the native Roman population. The openness of the Roman system, which transitioned toward the class structure after the Servile Wars in order to permit qualified plebians to serve in high military office, allowed the complete disenfranchisement of the Romans themselves.

…when a guttersnipe of the Nile like Crispinus —-a slave-born denizen of Canopus —-hitches a Tyrian cloak on to his shoulder, whilst on his sweating finger he airs a summer ring of gold, unable to endure the weight of a heavier gem—-it is hard not to write satire. For who can be so tolerant of this monstrous city, who so iron of soul, as to contain himself when the brand-new litter of lawyer Matho comes along, filled with his huge self; after him one who has informed against his noble patron and will soon despoil our pillaged nobility of what remains to them—-one whom Massa dreads, whom Carus propitiates by a bribe, and to whom Thymele was made over by the terrified Latinus; when you are thrust on one side by men who earn legacies by nightly performances, and are raised to heaven by that now royal road to high preferment—-the favours of an aged and wealthy woman? – Satire 1

As hard as it is to tear ourselves away from the masterful writing of Juvenal, let us return to the point; the openness of a class system, which reduces all social order to that of wealth and popularity (to which Juvenal has more to say, but I’ll desist), creates the opportunity for the erosion of social values and cultural goods by removing one of the core limits on superbia, the overweening ambition of the opportunist.

The rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power is bad enough, as history has demonstrated, but the greater danger is that such a society is a magnet for every two-bit con man and grifter across the globe. People with no attachment to the land, culture, or society can use class systems to free-ride on the cultural and social capital of a well-ordered society until even the greatest community is brought down under the overwhelming weight of parasitism. Rome became that magnet, attracting the scum of every corner of the Mediterranean to pull down the greatest civilization before our own. When wealth alone determines social status, anyone willing to violate the norms and unspoken rules governing society can elevate themselves, because when their actions transform society into a cesspit of corruption and despair, they can simply pick up again and move on to the next target. The weight of social disapproval, which ensures a functional society’s consuetudines et usus, the unwritten customs, values, norms, and beliefs which undergird social order and protect against anti-social disruption, does not function on the alien. Cicero declared the fundamental character of a community to be a common language, common “ius[1],” and common weal. There is no common language, “ius,” or weal in the Rome Juvenal is portraying to us, and that is largely due to the Roman class system.

Thus, we return to the notion of caste, in which function and heredity primarily determine one’s social position. I am under no delusion that I am a “secret aristocrat,” as the liberal slur goes. My heredity is pure redneck back over five hundred years. Under a strict hereditarian system, I would most likely be prohibited from receiving enough education to read Juvenal. Nevertheless, the reactionary in me says that my personal situation is irrelevant, and I ask of my reader to keep that in mind themselves as they read the following. If I must be a farmer in order that my people should be free and my children be assured a place, no matter how humble, in their own homeland, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

No functional society is possible without a hereditarian caste system. The arrogance and superbia of Man is such that there must be hard, unbreakable limits on personal ambition, along with strict disincentives to opportunistic parasitism. I am not saying that there cannot be any movement, or that every son of a farmer must be destined to farm forevermore. Even Plato did not suggest this. Every system has some level of flexibility, both ethnic and caste. It is no coincidence that English populations on the borders of the Danegeld, Wales, and Scotland show DNA markers for Nordic and Celtic genotypes. Nor do I deny the various Ciceros and Charles Martels who rose from middling ranks to preserve and protect their homelands. However, the flexibility inherent in any caste system is a weakness in the armor of a nation, and every exception to the rule justifies the waiting masses of alien grifters, who undermine the whole of social order for the material benefit of himself and his tribe.

Hereditarianism is perhaps the most important safeguard to any society because social stability rests on consuetudines et usus, unwritten norms and ethics tied to particular ethnic and cultural groups. It is no coincidence that Ethnic and Ethics arise from the same Greek root. One does not routinely scam one’s neighbors because they are kith and kin; their essential connection to you is the bond and guarantee of equitable relationships. We mourn the day when “a man’s handshake was his bond,” but that handshake wasn’t the true bond. The bond, (in legal terminology, the collateral of a contract) is the reputation one has in the community, which is built upon common heredity. Honor matters because it is the mark of approval from the community that one abides by the unwritten rules which make society spin. The alien neither has honor, nor cares for honor, because he does not care for the community with which he shares no blood.

In any caste system, the alien is either the lowest caste or outside the system altogether. The merchant, who surrenders his identity for a cosmopolitan existence, is also low on the scale, even when he shares blood with the community. This is because a caste system is a fundamental barrier to dyscivic practices and free-rider scenarios, and these two groups have the most to gain from undermining the system and replacing caste with class. When wealth replaces blood, who becomes the highest members of society? It is no coincidence that the word “liberal” was nearly always preceded by “bourgeois” until the 20th century; they are the beneficiaries of the replacement of the medieval caste with the capitalist class system. Likewise, the replacement of caste with class is the only means wherein the alien will be permitted to rise in status over the native-born.

Caste and blood are the only protection that native-born labor have against oppression and loss of self-determination–hence the traditional support of the rural working class for reactionary politics. The upper-castes, the priesthood and aristocracy, are limited in their oppression by those very customs which make society run, but the alien landlord or banker is not so constrained by the cultural limits on power and is free to grind the working classes into dust. When a reactionary says, “neither capitalist nor socialist,” it is a recognition that both are symptoms of the same social breakdown.

The destruction of social order epitomized by the English Whigs and the resultant socialist working-class backlash to an out-of-order bourgeoisie have their roots in the rejection of the role of blood and heredity in determining a social order. Bourgeois rebels against custom and order create socialist rebels by destroying the functional limits on power in society which rested in the hereditary aristocracy.

There is a price to be paid in personal liberty for a caste system, true. I would never be allowed to become a scholar in a society where heredity ruled. The other option, however, is this:

Then up comes a lordly dame who, when her husband wants a drink, mixes toad’s blood with his old Calenian, and improving upon Lucusta herself, teaches her artless neighbours to brave the talk of the town and carry forth to burial the blackened corpses of their husbands. If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and high commands, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. Who can get, sleep for thinking of a money-loving daughter-in-law seduced, of brides that have lost their virtue, or of adulterers not out of their teens? – Satire 1

[1] It can mean law, justice, or Right. In this situation, it probably means all three.

Hunter Wallace #racist #wingnut occidentaldissent.com

[From "Southern History Series: The Rise of Modernism"]

If you want to understand how and why the South is the way it is today, you won’t find the answer in the distant past. The roots of the present crisis trace back to the Second World War and the Cold War, begin in the North and overwhelm the South during the Civil Rights Movement.

The South as it existed from Redemption through the Great Depression was a totally different world. It was becoming more homogeneous, not heterogeneous. It was poor, not wealthy and bourgeois. It had a colonial extractive economy based on agriculture and mining, not on services and commerce. It was overwhelmingly rural, not urban and suburban. It was highly personal and deeply rooted, not anonymous and alienated. It was segregated, not integrated. It was strongly Protestant, not agnostic, atheist or apathetic. It had a rural elite that celebrated traditional values based in the county seats, not a metropolitan middle class animated by economic growth. The Solid South was Democratic, not Republican. It was racially conscious, not racially masochistic. It built monuments to the Confederate dead as opposed to tearing them down. Its people got their news from other people at the country store or through the editor of their local segregationist newspaper, not through television.

The following excerpts come from Numan V. Bartley’s book The New South: 1945-1980:

[...]

The southern white-collar legions were a rising force in society and politics. Despite the frequent references to a “new middle class,” its membership, aside from being overwhelmingly white in racial composition, was a more diverse aggregation than some contemporary accounts implied …

They were better educated and more widely informed on public issues than southerners generally and, according to opinion polls, were more tolerant on racial matters. Their families were in the vanguard of the stampede to suburbia and of the introduction of far-reaching changes in southern lifestyles. They formed the base for the open-schools movement and for the moderate position in southern politics.”

[...]

Let’s stop here for a moment and think about the consequences of the technological revolution that swept the South between 1940 and 1970. The tractor and mechanical cotton picker destroyed sharecropping which unsettled millions of people in the lowland South. Similarly, the mechanization of coal mining led to an exodus out of Appalachia in the 1950s. The television transformed Southern politics by making local racial conflicts – things like the lynching of Emmett Till or the rebuff of John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma – into narratives of international significance in the Cold War.

The invention and spread of the air conditioner homogenized the Southern climate and made it attractive to transplants. Florida went from being the smallest Southern state to one of the largest states in the country because of the air conditioner. The bulldozer began to level the areas around our major cities which is where suburbia was created and millions of people moved from rural areas into the suburbs of the new ballooning metropolitan areas where the Baby Boomers were raised on the television.

There was a shift in power from the rapidly depopulating Black Belt, which had been the historical stronghold of white supremacy and segregation, to the metropolitan areas and their suburbs. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Black Belt was placed under black majority rule. The White middle class of the suburbs and the metropolitan elites became the dominant class in the South after 1970.

“Some academics and progressives bemoaned the materialism and shallowness of urban middle-class lief. Robert J. Steamer wrote in 1963 that a typical member was a “rootless nomad whose primary, and sometimes, only loyalty is to business. His political ideas are substantially barren, because at bottom, materialism is his life philosophy, but translating his thought into political maxims we get free enterprise, fiscal sanity, balanced budgets,” and certainly it was true that the South’s uptown business leadership frequently equated sensible social policy with what best served the exigencies of the real estate market. …

A South Carolina observer remarked about moderates, “I don’t think they take the Negroes seriously as people … They look at it as something … that doesn’t really have much to do with them.” Middle-class metropolitan southerners threatened the paternal order because of their commitment to atomistic individualism, consumer materialism, upward mobility, and unfettered economic development.”

Sounds familiar.

[...]

This would be me … not a deracinated ideologue or a fanatic, but someone who clings to the old ways, values, traditions and sense of identity of the Black Belt, someone who values my roots, ancestors and social stability as opposed to chasing after social status or worshiping the GDP. I despise mainstream conservatism because I am a Southern conservative populist. We’re not retreating from mainstream conservatism anymore though. We’re going on the offensive.

[...]

This is an interesting passage.

The most striking thing about the “white supremacy” and mass shootings narrative is that under actual white supremacy in the Jim Crow South we didn’t have mass shootings. We had plenty of guns, but none of this nihilistic anti-social rage and alienation which is at bottom an attempt to escape from the sick anti-culture that we live under in our own times. The people who engage in mass shootings want to draw attention to their profound psychological angst and pain.

[...]

The American dream of living in a nice little house in an artificial community with “good schools” adjacent to big box stores was a nursery of countless social and psychological problems. In hindsight, it was probably healthier to live in a shack with no electricity or an indoor toilet. In those days, you inherited your beliefs, values and politics from granddaddy who sat on the front porch and told you who you were and where you come from. Now, you absorb all the Jewish poison that is pulsating through the “mainstream” culture around you while in college or through being immersed in the mass media.

What’s the solution? Think of it as a great catastrophe that we have lived through. The old organic culture has to resprout from its roots in much the same way that a clearcut forest grows back.

International Communist League (Fourth International) aka the Spartacist League #moonbat #pedo libcom.org

(This apparently originally is from Workers Vanguard No. 843, 4 March 2005. Bolding added by submitter.)

"Recovered memory" prosecutions—which put hundreds behind bars in the daycare and "satanic abuse" witchhunts of the 1980s and early 1990s—are back. In Boston on February 15, 74-year-old defrocked priest, Paul Shanley, was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison based solely on uncorroborated "recovered memories" of a man who claimed Shanley abused him 20 years earlier. Alexander Cockburn wrote in CounterPunch (19/20 February): "In the state that gave us Salem in the seventeenth century and the Amiraults (all wrongly sent to prison on charges brought by Middlesex county District Attorney Martha Coakley) in the twentieth, Shanley's case has reintroduced recovered memory to the courtrooms of the twenty-first."

Shanley has been one of the prime whipping boys in the explosive sex scandals that have rocked the Catholic church beginning in 2002, when the Boston Globe began a series on priests and sexual abuse of youth. Roderick MacLeish Jr., the personal injury lawyer representing Shanley's accuser, retailed scandalous tales to the press about Shanley, which have been refuted by JoAnn Wypijewski in CounterPunch. She actually read the 1,600-page official church file on Shanley, which apparently no other reporters bothered to do. As Cockburn pointed out, "Had they done so, they would have found nothing to buttress the claims that Shanley founded NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], or was ever a member, or had ever advocated sex between men and little boys, or had a 30-year record of child abuse complaints made against him or a history of being moved from parish to parish. Yet all these allegations have become the common currency of Shanley's biography, and if guards usher a murderer into his cell, the killer will probably have the NAMBLA charge at the top of his mind."

In fact, Paul Shanley did openly advocate recognizing homosexuality as a normal sexual variation (based partly on the pioneering work of Alfred Kinsey), and did have homosexual liaisons. He was a long-haired "street priest" in the 1960s, mentioned in the book Common Ground, who tried to help runaways and kids hooked on drugs. Shanley's "association" with NAMBLA is that he attended a conference of people fighting a Boston anti-gay witchhunt at the end of which some people, not including Shanley, founded a group that later became NAMBLA.

NAMBLA's name is perennially dragged through the plentiful Boston mud, having been pounded for over 20 years by media smears and witchhunting prosecutions. We in the Spartacist League have repeatedly defended this tiny beleaguered group as an elementary act of proletarian decency. We oppose criminalizing their advocacy of the eminently reasonable proposition that youth who have sexual feelings be allowed to express them. NAMBLA simply advocates the decriminalization of consensual sex between men and boys.

It is telling, in this deeply puritanical society, that the pitch of modern inquisitions increases according to the proximity of youth and sex. It is no accident that the church sex scandals have focused overwhelmingly on gay sex (did no priest ever touch a girl?), as this is guaranteed to set reactionary alarm bells ringing a lot louder. Since the daycare witchhunts, the code word for anti-sex crusaders, from the Christian right to the straightlaced morality feminists, has been "protect the children" from so-called pedophiles. This campaign reflects anti-gay bigotry, increased powers of repression for the capitalist state and a shoring up of reactionary "family values" like the domestic slavery of women and stultifying "abstinence only" for young people.

Gerald Amirault, a married man with children of his own, was released from prison in 2004 after being unjustly imprisoned for 18 years, framed up with incredible tales of evil robots, knives and dead pets at the Fells Acres Day School he ran with his sister and mother (who were also imprisoned). This was based solely on the coerced testimony of children whose only real abuse came at the hands of the prosecutors who, in their zeal for convictions and publicity, fed so much crap into them that they still reel from the trauma. Just as Amirault was up for a commutation, the church sex story exploded and he lost another two years to prison, as the cowardly politicians of Massachusetts refused, in the midst of the scandal, to set him free, despite the Board of Pardons' unanimous recommendation. We defended the Amiraults, and many other daycare workers, against the witchhunts of their time.

Now former priest Paul Shanley has been thrown to the wolves of "recovered memory" prosecution. This is a very dangerous thing. No evidence was presented that he committed any crime. This may be a difficult case for some of our readers to grasp, given the passionate—and legitimate—disgust so many feel for the real miseries inflicted by organized religion in this socially backward country, from the Christian fundamentalist right to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic church upholds subservience to authority, from children's submission to parents, a wife's submission to her husband, the flock's submission to the priest and submission of all humanity to God. The worst thing, ultimately, about religion is that it preaches blind faith in false, mystical forces ruling our fate, crippling humanity's fight for freedom from oppression and for control over nature.

We care about the suffering of those victimized by corrupt, violent institutions and adults—whether priests or bullying state prosecutors. The terror and helplessness felt by children coerced into submission by frightening authority figures like priests, especially when combined with enforced guilt about sex, does scar them for life. Obviously the church has a lot to cover up—look at the millions in hush money it's been dishing out (including to some of Shanley's accusers). Forced out over the scandal was Boston's arrogant Cardinal Bernard Law, the Catholic version of Harvard's all-purpose bigot Larry Summers (who recently speculated that women, Jews, Catholics and white basketball players are perhaps innately incapable of certain activities). Surely there are many abusive priests. But we'll never know what happened in many cases, as the actual guilt or innocence of those singled out to be demonized is irrelevant to both prosecutors and the church hierarchy, who would rather throw money at accusers than uncover the truth. This too is a terrible injustice to those abused.

The falsity and reactionary political uses of "recovered memory" prosecutions were thoroughly exposed a decade ago. In a major review of research and books debunking "recovered memory" prosecutions, we wrote: "Much of this persecution aims to strengthen the bourgeois state in its regulation of the population and to spread panic, as a diversion from the real brutality of life in this twisted, mean, bigoted, racist society" (Women and Revolution, No. 45, Winter-Spring 1996). What we wrote then is equally true today: It is in the interests of all in the workers movement to protest and oppose this new, deadly "recovered memory" witchhunt. Free Paul Shanley!

Malunkyaputta #fundie reddit.com

[OP of "How do you respond to people who try to say how oppressed their friends/grandparents/etc were in Communist countries?"]

(I'm sure something like this has been asked before but I couldn't find it with a search)

I am a pretty new Marxist-Leninist and I see a lot of stuff like this on the internet. The argument usually goes something like this: "the only people who are pro-communist are people who have never lived in communist countries. My grandparents lived in a communist country and everything was terrible and one of them was executed. My grandfather was just a simple farmer. You're in inconsiderate asshole and an idiot for thinking communism is a good thing and it has killed a ton of people needlessly, etc etc"

So my first question for them would be under which circumstances their friend or grandfather was persecuted, of course, but they always seem to think that they did no wrong and the government just randomly decided to put them to death because the bloodthirsty evil communists just liked to do that (/s). And then, of course, I would ask which country and in what year they are referring to and find out if it was (as it seems to me) a revisionist/opportunist sort of situation or not. And then I would ask if their family was bourgeois or petit-bourgeois, as I understand many of those people had a pretty hard time in communist countries. From here, I don't really know where to continue, especially if I try to do some research and explain why what they perceive as an injustice occurred. And I do understand that not all communist countries are above doing wrong. In fact, I personally believe every previous and future state and revolution made and will make mistakes, some more debilitating than others. But these people are just so hostile and offended since it involves someone important to them who they do not see as someone who does wrong.

I guess my point and what I would like to ask is how to explain to people who are absolutely certain that they aren't missing something in all of this. I am certain that whatever country they were in had some sort of rationale for the execution (if it happened at all) and can research/show them what happened historically all day long, but they will always just default to your generic bourgeois propaganda and say that everything they are told contrary to that is fake and a lie.

Of course, since this kind of discussion deals with a sensitive and emotionally-charged topic, but these anecdotes people have about people in their personal life being randomly fucked over by countries run by a communist party leave me skeptical personally, but for countless others, they perpetuate and reinforce a negative, sinister sort of image of communism. But I don't know how to reason with these people. And I don't think I can just get them to read Lenin or Marx to get them to understand why things happened the way they did.

I realize that I will never be able to encourage everyone to read more about Marxism and the USSR or to start calling themselves a Marxist-Leninist or whatever, but I just wish I knew how to better discuss stories of people who lived in supposedly malevolent communist countries.

The Ministry Of Fear #conspiracy ministryoffear.wordpress.com

The Purple Menace: Barney the Communist Dinosaur

Communism will never destroy America. But as Generation Barney matures, we look back at the dangerous legacy of communism’s top entertainer.

Throughout the 20th century, popular entertainment was never just that. Thanks to the Legion of Decency, a kiss was never just a kiss, and a knowing smile had deeper meanings in the early part of the century. Later, better messengers proved to be the forms entertainment directed towards the youth. Superman and Captain America battled every single public enemy and moral outrage of the age; the most enduring ads (Disney’s I like Ike, Duck and Cover) were conveyed through animation.

However, no other children’s television program in America was as iniquitous and reprehensible as Barney and Friends. The PBS Kids’ TV show about an anthropomorphic purple dinosaur doubles as a pinko commie propaganda machine promoting communism and socialism and exposing young and malleable minds of millions of American children to these dangerous and subversive ideas.

Before we started pointing fingers, let’s see what Barney brings to ‘preschool’ children, its targeted audience group. There were accusations that Barney promotes denial and ill-prepare the children for the existence of unpleasant realities. Many scholars and psychologists detest and denounce the show for it. However, children don’t go to these TV shows to learn about real life, so we need to bring the conversation about Barney to what it is within instead of what it is without.

Firstly, there is unhealthy eating. Barney consumes only peanut butter jelly sandwiches, while his girlfriend Baby Bop eats macaroni and cheese and pizza—the staples of American diet. The promoting a diet of peanut butter jelly sandwiches to preschoolers is unacceptable but mac and cheese and pizza—that is just downright wrong. The young minds are easily impressionable; in the age when we should be promoting healthy eating and well-balanced diet, the show was a slap in the face to many a nutrition expert.

Then came his theme song: “Barney is a dinosaur from our imagination”. The show was first aired in 1992, right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Choosing an extinct animal and reviving it may not directly suggest communist revival but Barney was originally meant to be red. Yes, red—like communism whose fossilized remains it came to symbolize. The production team claimed that red as a primary color would attract young childern’s attention, and only after a child psychologist warned that a bright red dinosaur could be perceived as threatening, color purple was chosen.

Thus like the Soviet Union, a purple Tyrannosaurus Rex remained an unnatural entity. Two additional lines from his theme song added to his unnatural, dishonest nature: “Barney shows us lots of things/Like how to play pretend” and “Barney can be your friend too/If you just make-believe him!” I don’t know what the producers (or the children who ‘imagined’ Barney to life) were smoking/drinking.

Children who grew up with Barney will remember a slew of his most famous songs. Apart from ‘I Love You/You Love Me’ with its hippy, free love message (another fossil from the 70s), all of his other songs and episodes promote communism towards young and defenseless children. [‘I Love You/You Love Me’ song was not so innocuous either. Entirely devoid of musical value, it was used by the U.S. military in interrogating terrorists. It is probably a thousand times worse than waterboarding.]

Barney asks children to clean up after themselves. Although it might probably have been a great idea for parents to implant in their children, his actual lyrics are terrifying. “Clean up, clean up everybody everywhere. Clean up clean up everybody do your share,” sounds like a quote copied from Big Brother. It had been the propelling idea behind Stalin’s collective farms and Pol Pot’s killing fields. A world where everyone do the same ‘share’ instead of maximizing utilities and profits by outsourcing is not an idea espoused by anyone since Adam Smith. It is downright socialist.

The next message cements Barney’s stance as the premier agent provocateur of communism. “Sharing is caring” had been his message. In addition to becoming the tag-line of online piracy, the quote shed light into the minds of Barney’s creators (and its masters in Kremlin). Sharing is a communist idea; it leads to a society whose very norms inhibits the personal growth and motivation. How can a person be motivated if his society promotes sharing instead of gaining the benefits through his own exceptional work? It was the flaw with Peter Singer’s model world. In addition to that cheery, idealist society where everyone receives the same wage and the benefits, sharing leads to a brave new world where state-sanctioned theft was promoted. That is Barney’s world. That is Marx’s world.

The best example of this line of thought was epitomized in the song “Peanut Butter and Jelly”. “First you take the peanuts/And you crunch ’em,/Then you take the grapes/And you squish ’em,/Then you take the bread/And you spread it” were the lines directly taken from the song. Peanuts symbolize farmers and landowners. Grapes symbolize not only bourgeois class but also religion. (Grapes have been an enduring symbol of faith, fertility). Barney is promoting a society where we oppress farmers, landowners, bourgeois and even religion. To do what? To take the bread and spread it. Ambiguously pronoun there brings back uneasy memories of breadlines behind the Iron Curtain.

“Communism will never destroy America,” proclaimed many politicians. But now as Generation Barney matures as and many who were directly related to Barney show becomes the icons of showbiz, we see America’s sudden turn to the left—nationalizing banks, healthcare, increasing taxation, etc. Those communist, socialist and nihilist ideas ingrained when these kids were little were definitely showing. Are we headed towards a Kleptocractic world where the rule of the jungle (viz., Sherwood Forest) is not only allowed but also sanctioned? It is time to expose this communist conspiracy. It is time to condemn Barney.

Therumancer #fundie escapistmagazine.com

I've already played games where that has been the case. I'm pretty anti- gay men, (if you want my thoughts on the subject of homosexuality some of the back messages are probably still around. The specifics have little to do with this discussion however) however) but that doesn't mean I get into some kind of frothing rage at the merest mention of gay men or whatever.
To be honest with most video games out there are set up, the only way the protaganist's sexual orientation is going to matter is if they go out of the way to bring it to the forefront. If this means that playing a game where the protaganist gets involved in numerous make out sessions with guys, or makes a big deal about being gay, is not going to appeal to me. After all that kind of thing is hardly a turn on for me, and since I don't like it, there is no real appeal to the situation, if they are going to put that much focus on it for the point of the game, my time would better be spent playing a game where this wasn't the case.
As far as games I've played with gay main characters or protaganists (that weren't me being a perv with a couple of girl characters) there have been a few. "Phantasmagoria II: A Puzzle Of The Flesh" involves an entire subplot about the character you control dealing with their homosexuality in their shrink's office. Then of course there is "Enchanted Arms" where the hero's main sidekick is a male homosexual with a crush on him. Then we have "Persona 4" where one of the party members being a gay man is actually the theme of a whole dungeon section. When it comes to antagonists, let's just say that if you have ever played a game about Conan that has featured characters from the books, a few of them were "boy lovers". Conan was before political correctness when it was written, and while it was never a focus, Conan has a major amount of contempt for gays and "boy lovers", and while never descriptive a number of his enemies were supposed to have been weakened by such "civilized decadence". Of course in the video games they rarely even go as far as the stories (both canon, and very old non-canon) did, which wasn't very far. Like most heroes a lot of his enemies "almost get him" in one way or another (a trap or spell, if not a straight fight) so you really can't call them impotent (so to speak) for their orientation irregardless of what Conan might think.
If you want to get technical, I think this entire "question" is a bit less profound than you might have intended. To be honest homosexuals have been fairly well represented as far as gaming goes, you just have to understand your dealing with a tiny percentage of the population. Fair representation does not mean "equal time with the majority" simply that a group is not totally neglected simply for being what it is. That's why I have such an issue with political correctness, and preferred Bioware's approach to romances in the first "Dragon Age" game to the "everyone is bi-sexual" approach of the second one. Granted you don't see much homosexuality in games in general, but that's pretty much in keeping with the number of homosexuals in society. Such things are there if you look for them, and have been for a long time.
That said, if you were doing a game like "Duke Nukem" but with the protaganist being an agressively flamboyant homosexual (of whatever style) instead of a manly flamboyant heterosexual, I don't think it would find much of an audience. Humor or not, it's meant to be slightly risque in it's own way, and someone without those tendencies wouldn't wind up appreciating the eye candy so to speak. I don't think there is enough of an audience to really sustain it.
That's a somewhat informed opinion as well, because it's been tried. They released those "Cho Aniki" games which are a series of tongue-in-cheek platformers featuring gay musclemen. We've actually seen ports of a couple of the titles to the US. From what I've heard the series has largely survived due to being relatively cheap to produce and a fan
base that is dedicated if not exactly numerous which does make it profitable. If it was tried on a fairly big-budget level like "Duke Nukem Forever" I don't think the audience would sustain it since there just wouldn't be enough gays with enough interest, and even if homosexuality doesn't offend someone they really aren't going to find a lot of gay innuendos aand cheesecake all that thrilling to want to dedicate hours upon hours expoising themselves to it, after dishing out a $60 price of admission.
Such are my thoughts. Due to being an admitted perv I'm intentionally staying away from the idea of lesbian characters because hey, like a lot of guys, I do find that fairly "hot" when presented the right way. Also I do believe that gays and lesbians are differant situations entirely, but that's not something I'm going to go into again. Again there are probably some back messages where I explain it (and the likely arguement would go nowhere) but simply put it has nothing to really do with it being "okay because it turns me on". The point being that I more or less agree with you excluding that aspect of the discussion. Especially seeing as I think that there are enough people out there like me in their "interests" irregardless of why that a hot lesbian heroine can find a niche among the male video gaming population and be sustained at a fairly high level, where I don't think gay men can be. You could probably do a Lesbian version of Duke Nukem and all the guys who bought Duke Nukem would also buy that game for largely the same reasons, and wind up appreciating the eye candy just as much. Whether it's fair or right or not is not something I'm going to argue, it just is, which is why (as I said) I agree with you there.

Judith Mirville #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Shitting in the open is a sacred duty for Hindus. As a Hindu you are not supposed to will any good for the world you pass through, any plan for the betterment of the world or of mankind is a cardinal sin. When you happen to meet a do-gooder of such a kind, your duty is to shit on the very premises he intends to better against the will of the Gods, or on his own property, it is good also to shit on him while making a mental act of creative visualization, the money he losses through evil spell you thus cast on him comes to you in the form of luck. Anybody who tries to better the world around himself makes the implicit avowal he is a Mleccha or worse still a Chandala, an untouchable of the worst kind, and from now onwards deserves only shit, you actually have to consider the riches or money he happens to hold like they had been lost into a dog’s kennel, taking them is no robbery. That is the religion against which the Naxalites could devise no other counter-faith than the cult of Mao as a divine avenger.

Anybody who dreams of any plan for bettering the world is an untouchable, a barbarian. You are within what they think to be civilization provided you take the world for what it is, a sandwich of shit served by the Gods. If you happen to make no plans for a better world but still strive for worldly sensual enjoyments such as art and love you are a shudra, a servant, whose duty is to work long hours for as little pay as possible in retribution for your impious appetites. If on the other hand you are ashamed of each of the enjoyments that the world offers to you and rather prefer to spare the money they cost, you are one caste higher, you are among the twice-born, you are a banya or vaishya, a tradesman or a little usurer by nature, your sacred duty is to turn any thing you touch into money by any means. Usury which consists of reading the foibles of people to make them indebted is a sacred profession. If you then also happen to rejoice over the pain you inflict onto inferior beings by humiliating them gratuitously, or by identifying inferior beings enjoying undue high life and putting them back into the misery where they belong, if you also happen to identify with the fortune of your social group you need the connivence of to crush inferior beings rather than with your own personal, if you are ready to experience personal strife and misery yourself so as to put others into misery rather than climbing yourself to the level of others, you are even better than a bourgeois by birth, you are an aristocrat and a fighter by nature, a kshatriya. If better still you have no will in life but to know and emit rules that constrain the life of others as painfully as possible, if you have confidence in your own intellectual and magical powers to enforce vows of misery onto others rather than on your physical force, if rather with a ruling group you belong to you identify with all repressive and constraining forces in the universe even those that are hostile to you for the sheer joy of reinforcing those forces in their action onto the contemptible humanity, you prove to be a brahmin, then only your little self, the atman, equates the greater outer God, the Brahman, the latter being none other than the collective soul to all brahmans.

This is the whole of hinduism in a nutshell. If any Hindu guru seems to offer you anything contradictory to this, he is abusing you, he is laughing at you while he takes your money and your vital energy.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

Intuitive Vaginal Wisdom Rocks Award

Seriously, WTF??

goop and Shiva Rose #quack goop.com

Better Sex: Jade Eggs for Your Yoni

From Kegels and the Elvie to vaginal steaming and even laser treatments, we’re not shy here at goop about our interest in keeping our sexual/reproductive systems in optimal health. So when beauty guru/healer/inspiration/friend Shiva Rose started talking about jade eggs, we wanted to hear more.


The strictly guarded secret of Chinese royalty in antiquity—queens and concubines used them to stay in shape for emperors—jade eggs harness the power of energy work, crystal healing, and a Kegel-like physical practice. Fans say regular use increases chi, orgasms, vaginal muscle tone, hormonal balance, and feminine energy in general. Shiva Rose has been practicing with them for about seven years, and raves about the results; we tried them, too, and were so convinced we put them into the goop shop.

Jade eggs’ power to cleanse and clear make them ideal for detox; here, Shiva Rose answers all our questions and shares her jade egg tips for improving your sex life, your cycle, and your overall well-being.
______

A Q&A with Shiva Rose

Q

How did you learn first about jade eggs?

A

I learned about the jade egg through the yoga community that I was in, and I sort of went down the rabbit hole of researching the practice—there was not as much information about it then as there is now. But it made intuitive sense to me: The word for our womb, yoni, translates as “sacred place”, and it is a sacred place—it’s where many women access their intuition, their power, and their wisdom. It’s this inner sanctum that we can access when it’s not in use creating life. Sadly most people use it as a psychic trash bin, storing old or negative energy. I see it as a place to celebrate ourselves as sexual, powerful beings, or as mothers, not a place to carry negative or un-dealt-with emotions. I’ve always been into crystals, so learning about jade eggs (which are gems) has been a natural progression for me—this particular jade, nephrite jade, has incredible clearing, cleansing powers. It’s a dark, deep green and very heavy—it’s a great stone for taking away negativity.
_______

Q

What are the benefits?

A

Jade eggs can help cultivate sexual energy, increase orgasm, balance the cycle, stimulate key reflexology around vaginal walls, tighten and tone, prevent uterine prolapse, increase control of the whole perineum and bladder, develop and clear chi pathways in the body, intensify feminine energy, and invigorate our life force. To name a few!

The jade creates kidney strength—it’s known as jing in Chinese energy, and it’s all about sexual potency, and even beauty—if your hormones are balanced, your skin will look better. It’s a holistic combination of things, where one benefit builds to another. Jade also takes away negativity and cleanses—it’s a very heavy material, very powerful.
_______

Q

What about the tradition, history, and story of it resonated with you?

A

My imagination goes a little nuts, imagining these concubines in ancient Chinese temples, secretly running the country through the jade eggs! It’s funny, that the eggs started as a way to please the emperors and they turned out to be so empowering for any woman who used them—kept them feeling and looking youthful, connected them to their inner power. They didn’t have things like bioidentical hormones in those days—this was an incredible, secret practice that benefited everybody. I was curious about how the royal families kept it secret for so many eons. I also love the Taoist practice that involves taking in the energy from the egg, imagining energy filtering up through the yoni, up through the spine, out through the top of your head, and a practice of trying to keep that energy above your belly button, like a star of energy for yourself.

Contemporary rituals are great, too: I went to a beautiful women’s forest gathering in Northern California—we did a jade egg ceremony out under the redwoods—it was amazing.
_______

Q

What were your expectations when you tried it? Did you have hopes for it, skepticism, or just an open mind?

A

I found myself frustrated in the beginning when I didn’t feel things happen right away—it takes around a month of daily use to really start perceiving the results. Now, of course, I miss it if I don’t do it; I’ve become much more sensitive.

I got divorced 8 years ago, then had a break-up after that, so the idea of clearing my energy made a lot of sense to me. I loved the idea that since we use our brain, why not use this area of our body, one that’s about giving life, where we hold so much of our intuition and wisdom?

I didn’t expect it to help with my hormones to the extent that it did: I became much more regular, much more balanced.
_______

Q

Is there an age or type of woman that benefits most?

A

Once sexually active, women of any age respond to the egg—who doesn’t want their muscles more toned, their libido and lubrication increased, and their hormones balanced? People definitely use them differently—for instance, some women sleep with the egg in, but some women feel too much energy from the egg for that long a stretch. Either way, for any age, the key is regular, daily practice.
_______

Q

What results have you seen? How quickly did they come? Have other results unfolded over time?

A

After about a month, I really saw a difference in my cycle. I’d had hormone imbalances, and the jade egg made my whole cycle much, much more regular.

One friend said her lover really noticed a (positive) change, and you definitely do discover a lot of positives in that vein! Really, you get better connected to the power within you: We are so powerful as women, and we forget that, and this is a gateway to really get in touch with it. We have this whole space we can access to shift our energy and transform ourselves.

And, this is a weird one, but I sometimes feel people are more attracted to you when you’re carrying a jade egg—my 20-year-old daughter was joking about it one day, we were walking down the street and she was like, “Mom, are you wearing a jade egg?!”
_______

Q

How is it different from say, a regular Kegel practice?

A

There are similarities; one of the things I learned through this practice, though, is that a lot of women (including me, originally) are doing kegels wrong: It turns out you can overdo it and the Kegels can end up working in reverse! So the idea with the jade egg and Kegels is you need a rest period. You tighten your muscles, of course, but the key is, you then have to relax, fully. In the West, we often have that more-is-more attitude, and we end up not taking the breath we need between the Kegels.

You learn in this practice that the yoni is divided into three floors, the entrance, the middle zone, and the cervix. As you work with the egg, you start to perceive and understand the different zones. You use your finger, and you’ll be able to feel the different floors and the impact the egg practice has on them.
______

Q

How do we start?

A

When you first get your egg, boil it for a few minutes to make sure it’s clean. It’s your sacred space, so it’s like making sure your feet are clean when you enter a temple. For me, it’s not just about physical cleansing—you can put it out under the light of a full moon to cleanse or recharge it like a crystal, or you could burn sage—the egg does absorb energy, so really clearing it when you first get it is a great thing to do.

Before I insert an egg, I’ll do a ritual: I place it on a beautiful piece of fabric, light a candle, maybe even burn some sage. For my ritual, I imagine pure light flowing between me and the egg.

Then I think it’s important to set an intention, as you would in meditation, before putting the egg in. It’s first and foremost about clearing energy and cleansing, so your intention could be about releasing past relationships, or medical issues, childbirth—anything.

Specific instructions come with each egg, explaining exactly how to insert it: Use your finger, and don’t get discouraged—remember, it’s a practice. If you stand up and the egg falls out, don’t worry—it’s totally normal. It’s recommended that you start with a medium-size egg, which is heavier. I can only use the medium lying down; I can sleep with it, or I just do the practice lying down. The smaller size is for standing up, but most experts say it’s important to start with the harder one, which is the medium.

Always wrap the egg in silk, keep it clean, and store it on an altar—it should take a sacred place in your life.
_______

Q

Can the egg get stuck or lost?

A

This is the most common question I get—no, it can’t get lost, but these ones have a hole drilled in them, which you can then thread with unwaxed floss, to make it easier to take out, and to generally ease any anxiety about it—which, I’ll tell you, a lot of people have!
_______

Q

Are there people who shouldn’t use jade eggs?

A

If you’re on your cycle, don’t use it. If you’re pregnant or use an IUD, it’s super-important to check with your doctor before you use one. Some people say it can be useful in preparing for childbirth, but again, definitely consult a doctor in that situation.
_______

Q

There are specifications about where the egg needs to be from, how it’s been treated—can you explain a bit about that?

A

The most important thing, just like when you’re buying a crystal, is to be careful where you get it from. Nephrite is a specific type of jade—it’s the most powerful, the most clearing, the traditional one used by women in ancient China, and the best to start with. It comes from Canada or sometimes Australia, and it’s a darker jade, deep green, almost black. The egg will get lighter in color, with use; if you feel like it’s been drained of energy, recharge it in the full moon just the way you would a crystal.

Nephrite jade is associated with cleansing, health, abundance, beauty, longevity, and healing for the heart. Really insist on nephrite jade—there are a lot of imposters and weird stuff on the internet that isn’t even actually jade.

The other egg people will use is rose quartz, which is more gentle, and brings in more love energy. But the jade is the most powerfully cleansing; go with the jade first, always. Then when you’re more practiced, you can use rose quartz to bring in love and heal wounds, in a gentler way.
_______

The views expressed in this article intend to highlight alternative studies and induce conversation. They are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of goop, and are for informational purposes only, even if and to the extent that this article features the advice of physicians and medical practitioners. This article is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and should never be relied upon for specific medical advice.

You Keep Using That Word Award

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Phil Greaves #fundie twitter.com

Star Wars is fascist, Harry Potter is fascist neo-feudal dreck, selfie-obsession is fascist, British soap-operas are fascist, sci-fi is generally fascist, ironic detachment is fascist, porn is fascist. Masscult under imperialism is inherently fascistic. Sorry to spoil your 'fun'.

One day people will ask: "How did Anglo-Americans not see their own fascism?"

And part of the answer will be: "Because they were entertained by it".

Many westerners seem to think their 'entertainments' & their consumption of 'culture' in their own countries is somehow detached from the fascist ruling class they live under, & the ruling class is well aware of this situation.

This does not mean i'm a 'cultural nihilist', far from it. It means the 'culture' of the imperialists is reactionary to the core, particularly its most 'successful' franchises, what progressive part therein is wholly stolen from the oppressed & turned against them.

[...]

Me: "The culture of fascist society is fascist culture."

Some yankee teenager: "Are you a virgin??"

"But i like Star Wars and i'm a progressive??" -- Said the yankee teenager as he gorged on his milkshake thickened with the bones of African farmers.

[...]

Sorry I forgot: meme/anime as political medium is fascist too.

Is Tolkien fascist? Yes of course, and he made little attempt in hiding it.

Simpsons? Glorification of Amerika, mockery of PoC & the poor: yep, fascist.

Towie? valorisation of brain-dead petty booj Brits, image commodification & booj 'beauty values': yep, fascist.

Im a celeb? Same as above but on colonized land: yep fascist.

[...]

The superficial exceptionalizing of fascism, its constant reduction into some minor caricature, some individual politican, some thing of the past or some 'rogue' element of bourgeois society, enables the widespread normalisation of fascism under guise of its alleged annihilation.

Quentin Tarantino: FASCIST.

Hollywood: FASCIST.

"The ruling class control the cinemas?? But but, i reeeaaally enjoyed Full Metal Jacket, that was so cool! So r-r-radical!?? They surely can't control ALL the teevee aswell, can they? I mean The Wire was such a great non-fascist show???"

[...]

Lots of youths have seemingly interpreted the above as me saying "Everything is fascism!", because for lots of these unfortunate youths, imperialist-fascist entertainment is their entire 'everything'.

[...]

'America' is fascist. A fascist State to be precise. It's political & cultural manifestations are by & large fascist in character. This is only controversial to dumb Americans.

[...]

This one will really annoy the Chapo-Fash-Kids.

Frank Herbert: FASCIST.

Dune: FASCISM.

[...]

Common strain among the rabid reaction from the Chapo 'Lefts', the 'Alt-Rights', to 'Meme-Maoists' & the open Nazis is the fact they all loathe fascism being made concrete & relatable to their own lives. They like their fascist culture & they wont be told its anything but Good.

These kids can't "fight fascism" in their own tiny brains, in the mass-cult screen-products they giddily swallow all day, what hope for them of actually fighting anything concrete? Oh they'll share mighty-memes of a Dick Spenser ear-tickle, we're all saved!

[...]

This conversation has already been had, no 'gotcha' i'm afriad, sci-fi is prefixed with 'generally fascist', there are exceptions, Soviet cinema being one. Tho i dont personally like any conflation of science & fiction under our banners.

Zipphy #fundie reddit.com

Comrade Stalin is highly respected because of the steady hand he guided the USSR with; he guaranteed it survival, prosperity, and liberty. The USSR was not affected by the market crashes that affected the West, the life expectancy continued to make leaps. education was prioritized and he rendered the USSR to be the first nation on Earth t practically eradicate illiteracy. Under his guidance, each person was guaranteed a job, housing, and food. Stalin's five year plans industrialized a chiefly agrarian state quickly and with no resemblance to the industrialization that took Capitalists countries through hell and back...so to say.

The matter of 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian' exist chiefly in bourgeois-sympathizer terminology. It imposes a POV and attempts to exploit it into an umbrella of ethical analysis--which is what Marx himself chastised (Mao, too); these terms are used by socially displaced 'intellectuals' (which garner respect simply for achieving arbitrary tasks) to reinforce the ideas of brutality under a Socialist leader. Every human wishes to be free, so by establishing the idea of Capitalism being 'Libertarian' and Socialism being 'Authoritarian' it creates a predisposed disposition on the topic itself. As for it being opinionated, well, everyone has different ideas of what freedom is, and what oppression is.

tl;dr: Stalin made great strides, and carried on the spirit of Lenin's revolution. Using 'authoritarianism' and 'libertarianism' as classifiers is practically opening the door to all the ridiculous claims about Socialism.

The fact is, is that post-revolution, there will be a large, new government. The Communist Party will simply have to reorganize society, guide us through our Socialist tenants, and defend the revolution. They will assure the Dictator of the Proletariat is upheld, and will safeguard us from outside forces. This sort of government is necessary after any revolution period; socialist ones, or not.

Also, dictator? Stalin gradually relinquished power--even when the people did not want him to! Stalin protected Socialism, and kept it alive. He was a marvelous man.

derLinder #fundie rr-bb.com

I've been roaming around the 'net' reading the myriad of comments made from both sides of the aisle and pulpit. What amazes me is that no one seems to be addressing the effect on the children. It's a glaring ommission.

Homosexuality and all it's incarnations will now be taught as 'normal' in school irregardless of the child's or the child's family's religous beliefs. The children of America have lost their freedom to practice Christianity out loud or in private as any and all comments, beliefs, et.al. refuting the homosexual lifestyle will be seen as hate speech. All the fun that comes with these beliefs will soon follow. Being made an example of comes to mind.

So adorable little Sally, who's all of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade will be bombarded with text books showing Johnny's two mommies or daddies. She will be taught that this is 'normal', acceptable, and even encouraged as we 'must all explore our sexuality'. The lifestyle is self-perpetuating as it can't procreate--oh, but it's oh so 'normal'. Indeed.

Sally may even be questioned on where she got these views/beliefs. Why mommie/daddie/ grandma/grandpa of course. I'm not Chicken Little. This all will happen. The text books have already been printed, just waiting in the wings. This is not a tin foil meme, someone very close to me was a public elementry school librarian and retired early so they did not have to witness or be a part of what was coming down the pike for our dear innocent children. She read the textbooks. They're here.

So now we have these poor children who will not only be confused, but torn in their loyalties. What child has not looked up to and admired their kindergarten, 1st - 3rd grade teachers? And what if the teachers encourage the children to report on their family's views regarding this and other topics.

This was always going to happen. Watch how fast these textbooks make it into the school. We've been duped again. They just had to go through the 'motions'. One judge overthrows the will of 7,000,000 people? Yeah right. Where I come from, that's called living in a totalitarian state, communist state, etc., etc., whatever label anyone wants to put on it. Basically, anti-freedom.

My only remaining comment is to beg the Lord to please get us out of here so that His justice and will may be done.

IncelKing #wingnut #psycho incels.co

[Blackpill] My tribute to our saint. RIP Elliot Rodger

5 years ago on this day, 22 year old Elliot Rodger killed 6 people and injured 14 others in the town of Isla Vista, Santa Barbara, before killing himself.

Before his act of homicide/suicide, he left behind a 141 page manifesto titled "My twisted World" which contained more than 117 000 words. He detailed every experience of his life from birth to his final moments, in accordance to his superior memory.

In a video just over 6 minutes long, he detailed his sexual frustrations and his anger at women for rejecting him.

However, after reading his manifesto, it became apparent that contrary to the image created by the media of a sexually frustrated virgin killer, Elliot Rodger had problems well beyond not being able to obtain a partner for a romantic/sexual relationship.

It came as no surprise that Elliot suffered from years of loneliness. While his mild autism hindered his ability to socialise, his social isolation was as a result of being continuously excluded by his peers in social interactions: he was humiliated by the girls in his grade for most of his school life; he was mocked, ridiculed and laughed at by classmates on a regular basis. He was shunned by teachers, while his bullies were given no punishment and free license to continue treating him like a piece of dog shit. When Elliot graduated from high school and went to college, he was no longer bullied. He was simply ignored and rejected without being given a chance to show himself worthy of friendship/companionship.

The human survival instinct is incredible. No matter how much suffering a human being endures, their subconsciousness will always tell them to do whatever it takes to survive. For someone to commit suicide, it takes not only a great deal of courage but also suppression of this survival instinct. With this in mind, I've always been fascinated as to how someone can over-ride their subconscious mind and take their own lives.

Every year around the world, 800 000 people are estimated to take their own lives.

https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/

Whilst financial difficulties are a factor which can cause someone to commit suicide, majority of suicides can be attributed to breakdown of relationships/bullying. In the case of Elliot Rodger, bullying definitely played a significant role in determining the course of his short life.

I don't condone Elliot Rodger's actions. No matter what, it is always wrong to take the lives of innocent people. The media was quick to condemn the loss of lives of these innocent people. But why is it that society only cares about the loss of innocent lives when a shooting rampage/mass murder occurs? Why is society silent while literally hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are lost every year around the world due to suicide? If Elliot Rodger had simply committed suicide without killing others, no one would have cared about his death. Other than his immediate family, no one would spare even a minute from their lives to pay tribute to him. He would just become another statistic in a world where facts/statistics are ignored/overlooked; while virtue-signalling and political correctness are prioritised.

Whilst bullying is the major cause of suicide, it is unfortunately a significant factor behind homicides. Elliot Rodger is an example of the rare, yet increasingly common occurances in which an individual who has been bullied not only commits suicide, but commits suicide preceded by the act of homicide. When someone is backed into a corner, they will fight back. When someone is continuously pushed and pushed until they are at the edge, they will either fall by themselves to their death or they will reach out with their hand and bring down as many people as they can with them. What Elliot did is not justifiable, but it is understandable.

Once again, what Elliot did was terrible. But if his actions lead to greater awareness of bullying and prevention of thousands more suicides in the long-run, then at least the 6 people who were killed and Elliot Rodger's lives would not have been lost in vain; at least something positive can be gained from such objectively negative chain of events. Sometimes lives must be sacrificed for the greatER good. Many lives were sacrificed in the past to enable the people of the present to live in safety, security and comfort. And likewise, lives will be sacrificed in the present for the generations of the future. This is just human nature.

But the question arises, why do mass-murders need to happen for people to realise the deadly consequences of bullying? Why is it necessary for lives to be taken for people to start treating the members of their fellow species with basic respect? The lives lost in mass-murders in which the perpetrator was a victim of bullying, didnt need to be lost in the first place if people simply learnt to treat everyone, irregardless of their appearance or social standing, as human beings. Elliot Rodger may have pulled the trigger, but it was his bullies who pulled his strings. Murdering others and causing someone to murder others is the same thing, at least in my opinion. If Elliot's bullies had never bullied him, i really cant imagine him not being alive today. Elliot Rodger's bullies are just as responsible for the Isla Vista mass-murder as Elliot himself. Bullies deserve to be seriously punished.

He was just an innocent person whose soul was slowly corrupted by the disgusting, wretched, depraved species which is humanity. Elliot Rodger may be dead, but he will be alive in memory. He will be alive in the hearts of those who will carry his legacy. He will never be forgotten. Society portrays him as a villain, but in a cruel and twisted world, the perceived villain is the real hERo. Society views him as a monster, but what most people dont realise is that monsters are not born, they are created.

RIP Elliot Rodger (July 24, 1991 – May 23, 2014), the true victim of society.

FRANCESCO LATORRE #fundie usa.forzanuova.info

Recently, there has been an exponential growth of nationalism as a political ideology, across Europe and even beyond our European continental borders. Such a growth is justified, in a succinct assessment, by the multicultural policies and moral, cultural and historical revisionisms that have affected the European people, as well as the people’s nonconformity with the current political system which offers the condition of “served” to the political and bourgeois class and not to the “third estate”.

Today’s nationalists, who face the system, dictatorially disguised and designated as “liberal” and capitalist “democracy”, are labeled as “far right” who hate foreigners, refugees, Islamists, ethnic minorities, and so on. From such criticisms comes only the word hate. They always try to show any identitarian or nationalist movement as hateful. When in fact it is the extreme opposite.

Nationalist movements preach for true love, a love passed down through generations, from father to son, transmitted by our earliest ancestors. Just as we love our family, we love our homeland, which is just an extension of our family. We love our soil, our culture, our identity, our values and our history. This is why our ancestors fought and sacrificed to protect, in the hope of a territory progressively and subsequently develop. And that is why we honour our ancestors, of blood and spiritual level, and we must equally protect our nation and existence. Our feelings go through love, duty and respect. Such sentiments bear responsibility, evoke resistance and drive revolution, in a modern world that increasingly repudiates such values.

But why are we, then, described as hateful? Because while the accuser points a finger at us, there are three others facing him! Globalists and elitists hate traditions and identities. They hate the fact that we have something to love and to fight for. These creatures have as “sanguine” and spiritual roots, the “rectangle-shaped green paper, with algorithms at its center” and the “big, heavy gold bars.” They are not humans. They are international elements, of evil and imperialist nature, that spread throughout the world causing destruction and misery, being such features explicitly visible in Africa. They “throw” people and cultures against each other, hoping for more wars to finance their “pockets” and thus they do not want peace because it is neither profitable nor productive. Because of this, they hate the being who loves his homeland and the one who begins to understand the tactics of their empire-globalist monopoly.

The question that some readers are maybe thinking at the moment is about patriotism and its differences in the face of nationalism, at the political-ideological level. And the answer is simple. The destruction of Europe and its sovereignty, economically, culturally and spiritually, has a price! And a “change”! Revenge is the justice of man and the recovery of his relief and his state of soul of tranquility. It is not enough to live in peace, even because we are far from reaching it. We must fight for peace, for freedom and consequently for revenge, in order to avoid, in the future, the loss of our existential and economic independence. And if you presume that this is hatred and extremism, in its pure state, you are deceived! It is only followed one scientific principle, in the laws of physics of Isaac Newton. “For every action there is a reaction.”

Dr. Dermot Hudson #fundie ndfsk.dyndns.org

Visiting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the 6th of September to the 13th of September I learnt that the DPRK, Juche Korea is pursuing the people-oriented policy. This is not a mere slogan but the reality of Juche Korea.

Dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN said at the 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea that It is important to apply the people-first principle thoroughly in all aspects of Party work.

Applying the people-first principle is the intrinsic demand of our Party, which is struggling for the sake of the masses of the people and conducting its activities by relying on them.

All the work and activities of the Party should be conducted with the masses of the people at the centre. The climate of believing in the strength of the people and depending on them should pervade the whole Party, and the main thrust of Party work should be directed at promoting the people's well-being.”
The present reality of Juche Korea indeed bears this out. The DPRK is truly striving under the guidance of dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN to implement people-orientated policies.

Along with the other delegates to the International Seminar on the Juche for Anti-Imperialism, Independence and Solidarity I visited the Pyongyang Orphans School on the outskirts of Pyongyang on Wednesday 7th of September. This school has been recently constructed under the leadership of supreme leader respected Marshal KIM JONG UN, a true people's leader. This school is located on the outskirts of Pyongyang. It was truly amazing. As our bus drove into the school a huge football pitch came into view. In the UK now many schools no longer have football pitches or sports grounds because these had been sold off to property developers.

The school was very clean and free from vandalism and graffiti unlike English schools.

The school is a three-storeyed building with 21 classrooms. There were up to date laboratories and all kinds of facilities. There is an anti-imperialist class education room to teach the pupils about the nature of capitalism and imperialism. Of course, anti-imperialist education is indispensible in socialist society in order to prevent ideological and cultural infiltration by imperialism and bourgeois corruption. The school had its own large-size indoor swimming pool.

In the UK such a thing would only exist in a private school where the fees can be easily up to £36,000! There was also a multi-use sports hall which could be used for all kinds of different sports. The dining room was truly palatial more like the dining room of a hotel or restaurant than a school. We also saw the kitchen which was clean and hygienic. It was also well stocked with food proving that the stories about "famine", "starvation” and "food shortage" in the DPRK are false.

In the UK and other capitalist countries there are Children's Homes and Orphanages but these are dark fearful places where the children are abused in all kinds of ways both physical and sexual abuse. Childrens homes in the UK are notorious for pedophile scandals such as the Kincora Boys Home case in Northern Ireland and the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal. In the UK orphans are treated like outcasts and orphans often becoming unemployed and homeless when they grew up. However in Juche Korea led by respected Marshal KIM JONG UN they have been given the best school. The reactionary imperialist media likes to talk about the "elite" in People's Korea but there is no such thing, the only elite in the DPRK if there is one is the orphans who have this wonderful school that is equal to elite private schools in the UK that are attended members of the Royal Family , the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie!

Juche Korea is carrying out massive housing construction for the people. Houses are built at state expense and given free of charge to the people. This is a dream to Londoners. Flats in central London can be anything up to a £1 million to buy plus service charges and ground rent or £600 per week (£31,000 per year) to rent . I was able to see the construction site of Ryomyong Street with 70 storey high buildings which looked very futuristic.

During the period of my visit the Central Committee of the Workers' Party took the decision to postpone the completion of Ryomyong Street in order to prioritise the recovery from flood damage in the north western region of the country. This was a wise decision as well as a true manifestation of the people-orientated policies of the great Workers' Party of Korea and respected Marshal KIM JONG UN.

Another fine example of the people-orientated policy was the newly reconstructed Pyongyang Central Zoo. I had visited this in the 19993 and in 2012 but this time it was far bigger. It had an entrance in the shape of a tiger’s mouth. The Zoo has all the latest facilities including a nature museum and a "Sea World” type centre where you can see fish swimming about. Really amazing. It also equipped with electric cars to ferry people around the Zoo as it is quite large. My guide Ms. Ri told me that the Zoo is virtually free of charge whereas in London an adult ticket for the Zoo is £25.45p rising to £28.10 for a ticket including a donation and £32 for a "fast track ticket”, for an old age pensioner the price is £22 and £18 for a children. Basically working class people in the UK are excluded from culture and recreation, whereas in People's Korea of Juche culture is accessible to all.

Pyongyang boasts of many theatres such as the Pyongyang Grand Theatre, East Pyongyang Grand Theatre, the People's Theatre in Changjon Street, the Moranbong Theatre and the Pyonghwa Art Theatre. Probably Pyongyang has more theatre seats per capita than London. I was able to enjoy a
splendid art performance in the Pyongwha Art Theatre on DPRK National Day on September 9th.The performance was splendid, it showed the superiority of Juche-based culture. I watched a circus performance which was enjoyable as well which was of high quality.

In Juche Korea people are able to pursue all kinds of cultural and recreational pursuits as well as to socialise properly. However the reality of the UK is that many people just stay alone in their homes either watching the TV or using the internet. People in the UK lead miserable lives as they are afflicted by poverty, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, loneliness and family breakdown. The capitalist media like to portray the DPRK in a very negative light and twist all kinds of things. The reality is the capitalist societies such as the UK and US that are dark societies full of misery.

I witnessed that Juche Korea led by dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN is truly following people-orientated policies. The Korean people are rushing forward at Mallima speed to build a socialist people's paradise.

Tory Scot #racist therightstuff.biz


"That's right. Rudolph, or should I say, (((Rudolph))) is a Jew. It only gets worse from here. You won't finish this article with your childhood intact, because the story of that reindeer is one of the most egregious examples of Jews rewriting Christmas.

The popular song was written by the Jewish songwriter (((Johnny Marks))), and it was based off the original story that introduced (((Rudolph))) to America written by (((Robert L. May))) in 1939.

The song and book were so popular that they eventually spawned their own movie. If you thought that the film version would be less echoey than the book and the song, I have bad news for you. The claymation television special first aired in 1964. Based off of (((May's))) original story and featuring (((Marks'))) song, the film was narrated by (((Burl Ives))), written by possible Jew (((Romeo Muller))) -pictured below-, directed by (((Larry Roemer))), another uncomfirmed Jew, and produced by Rankin and Bass. There's some debate about the ancestry of the last two.

The story starts in the North Pole, where the head of Santa's reindeer team, Donner, is with his wife. Ms. Donner is giving birth. The child is born, but something's a little amiss - his nose glows (much of the film revolves around a very Jewish concern about being mocked about/identified by a nose). Donner realises that there's something wrong with this, and that his (((nose))) is going to make it clear to everyone around that he's different. Donner covers his son's nose so he'll fit in. Incidentally, I think Donner sounds a lot like George Lincoln Rockwell.

(((Rudolph))) the hook-nosed reindeer heads off to play in the Reindeer Games with other young bucks hoping to prove themselves to Santa Claus. Somehow (((Rudolph))) performs well, which is how you can tell this is a fictional story. During the course of playing with a friend, (((Rudolph's))) false nose falls off and everyone sees the infiltrator hiding among them. A pogrom ensues, the coach says (((Rudolph))) isn't welcome during the Reindeer Games, and Santa, that magnificient amalgamation of Odin and Saint Nicholas, chastises Donner for trying to sneak a Jew onto his sleigh team. "The last time I let a Jewish reindeer on my team he dropped inciendary bombs instead of presents when we flew over Germany." Clarice, a girl who likes (((Rudolph))) is forbidden by her father from associating with him. (((Rudolph))) runs away from home.

Meanwhile, there's trouble at Santa's workshop. (((Hermey))) is an elf who isn't content being a simple labourer, down with all the goyim. He's better than that! He wants to take up the perrenial Jewish occupation of dentistry. His boss pleads with him to assimilate, but (((Hermey))) refuses and flees into the forest to become a partisan.

(((Hermey))) and (((Rudolph))) eventually meet in the forest, and the two quickly bond over their refusal to assimilate to goyische society. They agree to team up and overthrow the tyranny of bourgeois society.

They meet (((Yukon Cornelius))), a prospector obsessed with discovering silver and gold. Oy vey. After an introduction, the prospector helps the two escape the clutches of the Abominable Snowman, a horrible anti-Semitic beast. I guess he's a Nazi or something. Anyways, the three escape on an ice floe and drift towards the Island of Misfit Toys, an island ruled by King Moonracer. There they find "misfit toys"- toys that have been rejected by wicked goy children. One doll tells the three that she was rejected for having a penis. Another is a lesbian action figure in a wheel chair. King Moonracer asks the three to convince Santa to find homes among the more gullible goyim. Teach them not to be so hateful and bigoted! The three eagerly agree while rubbing their hands/hoofs.
(((Rudolph))) decides to set out on his own so as to not risk his nose giving away his comrades to the Abominable Snowman. He grows into an adult, and decides that he can wait no longer. He decides to go home. When he arrives at his home, he learns that his family has left to look for him.

Our kvetching reindeer finds his family imprisoned in a cave by the Ambominable Snowman. The Abominable has brute strength and beats (((Rudolph))) unconcious, but (((Cornelius))) and (((Hermey))) arrive and outsmart him. One makes the noise of a pig at the entrance of the cave while the other prepares to drop rocks on his head when he wanders out. The dumb goy doesn't follower a kosher diet and he falls for the trap! That's right, goy! The Mercurians over the Apollonians! DIDN'T YOU READ YOUR SLEZKINE?!?!? They then pull his teeth while he's down, rendering him harmless. Maybe he's supposed to represent Germany?

Other stuff that doesn't matter happens, and then everyone returns home. The now harmless Abominable Snowman is brought by the three Jews as a chatel slave to Santa's castle to do their bidding. During his time in the wilderness, (((Hermey))) had a chance to read the works of Grasmci and realises that the overthrow of society must be prefaced by an infilitration of that society's institutions. He convinces (((Rudolph))) to join Santa's team and use his nose to get them through a bad storm. See, Santa needed (((Rudolph))), because it's not like he could have used headlights or anything.

The moral of the story: LISTEN, KID, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR GOYISCHE KOPF! YOU NEED US, YOU BIGOT!"

IncelPolitik #sexist incels.co

Femcels: "men get to be incel. I want to be incel TOO! Why can't I be incel! Let me join your self-hate club. I want to be the girl in the boy's club"

jfl. we wouldn't let you join our incel forum even if you slept with all 11,000 members on here.

image

Can't get chad = Femcel

fr fr, they should just merge r/FemaleDatingStrategy and r/trufemcels and call it a day.

Women always want to join the clubs where they are not welcomed, so they can corrupt them and turn into another female worshiping soy club.

THIS. W*men know that they're mere, physical presence in a formerly all-male space corruptively alters the social dynamics of the space which is why there must forever be a zero-tolerance policy for w*men users on here and w*men in the leadership/organizing rank-and-file of men's rights movement groups.

W*men subverted the men's right movement and now two of the three largest men's rights movements youtube channels are operated by w*men (Honey Badger Radio, A Voice for Men, Cassie Jaye's channel). The Men's Right Movement was at it's peak in 2015 and once w*men subverted and disintegrated the movement from within, it was unsalvageable and lost. No w*men in any men's political causes/movements or incel communities. No exceptions.

The day that incels.co accepts females users will be the day of it's downfall.

I am convinced that incels.co is the only place on the internet where REAL philosophizing about male nature and existence (whether involuntarily celibate or normie) is even remotely possible. And it has NOTHING to do with the state of involuntary celibacy and everything to do with the very basic fact that we simply do not allow w*men on here.

This is how men naturally feel and act when unconstrained by the social pressures of female presence and approval (via s*xual control).

What? Mens rights became something because of them.
Now I am for gender segregation on this forum. But lets be frank, if a woman and a man says the same thing, woman will get the attention.
Cassie isnt an MRA to begin with, karen straughan, on the other hand has sons she obviously cares about.

But-this-one-is-differentism is the reason there has never been a successful men's rights movement, you are merely one of the millions of men to come before you who felt irationally strongly / factually incorrectly about a w*man's trueness of belief/conviction in the men's rights movement / her want of a better world for men.

The hard and fast rule of female exclusion from *leadership* in the men's right movement must be applied irregardless of one's personal feelings toward a particular w*man's trueness of conviction/beliefs. In 99% of instances, the belief is mistaken and in the 1% of instance the belief is grounded in reality, the female men's right activist becomes corrupted by the male attention / validation and turns our cause into a vehicle for her own self-ingratiation and hypergamous s*xual self-benefit. Every time.

Damn, MRAs are truly pathetic.
Say what you want about MGTOWs, but bullshit like this would never happen to them.

The first wave of men's rights activists (1985-2015) were indeed pathetic and their lack of conviction/dedication to the cause and movement resulted in it's abject and unignorable failure.

The second-wave of the men's rights movement will succeed because it will be be given birth to inside of the incelosophere.

juchechat #fundie juchechat.tumblr.com

gustyprinceofthemonsters: Full offense but I'm gonna take the word of people who fled North Koreas oppression over some white American teenager lol

This is the norm for people who wish to believe that movie star defectors, which are paid close to a million dollars, are unbiased or their stories haven’t crumbled due to contradictions or themselves admitting to having lied because of pressure and extra profit.

It is your choice to believe racist propaganda that paints North Koreans as brainwashed, unable to make their own decisions, and governed by an autocratic dynasty and repeat that same propaganda as many times you wish. This is not something new, amerikan and european imperialists have spent the last two hundred years depicting Asian nations as childish, requiring the ‘aid’ of their white settler father.

You question our credibility, we return the question to you: why should we care that you believe in racist imperialist propaganda when that is already commonplace for people who live in imperialist nations? We make an effort to provide means to people who wish to investigate, who want to learn more beyond western propaganda, and finally see what the DPRK is and what it isn’t.

You don’t want to learn, you want to live in ignorance – that’s the essence of the petit bourgeois mindset, of liberals.

It’s also probably why you have art sexualising young girls on your blog (which raises a few alarms) – petit bourgeois mindsets are built on chauvinism, and this easily joins with racism, misogyny, and a set of values focused on self-serving at cost of others’ well being.

FRANCESCO LATORRE #fundie usa.forzanuova.info

That said, we should not be surprised that the far-left favour child sex. After all, the very basis of their cultural Marxist ideology is the idea that Christian morality is ‘reactioinary’ and has to be smashed in order to prepared the ground for revolution. That’s why groups such as the Socialist Workers Party support the legalisation of pedophilia by the abolition of the age of consent.

This leftist promotion of perversion is basically the brainchild of György Lukács, a Hungarian-based (but not Hungarian) Bolshevik who was deputy commissar for culture in the Béla Kun regime in Hungary in 1919. Lukács’ goal was openly and avowedly to eradicate Christianity and Christian morality from Hungarian society, and he believed that one of the most effective methods of achieving this would be to undermine sexual morality through the introduction of compulsory sex education in schools.

To achieve his aims, he introduced a radical programme in schools which included graphic literature being handed out to children, the promotion of promiscuity, the mocking of monogamy, and the scorning of their parents’ moral ethics.

The Béla Kun regime in Hungary lasted only six months, so György Lukács never got to see the rotten fruit of his plans. But unfortunately his ideas didn’t die with regime. Four years later he turned up in Frankfurt for a Marxist study week, where he shared his ideas amongst a fascinated group. One of the Marxists there, Felix Weil, was so taken with Lukács’ ideas that he used the fortune he had inherited to finance the Institute of Social research in Frankfurt – what became known as the Frankfurt School – incorporating many of Lukács’ ideas in its teaching.

The goal of the Institute was to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, since economic Marxism hadn’t had the success amongst the working classes that they had expected or hoped for. The reason for this lack of success, they surmised, was that the working classes had been contaminated with traditional bourgeois morals. So they set about breaking those morals through a number of means, including portraying traditional attitudes as “prejudice”, promoting androgyny, homosexuality and other perversions and by seeking to subvert the language through what we now know as “political correctness”.

Which, on reflection, is what should have told us that Antiphobic Aktion was not the work of trolls, but simply a ‘kite-flyer’ for the far-left’s next big assault on decency and Christian society – the attempt to normalise pedophilia. Because that was part of the long-term goal when they began their first, tentative propaganda about the need to halt the ‘repression’ of adult male homosexuality. It’s all part of the same plan!

Anonymous #moonbat 8ch.net

>How was it a bourgeois influence when the vast majority of rock and metal fans weren't bourgeois,

The fans may not have been porkies, but the musicians were. Rock music is fascist. It was a CIA PSYOP.

>a lot rock music had major anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist themes(John Lennon

Liberal hippie bullshit, lots of anti-communism mixed in ("You say you need a revolution…").

The USSR did fail to promote new proletarian music to an extent, but shitty boomer noises were not the answer.

>What makes this hypocritical is that at the same time ballet and classical music was kept in high regard, when these arts are to this day just entertainment for decadent and pretentious nobles and the grande bourgeosie

This kind of music is socially organized (in orchestras, practice sessions, etc) and performed by everyone. In comparison, the kind of music that is distinctly stamped with the approval of the bourgeoisie is rock music that focuses on stardom and expropriates musical performance from the masses. Orchestral music was accessible to all in socialism. Would you complain also that the socialists preserved beautiful tzarist architecture and made it accessible to all instead of demolishing it and replacing it with bourgeois skyscrapers?

derLinder #fundie rr-bb.com

God created marriage and man decided to get involved with it even though it has always been a Christian institution. Submitting that we should not force our views on the Californian population because "not all of them are Christian" would be akin to submitting that it would be ok for the government body to get involved with communion. They would decide who is and who is not worthy to receive and create a 'license' for communicants. Then one day they decide that ALL people irregardless of their beliefs or standing have the 'right' to communion.

Government has hijacked marriage. It was never theirs. Not that long ago, a 'license' was not even needed. You registered family marriages in the family Bible and that was that. It was accepted. Births registered in a family Bible are still acceptable as 'birth certificates' in many parts of the country.

The word 'marriage' has been polluted and diluted by man, vis a vis government inteference. Taking a so-called non-judgemental stance on a Christian institution is a non-starter. That would be like saying you believe a license for a Bar Mitsvah is required and anybody can perform one and anyone can become Bar Mitsvahed.

This is exactly what human government has done to marriage.

Ron Paul #racist nizkor.org

(This newsletter was rediscovered on Nizkor, an anti-hate-speech website.)

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it.

TasketeAnon #sexist reddit.com

Male vs Females Fetishes/Preferences

Male Fetishes/Preferences

hot girls, cute girls

average/below average girls

skinny, slim, short

tall, athletic, muscled

curvy, chubby, BBW

blind, deaf, no legs, conjoined

feet, hair, clothes

Female Fetishes/Preferences

Chad

Chad

Chad

Chad

Chaddam Hussein, Tyrone, Chadamoto

Chad

Eating Chad's shit, drinking Chad's piss

"Nerdy" Chad, 8.5/10 Chad, "Shy" Chad

Chad with x-colored hair

Chad with huge penis, Chad with average penis (8 inches)

Tall Chad, short Chad (5'10)

Chad

KKE #fundie icl-fi.org

On 22 December 2015, the Greek parliament approved the Civil Partnerships Bill for same-sex couples. This is a simple legal reform that allows gays some of the same rights—legal, welfare and inheritance rights—given to heterosexual couples. Gays and lesbians welcomed the reform, which in the context of deeply reactionary, Orthodox Greek society represents a step forward. The Civil Partnerships Bill presented by Syriza is, however, a limited reform. Justice minister Nikos Papaskevopoulos made clear that “Civil Partnership is not about adoption by homosexual couples” (“Live, the Debate on Civil Partnerships,” Efimerida ton Syntakton, 22 December 2015).

As Marxists, we defend any legal advances won by gay people, including civil partnerships. The Trotskyist Group of Greece, section of the International Communist League, calls for full legal equality and full democratic rights for gays, including the right to adopt, marry and divorce. We fight for a society in which nobody needs to be forced into a legal straitjacket in order to get medical benefits or any of the privileges granted to those embedded in the traditional “one man on one woman for life” legal mold. At the same time, we emphasize that gays will continue to face bigotry and discrimination under capitalism, where the institutions of the nuclear family and organized religion are props for the maintenance of bourgeois rule.

Unsurprisingly, this small but important reform provoked the rage of the reactionaries of the Orthodox church, the far right and the fascist Golden Dawn. Chiming in with the anti-gay bigotry were the Stalinists of the KKE [Greek Communist Party]. Disgustingly, the KKE argued and voted against the Civil Partnerships Bill, defending the reactionary institution of the family. The KKE declared:

“The aim of the bill is essentially the institutional recognition of the families of same-sex couples, including—eventually—the adoption of children by them. And that is where our own difference lies.

“Rights and obligations arise within marriage, which is the legal expression of the social relations of the family. It includes social protection of children, who are biologically the result of sexual relations between a man and a woman.

“With the formation of a socialist-communist society, a new type of partnership will undoubtedly be formed—a relatively stable heterosexual relationship and reproduction.”

—“The Position of the KKE on the Civil Partnerships Bill,” Rizospastis (20 December 2015)

Honky the Bourgeois Prick #racist alternet.org

As Shown by empirical, verifiable and repeatable evidence, Africans- to include transplanted Africans- have a frightfully low IQ. They can not think! They are unable to grasp concepts more complicated than eat, drink, shit.

These “people” are the throwbacks of evolution and will not see their genetic material passed on to the next stage of human evolution.

Trifle and Shadow #fundie reddit.com

Progress is a unique feature of Western civilization. With the exception of the introduction of technology, the entirety of the third-world has made no progress and continues in the natural state of man--constant, low-lying ethnic/tribal warfare.

Furthermore, who says we're against technical change? Whenever a leftist brings up "progress" it is almost inevitably in the social sphere, which yes, we do oppose. Currently speaking you have to be detached from reality not to notice that the threats to technical and scientific advancement are from the left who engages in suppressing work that doesn't fit a political narrative and who also peddle postmodernism which kills objective research.

No, diversity sets off warning bells and as I've said in a previous post, raises transaction costs and harms moral and social norms. The moral emotion of purity most likely developed to prevent such a thing from happening--you cannot diversify the heartland of a nation without repercussion.
To flip this, I find it funny that you people never assume that racism reciprocates. Native Americans were brutal to the settlers and currently blacks disproportionately commit crimes on whites, including rape which to my knowledge is not rooted in economic issues.

"The old system often benefits you conservatives, explaining why most of you are white. The old system benefits you mainly in wealth and society. Discrimination still exists because we have not foregone this system that doesn't work in today's society anymore."

Ding ding ding We aren't cucks who are going to go quietly into the night. We want the institutions that we helped build and were built for us to continue to benefit US. The bourgeois sold out the American white middle class and we won't forget it.

"Discrimination still exists because we have not foregone this system that doesn't work in today's society anymore."

Discrimination exists because multi-ethnic democracy and a multicultural society are alien and should be done away with. I'm not discriminatory toward Mongolians because they're on the other side of the Earth.

Why is an ethnic separation so apocalyptic to you? Or are you really using sheep's clothing to dress up the right for the global downtrodden to use our country as a battered women's shelter?

MGTOWabunga #fundie wehuntedthemammoth.com

How f*cking typical is it, for a slobbering horde of wannabe cop-killing vagina knights and window smashing booger sluts, who sing the praises of terrorists like the Black Panthers, to back down and clutch pearls when the dog shit is on the other foot.

You animals prize violence and you know it – you invite terrorists into society in the hopes that they will erase white civilization through violence and the instatement of sharia law, you agitate through timber-rattling bedlam for the forceable exchange of resources from the producers of society to the lowly jack-booted masked sickle-and-hammer sporting, unwashed plankton-eaters in black bloc and you riot like disorderly she-tornados and werebonobos whenever some person with more melanin in their skin than the law allows gets shot for fighting with the police.

If self-awareness could be stored in a checking account, you numbskulls would have overdraft fees that even Bill Gates couldn’t cover. I don’t see anything wrong with what Trumpsters are doing; all I see are people who are tired of being assaulted and harassed by poorly-dressed vandals who idolize Bakunin and think that such corner stones of civilized society like “freedom of speech” are instruments of oppression manufactured by white bourgeois despots to provide cover to “fascists” (read: anyone to the right of Trotsky).

I don’t condone violence and I have no intention of practicing it, but when you start destroying things, punching people, threatening to kill cops and “fascists,” and vandalizing buses driven by people that you don’t like, you forfeit any claim that you might have that you are “peaceful protestors,” and that your rights need to be respected you fucking syphilitic devil-llamas, wild west firecracker window-smashing soap-averse unionized cowboy Jacobins from Hell.

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

Assortative mating is creating an Eloi-Morlock, or Elf-Orc, social stratification. People are forming credential-based blocs and seceding economically and socially if not yet politically. This cultural secession is reinforcing mutual ignorance, dampening mutual sympathies, and hollowing the natural fellow-feeling that is the bedrock foundation — the first principle — of any nation that wishes to carry forward in prosperity for the benefit of its posterity. Explosive diversity amplifies the stratification, and may have even been the fission reaction that set this immolation aflame and hardened hearts in its crucible of crisis.

The deadly chain of assortative mating must be broken for Western civilization to have a rebirth of greatness. The way to do this is the BoSSS system. BoSSS men will marry pretty secretaries or other occupationally “lowly” women instead of acquiescing to the hitch of convenience with multiple-degreed lawyercunts. The result of a generation of BoSSS is an end to the reign of meritocratic lovelessness, cognitive and geographic cocooning, and class-fueled hatred. An end to late-in-life spergs borne of the desiccated wombs of overeducated cougars. An end to the swarm of communications graduates with nothing to offer in a modern tech-centric economy. An end to… dare my heart speak it!… feminism and equalism as mass delusions rationalizing a world tearing apart.

There will be those who protest that BoSSS is dysgenic. But they operate under a misconception about how exactly women’s value in the mating market is calculated. A woman’s mate worth is not measured by her years toiling in grad school, or by her achievements, or by her ambition, or by her social connections or her business acumen. It is measured by her beauty, her femininity, and her compassion. The secretary with the blazing blue eyes, hourglass figure, and heart of gold is worth, in the abacus of men’s desire, more than a thousand meticulously credentialed globalist form factors. She is true beauty to the ascendent ugliness looming around her.

And she needn’t be dumb, either. Many sweet, charming “lower class” women are sharp as tacks, despite their mortal sin of having not willingly endured 52 years of academic mind meld to the equalist borg.

CH said it once, and says it again: It’s time to return to the old, true ways. To a courtship arena that paired established men with pretty young assistants full of adoration and admiration. It is the natural order of things, the divine prescription, when the starry-eyed lovely, already gazing in welcome submission, completes the act of her surrender to the powerful man above her. And in so doing, circles back to the wisdom of the ancients, and casts to the everlasting darkness the jackal harridans of the globo-femcunt credentialist collective.

I tell you now, break these assortative mating chains! Free! Free! Free at last! Thank God Almighty you are free at last to pursue love with a cute, worshipful underling and be a happy man again!

Carl R. Trueman #fundie firstthings.com

The case of Stefonknee Wolscht, the Canadian man who has decided that he is not simply a woman trapped in a man’s body but actually a six year old girl trapped in the same, has attracted some web attention. At first, I thought the story was a hoax but, no, it would appear that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and it is indeed true. Even if a sick joke, however, it would still offer insights into the inner logic of the politics of identity as currently played by the Left. Thus, for example, the U.K.'s Pink News reports that parts of the trans community are upset. Not, of course, at the harm done to Wolscht's wife and children, those symbols of bourgeois oppression who are thus just so much collateral damage in the Glorious Revolution of the Self(ish). No. They are upset because his claim to be a different age “discredits their cause.”

A moment’s reflection would indicate that this condition, whereby a person is really a small child incarcerated within a much older adult body, is increasingly prevalent in today's society. Recent events on the campuses of some of America’s top (sic) universities (sic) clearly show that the transageist community is rapidly growing in size, influence and belligerence. Still, as with all vanguard movements, some opposition is to be expected. The concerned reaction of sections of the transgender community is therefore understandable.

Or is it?

If everything else which shapes our identity can now be determined by mere personal preference, why single out age as an exception? After all, the way we measure time is a human invention. For example, we arbitrarily build our calendar around the earth’s orbit of the sun. I have always thought that this is a somewhat imperialist imposition of heliocentrism on our lives. We also assume that time moves forward, one moment following another, but that too is really a linguistic construct. “Time” is a floating signifier, a patriarchal myth. To coin a term, the old-fashioned idea of linear chronology now represents a somewhat heterotemporal approach to existence, methinks.

So when it comes to transgender people mewling and puking about how Wolscht is trivializing their cause, let me put this as simply and gently as I can: When you decide that categories of identity are merely psychological and that reality is constituted by language, you consequently have neither the right nor the ability to call a halt to the Promethean process which you have unleashed just because some of the results prove to be distasteful to you and unhelpful to your political cause. Indeed, whining like a bunch of, ahem, six year old girls is not going to help you at this point.

Scott Greer, Daily Caller, Diana West, Mike Cernovich #fundie amazon.com

[Description of the book No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination]

Review
Something's wrong on college campuses. Most of us are dimly aware of that. In this bracing and sometimes horrifying book, Scott Greer pulls off the bandage to reveal the suppurating wound beneath. Higher education is rotting in this country. After reading Greer's account, you'll think twice before sending your children off to school. --Tucker Carlson, co-founder and editor in chief of Daily Caller

Scott Greer treads a surefooted and perceptive path through the post-modern-day American college campus, where the meritocratic ideal of higher education is no more, having been forcibly replaced by a fearsome caste system that elevates all races over Caucasian and all genders over male. Must-reading on how it is that the con of victimhood becomes a source of downright dictatorial powers that threaten our democratic institutions. --Diana West, columnist and author of The Death of the Grown-Up

Scott Greer is one of America's most talented up and coming journalists. In No Campus for White Men, Greer exposes you to issues the mainstream media will not cover, and in fact active covers up. If you want to understand what is really going on today on college campuses or in America generally, read this book! --Mike Cernovich, writer and author of The Gorilla Mindset
Product Description
No Campus for White Men shines a bright light on the growing obsession with diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses, and shows how it is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere that can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in American society.

Across the country, ugly campus protests over speakers with dissenting viewpoints, as well as a preoccupation with micro-aggressions, "trigger warnings," "safe spaces," and brand-new "gender identities," make it obvious that something has gone terribly wrong with higher education. For years, colleges have pursued policies favoring students based not on their merit, but on their race, gender, and sexual orientation. The disturbingly negative effects of this culture are now impossible to deny.

Scott Greer s investigative work links such seemingly unrelated trends as "rape culture" hysteria and Black Lives Matter to an overall campus mindset intent on elevating and celebrating leftist-designated "protected classes" above everyone else while intimidating, censoring, and punishing those who disagree with this perversely un-American agenda.

In No Campus for White Men, Greer broadens the usual media focus well beyond coverage of demonstrations by easily offended college students, to spotlight the darker forces at work behind the scenes that are feeding higher education s metastasizing crisis and how all this results in sustained animosity, first and foremost, toward white men. Greer also documents how this starkly totalitarian culture is not isolated to higher education, but is rather a result of trends already operating in society. Thus, he shows, today's campus madness may eventually dominate much more of America if it is not addressed and reversed soon.

About the Author
Scott Greer is an editor and columnist at The Daily Caller. His work has appeared on the Drudge Report, RealClearPolitics, Fox Nation, Breitbart and numerous other media outlets.

account1234isback1 #racist reddit.com

I've seen another theory, suggesting that although Asians have all the essentials for intelligence, they're effectively oversocialized. They're low in psychopathy, which is requires to produce geniuses. They're too conscientious and agreeable.

Contrast this with Africans, who score low in IQ, but also score low in conscientiousness, or Jews, who score high in IQ but do not suffer the oversocialization that keeps Asians from producing Nobel prize winners. Jews as individuals are willing to enrage the entire world against them, even the Jewish community.

Marxism and Anarchism are effectively a revolt against the values of 19th century Bourgeois liberal Jewish culture. When white nationalists accuse Jews of hating white culture, they don't realize that the tendency of high IQ, low conscientiousness people is to revolt against the culture they grow up, whatever that culture may be, it's not a personal hatred of white people.

As someone very low in conscientious myself, I find myself challenging everything that I see as having authority, it's my natural tendency. It's typically Jewish too. My old friend in the US used to go shoplifiting for fun in Wallmart with Jewish anarchists, typical low conscientiousness high IQ behavior. How many people go shoplifting with Chinese anarchists? When thinking back of the Jewish girl I fell in love with compared with Chinese girls and Dutch girls I met, I found that she appreciated my eccentric behavior and ideas that I tried to hide from her, the ones that high conscientiousness Dutch and Chinese girls would find repulsive.*

Asian culture seems to place a strong emphasis on maintaining social harmony, whereas Jewish culture (and upper class white male culture in a broader sense) revel in continual strife and disagreement, as long as it stays verbal. In Singapore, when a college professor disagrees with some government policy, he doesn't write to the newspaper or organize a protest as it would disturb the social harmony, instead, he privately tries to contact the government official with his suggestion. I think that's where the great divergence comes from.

Phalluster #racist kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

Mexicans” can be a fascinating in-group when we distance ourselves from the perspective of squat little mountain gnomes scurrying over our White border to do the job/wage ratio we turn our noses up at. American soccer (sans quotations for the purpose of this post) used to be an exercise in Whiteness as recently as 1994, when the USA hosted the World Cup. The USA squad had 20+ Whites, a token black (Cobi Jones) for “speed”, and perhaps some latent hispanic who passed the paper bag test. That’s the timbre of the team that inspired me to play that game for many years. Recently though, the German coach with a pan-Asian wife brought a roster of 10 Whites, 10 stain-skins, and one lone Amerind to the international tournament. The USA performed exactly to their expectations: finished 2.5 in the group stage and lost a close knockout round opener. This seems to be the ceiling for Team USA for the foreseeable future, as it was twenty years ago.

Team Mexico is just a bit different. I post on the fun forum ‘Caste Football’ every so often, and a modest flame war broke out between the Americans and the EU rebels who claimed they would cheer for Mexico over USA for fielding a “more White” squad. Without posting our own racial admixture results from 23andMe, it was an honest sentiment from a continent filled with negro interlopers. But there is no pressure for Team Mexico to naturalize West African candidates, and in fact the actual ‘mestizo’ percentage trends toward the fair-complexioned conquistadore descendants rather than the pagan midgets whose wives all spread for Big White Cock one way or another (i bet they came hard too).

Mexico sends us their tired, their sick, their hungry and homeless… and cheers to them for passing off the degeneracy demographic onto the idiot fat cat with the open bar tab. If I could be a fly on one wall, I’d pick a high-ranking foreign office and listen to what those meritocrats actually say about our blanket policy of insanity. I truly believe the chinks in China are stroking off over our suicide, but I wonder how heartily the ‘mestizo’ Whites at the top of the Central American governments guffaw over their fat bellies at this punchline.

Aquilifer #racist stormfront.org

It is not a question of IQ. Women in general are short-minded, their intelligence is tactical and nursing (focused on behaviorism and human relations) compared to men's. Men are far-minded, strategic and hierarchical. There are few women in the "movement" for the same reason they are less negative to multiculturalism than men - they don't see the big picture and they DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE. Having children is a very immediate experience, and the liberal "love", which is altogether womanly, is also concerned with TODAY's suffering, saving everyone NOW, no matter if twice as many people will starve in a generation.

The death of the white race is intimately tied to the death of manly virtues. Feminism wants to reverse the gender roles, now women should be hierarchical and decision makers in the career game - let someone else worry about having children (why not the Africans, after all, they are equal and their children will be as capable to carry on society...right?). Little do they understand how utterly empty the male struggle for power in the hierarchy is, outside of its ultimate evolutionary purpose to get females. But future population size depends on the number of wombs. The number of men doesn't matter. We men are nearly worthless, but a woman who has children is invaluable. Men will never take career women seriously, because their potential for self-fulfillment as mothers is infinitely greater than in the status game that men play TO DOMINATE EACH OTHER. Today's women want all the advantages (equal pay, "respect", being able to sleep around without stigma) but none of the responsibility.

Feminism is evil. It must be rooted out before it roots itself out - when all remaining women are under tribal or sharia law.

You should ask yourself what the main mission in life for a Negro or Muslim woman is. It's having children, and they are breeding us out of existence for that very reason. This prevailing conservatism, the bourgeois hope for prosperity, career, status and security, with maybe one or two children when it's convenient, is one of the biggest threats to white survival.

Kajm #wingnut deviantart.com

Why the rise of Nationalism worldwide?

By Victor Davis Hanson, Townhall:

(My thoughts in bold / parens)

What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump's election and the "yellow vests" protests in France? What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?

Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.

What are the popular gripes against them?

One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas. (and knifings, beheadings, acid-throwings, bombings, running down people with trucks)

Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).

Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors and adjustors who could not be fired and were never accountable.

Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported. ('firefighters' *spit*)

Five, academia became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation rather than focusing on education -- while charging more for less learning. (Evergreen State College, for example)

Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy and transportation costs. (wind turbines. giving homes to the homeless WITHOUT accountability)

One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.

In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.

Green policies were aimed at raising fees on, and restricting the use of, carbon-based fuels. But proposed green belt-tightening among hoi polloi was not matched by a cutback in second and third homes, overseas vacations, luxury cars, private jets and high-tech appurtenances. (Bernie, gore, Pelosi, Michael moore, most Hollywood actors, the permanent 'climate change' bureaucracy)

In education, government directives and academic hectoring about admissions quotas and ideological indoctrination likewise targeted the middle classes but not the elite. The micromanagers of Western public schools and universities often preferred private academies and rigorous traditional training for their own children. Elites relied on old-boy networks to get their own kids into colleges. Diversity administrators multiplied at universities while indebted students borrowed more money to pay for them.

In matters of immigration, the story was much the same. Western elites encouraged the migration of indigent, unskilled and often poorly educated foreign nationals who would ensure that government social programs -- and the power of the elites themselves -- grew. The champions of open borders made sure that such influxes did not materially affect their own neighborhoods, schools and privileged way of life.

Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.

As for trade, few still believe in "free" trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn't elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming, or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents? (Because communism / socialism. Free Pass!)


The middle classes became nauseated by the constant elite trashing of their culture, history and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets, and, for some, the tired and empty whining about "white privilege."

If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?

How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence, and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system -- benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?

In the next few years, expect more grassroots demands for the restoration of the value of citizenship. There will be fewer middle-class apologies for patriotism and nationalism. The non-elite will become angrier about illegal immigration, demanding a return to the idea of measured, meritocratic, diverse and legal immigration.

Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up -- or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a non-democratic, all-powerful Orwellian state.

townhall.com/columnists/victor…

-------

I would also add groups like #BLM and Antifa- the Enforcement arm. Just like the Brown Shirts.

James Buchanan #racist prowhiteparty.wordpress.com

People expect to hear about Internet censorship in Communist China and the pseudo-democracies in western Europe where police use “hate crime” laws to raid the homes of right-wing people who want to stop the Third World invasion of Europe. But we don’t expect to hear about Internet censorship here in the United States, where the First Amendment is supposed to protect free speech.

Well it happened right here in the U.S. First, Andrew Anglin’s website, the Daily Stormer was taken down by its host GoDaddy supposedly for an insensitive remark about Heather Heyer, who died of a heart attack when James Fields plowed through a group of Antifa after they began to attack his car. Heyer was about four feet to the right of Fields’ car, but not one mainstream news outlet has reported the truth about what happened there. The problem of deranged, leftist terrorists has become so widespread, several states have begun working on legislation to protect motorists, who might find themselves in a situation where they have to drive through violent protesters to escape an attack.

Once GoDaddy set the precedent for de-platforming a White Nationalist website based on a whim, Network Solutions, which had been hosting Stormfront for 22 years abruptly pulled the plug. Not only did they stop hosting Stormfront, they STOLE the website address and sat on it for over a month. Only after being pressured by lawyers (and perhaps the realization that what they were doing was probably illegal), did they finally release their claim on Stormfront.org so that the owner, Don Black could move his website to a new domain host.

It should be noted that this wasn’t government censorship although the people who did it may have been been motivated by George Soros and Hillary, who want to punish and de-platform people on the Alt-Right. This was censorship by politically correct, liberal Social Justice Warriors, who can’t handle the truth and who want to snuff it out whenever brave Americans step forward and tell the truth about important issues. These self-appointed censors have wormed their way up into positions of power at GoDaddy and Network Solutions, and they think they can decide who can and can’t have free speech.

These activist liberals have been driven insane by Hillary’s defeat in 2016 and have been going after the Right “by any means necessary” to try to shut us down and take away our Rights. The first victims of censorship are always political radicals, whom the bourgeois class thinks “don’t deserve free speech.” Many people fall for the propaganda from the Jewish-owned liberal news media that anyone, who defends the White race, is an evil Nazi, who doesn’t deserve to have any Rights. Little do they know that today’s conservative is tomorrow’s “Nazi” when it comes to being a target for militant SJWs and Antifa terrorists.

Nick G. #fundie cpaml.org

Marx and Engels fought utopian and idealistic versions of socialism


Marx and Engels fought to establish their theories from the laws of dialectical and historical materialism. They analysed the history of class society from its inception through to the revolutionary upheavals of mid-nineteenth century Europe and wrote the Communist Manifesto in opposition to various types of utopian and idealist “socialism”. They also wrote at length to refute the influential, but unscientific, views of Duhring and Proudhon.

The ideological struggles led by Marx and Engels resulted, as Lenin noted, in the defeat of “pre-Marxist socialism”.  From that point on, bourgeois efforts to turn the workers from revolution and proletarian dictatorship could no longer stand “on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism” (Lenin On Marxism and Revisionism).

Chocolatepizza11 #fundie reddit.com

(This communist fundie is talking about the Holodomor and the population transfers, i.e. Stalin's forced relocation and genocide-by-starvation against the Ukrainian people.)

It's bourgeois propaganda created by the imperialist states to discredit the USSR. There is not a shred of evidence Stalin committed genocide. Usually this charge is made against the Holodomor, of which not even bourgeois historians are in agreement that it was genocide. They were done because of significant Nazi collaborators and counter-revolutionaries among those who were transferred. While there were obvious unfortunate costs with this, it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the proletarian state. It was the best possible decision in a very difficult period.

Itsover4maymaycels #sexist #wingnut #psycho incels.co

The matriarchy will crash and burn under its' own weight, and it'll be glorious

Nothing can articulate the hatred i feel for the current global system in power, it's simply an epiphany that can't be fully translated into words. the combination of every blackpill i've ever swallowed coming together into one final realization of the direction the world is going in, who wants this and why.

Think about where the life of the average male citizen is going, our houses become smaller and smaller every year, we own less and less property, get hired less and less than females, relationships and sex harder and harder to obtain, become more and more silenced under the pretense of "privilege", more and more docilized, pacified, as our testosterone levels drop. The most powerful rulers have no morals, mercy or dignity, the rulers of the world ever since the industrial revolution have always been the same, hedonistic, just world fallacy spreading bourgeouis that want nothing but to make each generation comfortable with less and less, slowly stripping us of our individuality and ruling over us as a mass of docilized worker ants with no rights or voice, forever fuelling their hedonism and the privilege of females as medicine advances and gives the bourgeois the privilege of immortality. The elites are also sociopathic, primitive apes in nature and the biggest perpetrators of lookism, judging people by their sexual value, they will always be biased in favor of the female, even though she is useless in almost every other category, Women are Wonderful effect in practice.

But this system will not win forever, it can't, the truth is not on their side, once someone learns the objective, empyrical truth of the world (Blackpill) they can't go back, they lose a follower, these amoral shithead apes know this and want us isolated, humiliated, but no matter how slow the spread, the truth will always prevail in the end, the more they torture ugly men the harsher the revolution will be, i hope our lives become true hell on earth so that every soy guzzling, female worshipping Uncle Tom weakling gets swept by the strong men that came out of the hard times, castrated and forced into sweatshop work for their crimes, not crimes against laws, but crimes against reason, for violating the truth, supporting a system that does nothing but shun and oppress their kind for nothing but a small chance at sex. The fall of the matriarchy is inevitable.

theredcebuano #fundie #moonbat reddit.com

I'm sorry but to other comrades, can we not be satisfied with "it's all a lie" or "Stalin did nothin' wrong." OP is obviously a new guy. If you just say Stalin did nothing wrong, OP may or may not believe it, or if they do believe it, will have insufficient knowledge about the subject matter. On the other hand, it's true that Stalin didn't do many things wrong. He had mistakes, sure, but not many, and usually they were caused by the external conditions i.e. Stalin didn't really have a choice.

Let's talk about dekulakization and why it's not an atrocity. The kulaks were landlords who refused to give their land. Now, Stalin needed to collectivize land to bring up production due to the fact that a famine was beginning to occur. The Kulaks intentionally sabotaged production by burning wheat and whatnot, decreasing, for example, the amount of livestock during the first five year plan. So is it surprising that Stalin would want to get rid of them? Next, bourgeois media likes to spit on the gulags, shame them to death, when even American and most of Europe had forms of labor camps. The Americans kept labor camps in the Philippines and Cuba for example.

But when, under Gorbachev, the archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU were opened up to researchers, it was found that the number of political prisoners in 1939 had been 454,000, not the millions claimed by Conquest. If we add those in prison for non-political offenses, we get a figure of 2.5 million, that is, 2.4% of the adult population. In contrast, there were in the United States in 1996, according to official figures, 5.5 million people in prison, or 2.8% of the adult population.

The final thing is that Stalin did strive for democracy in the Soviet Union. He called for a secret ballot on an equal basis, saying that a peasants' vote would count as much as a workers' vote. It was true that on the ballot, there was only one party - the CPSU. But it isn't true that it was the only thing there. Evidently, other non-party organizations like citizens' groups and workplace organizations had their candidates on the ballot as well.

CitizenDK #fundie reddit.com

Here is a point I try to make with my liberal friends to begin to pry their heads loose from the trashcan of ideology upon which they consistently dine. Think about modern US politics. Even the most hardcore liberals would agree that there are legitimate things to criticize Obama for, however you will never see the legitimate criticism on Fox News.

All of Fox News reporting on Obama bordered on ridiculous. Think about those absurdities and the lies about the Clintons. No legitimate criticism to be found and he was very much the right wing's ally.

Now imagine Stalin and Mao. They led the two most successful socialist states in history. Stalin is the scourge of the bourgeois. They hate him worse than they hate Hitler. Michael Parenti is great on this. Leaders who served the Proletarians, from Julius Caesar through Stalin are always portrayed as Tyrants, monsters, murderers, demagogues.

Also, whenever a liberal uses the word Freedom and Democracy they mean Capital Freedom to move where it will and Capital Democracy, the right for Capital to make the decisions. I am still studying and I am not as well versed as other comrades so I welcome criticism or expansion on anything I have said. thanks.

CaptainRyRy #fundie reddit.com

Human rights are a bourgeois concept. They were thought up during the Enlightenment when a bunch of upper-middle class/upper class philosophers decided that that they thought was universal and right, just like the laws in the feudal era and the slave empire era.

There are many things for leftists to criticize Stalin for, but human rights violations should not be one, as that would be like criticizing Mao's China for having a one party state as "anti-democratic".

Blackbelt54 #fundie reddit.com

Bashar al-Assad, along with the Ba'athist Syrian government, are bourgeois Arab nationalists. The national bourgeoisie has both a progressive and reactionary character. It is progressive as a bulwark against imperialism, as the nat bourg has interests in controlling its own markets and driving out the imperialist powers. It is reactionary in that the national bourgeoisie does exploit their own working class at home.

As communists, especially communists in the imperialist countries, our job is to oppose the imperialism of our own ruling class at home. Our slogan, first and foremost, should be "Hands Off Syria!". Only the Syrians can decide who governs them; not the U.S., or Israel, or NATO, or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, however, play a progressive role because they were invited by the Syrian government in fighting the imperialist proxies.

Communists within Syria are critical of the government, and have opposed the Assad administration's "neoliberal" reforms, but have chosen to fight along the Syrian government to drive out the imperialist powers (the U.S./NATO), their allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar), and their proxy forces (Daesh, Ahrar al-Sham, Tahrir al-Sham, etc.) The smear campaign against the Syrian government has been incredible. Check out this study guide to learn more about the truth about Syria.

Volkmar Weiss #wingnut #sexist #racist amren.com

IQ Studies Behind the Iron Curtain

Volkmar Weiss is a German geneticist and historian.

Grégoire Canlorbe: The creative and cognitive potential in Western industrialized countries appears to be declining as monarchy and warlike aristocracy gave way to bourgeois democracy and the establishment of a pro-immigration welfare state. How does this fit into the population cycle driving human history?

Volkmar Weiss: In 1891, Prussia enacted its first progressive tax. Low-income earners with children were exempt. On this day, the breeding of stupidity began. In the entire history of mankind up to that point, the survival of children depended on the economic success of parents. If parents were incapable, they could not or would not marry; any children they might have had poor chances for survival. Democracy brought progressive taxation, the welfare state, and incentives for the have-nots to have children.

Couples limit the number of children if they fear their children cannot maintain the parents’ social status. Since entry into the upper classes is more limited than places into the lower classes, birth control begins in the upper class. It is a response to the fear that one’s children will lose in social competition. The ruling class started birth control in the last third of the 19th century, and the middle classes — salaried employees and skilled workers — started having fewer children after the turn of the century. The number of children in the upper and middle classes was limited in order to protect them from downward mobility. When this became apparent around 1900, Francis Galton predicted the drop in general IQ levels, which has since taken place.

Also, millions of foreigners with a mean IQ below 100 are pushing into Europe, and democracy seems to us like a warm late summer evening. We know this beautiful evening will be followed by cold and stormy days, from which we cannot escape.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you think there are race differences in attitudes towards death?

Volkmar Weiss: I do not know, but the whole world seems to be stricken by irrational panic and fear of death.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there anything you would like to add?

Volkmar Weiss: If it had not been for the Christian Drosten group in Berlin that developed the test for Covid-19 and made it available to China in January 2020, there would not be a single statistic on the spread of the new virus. Not one. A somewhat puzzling flu-like epidemic would have spread around the world, as has happened a hundred times before. Each time, thousands, even millions of people — mostly old people — died, and were not treated separately in the mortality statistics the following years.

That could be the same this time; nothing more. What is taking place is an anxiety- and media-driven infection of common sense, which is no longer able to balance costs and risks. This inability to balance costs and risks is unchanged since the time of Adam and Eve.

Now, the enforcement of the human right to die in an intensive-care bed is our most important goal. Everything is subordinate to this. The problem is not a new virus, but the inability of mass society to deal with it.

Sky #fundie revleft.com

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

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

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

Rosalind Innes #fundie physicalfeministresources.tumblr.com

Crucial to the ideological notion of ‘rape’ is the concept of consent. Rape is sexual act of a man against a woman - it is conceived by the bourgeois legal apparatus to be an act of heterosexual intercourse without the consent of the woman…Its criminal nature centers on this question of consent. Thus the law, based on the ideological construct of equality and thus 'free choice’ makes a sharp distinction between heterosexual intercourse which is freely consensual and that which isn’t, the latter legally constituting rape.

It would seem to be obvious at this point that one effect of the ideological function of 'rape’ is to obscure sexual relations between men and women. To make a qualitative distinction between rape and consensual heterosexuality on the basis of such a profoundly ideological concept as bourgeois equality, is not only to indulge in political naivete but to avoid an analysis of sexuality as a whole. It is to avoid what is essential to an understanding of rape - a scientific analysis of the way in which capitalism organizes sexuality.

—Rosalind Innes, Rape Ideology and the Maintenance of Women’s Oppression, June 1977

Korean Friendship Association UK and Dermot Hudson #moonbat nknews.org

Update at 1745 KST: The KFA UK has responded to this article in a post on its Facebook page, which can be read here.

After almost eight years in the Korean Friendship Association UK (KFA UK), it was an official trip to North Korea that resulted in Alex Meads being slowly, but decisively, purged by his former comrades.

“I started asking questions,” he tells NK News. “We went to various museums, various factories, and in these museums, you would find objects owned by or just touched by Kim Jong Un or the other leaders… these would be pencils, chairs, just random objects.”

Baffled, he shared his thoughts with fellow KFA UK members: “this to me seems absolutely obsessional. This isn’t natural. I find this very strange, very weird.”

“They started to become quite hostile. Whenever I’d ask a difficult question, they wouldn’t answer it. They’d just accuse me of my mind being perverted by a bourgeois education.”

Eight months on, Alex is now officially “excommunicated” from the organization, one of the world’s most high-profile pro-Pyongyang “friendship” organizations — though the reasons for his expulsion remain somewhat unclear.

“I was shunned,” he says. “Then I received an email from Dermot saying I’ve been expelled. I’m absolutely shocked by it, and by how quickly it happened as well.”

“Dermot” refers to Dermot Hudson, a former British civil servant and now a close-to-full-time pro-DPRK activist, who has long served as the KFA UK’s very own Supreme Leader.

[...]

But Alex paints a different picture: one of an increasingly paranoid, cult-like organization, dominated by a leadership that cannot be questioned.

“What I really want is other people to be aware of what this group is really like because they sell themselves as just a friendship body – cultural exchanges, music, food, et cetera,” he says. “And they are not.”

Dermot Hudson did not respond to any of Alex’s allegations against him, instead telling NK News in an email that he would be “taking legal advice with a view to suing both you and Mr. Meads.” Just hours after being contacted by NK News, he warned followers on Twitter that “fascists are planning an anti KFA article.”

Alex, now 22, joined the KFA at a very young age. He was 14 years old, and, like many at that age, had a growing interest in politics.

Coming across an advert for a group called “Friends of Korea” in a communist newspaper, he decided to attend a meeting — accompanied by his mum, of course.

“She was very impressed by Dermot,” Alex says. “He was a very lovely man, came across having a great interest in me, wanting to know about me, encouraging me to go to his meetings.”

After that, Alex was hooked: “I started going to more and more meetings. And he would encourage me to come back, he would pay my rail fares, he would pay for my food.”

But the pressure to get more deeply involved in the movement came quickly, with Alex being encouraged to take a more keen interest in the ideological pillars of the North Korean state: the Juche idea and the politics of Songun.

“They slowly would increase the pressure like that,” he says. “Everybody else in the group came across as very nice, very friendly towards me when I first joined. It’s like a family environment.”

The leadership changed, however, going from warm and encouraging to suffocating and domineering.

“He’s become very controlling. He wants to know where I was going on holiday, what I was doing,” Alex explains. “It’s developed into a cult.”

Alex now says he believes he was being, as he describes it, “groomed” — encouraged to go deeper and deeper into an organization that would consume his life and eventually excommunicate him when his thinking changed.

[...]

The purpose of his new job as commissar, Alex says, was “basically to research anyone who Dermot felt was a threat to him.”

Dermot had become more and more afraid about the infiltration of the KFA, by the British security services or far-right groups, Alex says.

“He thought that the government would keep trying to do that, keep trying to infiltrate these fascists into the organization.”

[...]

Fear of how others might perceive members of the KFA, Alex says, even extended to concerns over how some chose to dress — and hints at a social conservatism influenced by his North Korean counterparts.

He says, for example, that he was told not to wear jeans: “[Dermot] told me on multiple occasions that jeans were worn in the Eastern Bloc in the late 80s as a sign of rebellion.”

[...]

“He would wear a skirt, and Dermot didn’t like that,” he says. “He thought that was totally inappropriate. He said to Shawn [his deputy], ‘can you imagine if the embassy sees it?’”

These comments hinted at other more regressive attitudes, Alex explains — attitudes that he says are a cause of disagreement within the KFA.

“Dermot himself, is very against the whole LGBT issue,” he says. “He’s not pro-homosexual at all. And then you’ve got members who are. The only point of differentiation is on the issue of LGBT.”

[...]

“Towards the end, [Dermot] was pressuring me for donations for the KFA, and he would hint that I have to give money, but it’s money I don’t have at my age,” he says. “I can’t afford to be giving large sums to the KFA.”

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

Only Chinese people (including their colonies like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), Japanese people, and South Korean people have a slightly higher average IQ score than Whites (105 vs 100). Almost every other Asian nation has a lower average IQ score than the White average of 100.

And where exactly are you suggesting that they should rule? America? The world? Even though East Asians in America are doing better than the White majority (which proves that leftists like you are completely full of shit when you try to scapegoat White supremacy for the chronic failings of low-IQ brown and black people), there's simply not enough of them in America for them to take over our country. But that will almost certainly change over the next several decades as East Asians continue to flood into America, because America is much more meritocratic than you anti-White leftists want to admit.

And since most people in the Alt-Right subscribe to "race realism" (a euphemism for scientific racism), we know that East Asian countries will almost certainly snatch the title of Master Race from we Whites sometime this century, especially as the White Western world descends into neo-Marxist 3rd world dysgenics and focuses on "social justice" rather than on civilizational greatness, and as China's rapid economic rise is further bolstered by their enthusiastic embrace of genetic engineering (i.e., eugenics).

Prof. Michael Filozof #fundie americanthinker.com

The political strategy of conservatives and Republicans for the last several decades has been purely reactionary -- to wait for leftists in power to screw up, then reap the electoral rewards...But this strategy concedes the agenda to the left. At no time has the right actually been in control of the national agenda in any meaningful sense.

... By failing to form a militant conservative movement, defend bourgeois values, and suppress leftist radicalism, the right has created a monster. The left has already gotten nearly everything it wanted -- abortion, pornography, welfare, homosexual marriage, socialized medicine, a submissive and internationalist foreign policy, out-of-control federal spending, and federal interference in virtually every facet of American life.

... The right's strategy of conceding the national agenda to the left is exceedingly dangerous. The left's solutions to any one of a number of issues on the table -- deficit spending, cap-and-trade, energy security, Iran's nuclear program, illegal immigration -- could deal a mortal blow to the nation.