Similar posts

Andrew Extein #fundie huffingtonpost.com

Why Queers Should Care About Sex Offenders
By Andrew Extein, MSW


“So, how are the pedophiles doing?”

As a group psychotherapist for convicted sex offenders on parole and probation who also operates a private practice for queer people, I am bombarded with comments and questions from friends and family:

“Aren’t you scared?”

“I could never do that.”

“What’s it like to talk to all those child molesters?”

At first I was surprised to hear some of my most educated, liberal friends ask questions that were, to me, biased and misinformed. I had assumed that, as queers and allies, my friends would have a greater sensitivity to the persecution sex offenders face in American society. I have since come to realize that queer folk are not more prone to find empathy for this population.

I often find myself feeling defensive, and almost guilty, in the line of such questioning. “So... why are you interested in them?” they ask, a look of distaste on their faces.

Here’s the thing: I don’t consider “them” my bizarre, special interest. All queer people are invested in the plight of sex offenders, whether they like it or not.

Deviance and the Dangers of Othering

Although I studied many subjects in college, my interest especially aligned with the radical thinking of my queer theories coursework. Queer theory obliterates the idea of good and bad sex and what should and should not be deemed deviant. As such, my courses covered gay history, the timeline of the gay rights movements, queer theory, and the burgeoning transgender studies, as well as genderqueers, kink, sexual fluidity, and asexuality.

But there was a strange silence in these class discussions as well. As my education continued, I began thinking about other people who transgressed cultural norms of sexuality, other people whose sexual desires had been labeled deviant — people who even queer theory courses weren’t talking about. There might be no group more maligned, marginalized, and disconcerting as modern-day America’s “sex offenders.”

In treatment, lawmaking, and cultural discourse, sex offenders are referred to as participating in deviant sexual behavior, having deviant sexual fantasies, and being inherently “deviant” themselves. From one angle, this is true; all sex offenders have deviated from the boundaries of one or more laws regarding sex or the body.

But sociologist Joel Best describes the problematic nature of how the term “deviance” is used in our culture. In his book Deviance, he emphasizes that “a deviant label was simply a sign that some groups with power had singled out some acts or conditions for disapproval.” The term means that, according to the rules of a powerful few, something is inherently wrong with you if you are not like everybody else. In other words, deviance becomes a viral social construct that serves as a moral imperative to dictate and intimidate people into behaving.

Queer theory has well documented how those in power have employed the terminology of deviance to oppress queers. In recent history, society has labeled gays, lesbians, and transgender folk as abnormal, problematic, and threatening. Gay men, for instance, threatened to lure, groom, and convert children into the homosexual lifestyle; they were not to be trusted or validated. At one point, they were considered mentally ill and criminal. Sex between consenting adult males was illegal and morally reprehensible and served to mandate a gay man to a mental hospital or jail cell. Gay men and trans people socially congregating in bars, such as at Stonewall, was a valid reason for police to raid, frisk, and arrest mass numbers of them.

This is an important part of history that needs to be retold, to serve as a reminder of what happens when authorities dictate the lives and behaviors of “deviant” populations. In fact, this history is still among us; trans, gay, and queer people are currently arrested and incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to the general population. In this infographic, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project outlines how trans and gender-nonconforming people are at a high risk of incarceration, police harassment, and violence. Despite the existence of these contemporary systems of inequality, I worry that in the era of gay marriage, pinkwashing, and assimilatory LGBT politics, we queers may be forgetting the dangers of othering.

Because there’s no use mincing words here: The same methods historically used by the government to imprison and pathologize homosexuality and gender variation are being used today to justify the extreme marginalization, lifetime institutionalization, and oppression of people who have violated sex laws. Sex offenders are the new queers.

Who Sex Offenders Are and What We Are Doing to Them

There is a widespread assumption that all sex offenders are child molesters, pedophiles, and violent rapists. This is not true. A large spectrum of acts are considered sex offenses. These include public nudity, urinating in public, public masturbation, peeping, photographing or videotaping without consent, consensual sex with a 17-year-old, sexting, and downloading unlawful pornography; many of these acts will put the offender on the public registry. There is no single “type” of sex offender; they can be from any walk of life, and any race, class, gender, or sexuality. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, teachers, and friends.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating for the legitimization of these acts as appropriate. A forceful, coercive, violent sexual assault is not to be tolerated. But I am saying that the public perception of the sex offender, and of the laws violated to become a sex offender, is inaccurate.

It is also important to explain the ramifications of this label. In California, many sex offenders must be publicly profiled for life on the online registry created as a result of Megan’s Law in 2004. In 2006, Jessica’s Law increased the penalties for sex offenders, created a residency restriction of 2,000 feet from parks and schools, and mandated GPS tracking for felony offenders. Chelsea’s Law further tightened the restrictions and increased monitoring.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a law that allows for the indefinite civil commitment of those sex offenders deemed unfit to reenter society. This means that they are placed in a forensic mental hospital for the rest of their lives, or until it is decided that they have been appropriately rehabilitated. Very few of these people have been released from civil commitment.

As a treatment provider for sex offenders, I have seen the effects of these punishments firsthand. One of the main issues faced is homelessness. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, the number of homeless registrants rose from 88 to 6,012 in the five years after Jessica’s Law was enacted. It is almost impossible to find steady work as a felon, and especially difficult if you are listed on the public registry, photo and all. The sex offenders that I see have been socially ostracized, often by family and friends, and suffer from mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. GPS units, parole visits, and yearly registration serve as constant reminders of their crimes, their victims, and their newfound labels as deviants with no hope of recovery.

However, it is a misconception that the majority of sex offenders reoffend, as the actual number is around 2 to 5 percent for recidivism from a sex crime. A 2008 study by the California Sex Offender Management Board reports 3.38 percent of sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998 were convicted of a new sex offense in the decade after release. A far larger number reenter the prison system as a result of parole violations, an understandable sum considering the severity and rigidity of parole terms.

The sex offender treatment models currently in use are mostly based in cognitive behavioral therapy, helping offenders reevaluate their thoughts and beliefs and make healthier decisions to reduce risk of reoffense. Despite this good-natured approach, these treatment models still speak of sexual deviance. One manual recommends ammonia aversion therapy, in which the offender repeatedly inhales ammonia while reciting his most “deviant” sexual fantasies. The intended goal — to rid the offender of whatever sexual desire is deemed unhealthy or deviant by the treatment provider — echoes gay conversion therapy methods. If queer theory allows for one’s right to a diversity of sexual desire, shouldn’t we question the “reprogramming” of an offender’s sexual feelings?

The main problem with the ammonia aversion therapy is that it presupposes that the sexual feelings motivate and explain the crime. It assumes that if you rid the sexual desire, then you rid the possibility of criminal sexual activity; sexual feelings are understood as uncontrollable dictators of sexual activity. If a man has sexual feelings for children, it is assumed that he is at a high risk of nonconsensual contact with a child. As such, sex offender treatment emphasizes sexual desire as a motivator for a sex crime over other factors, such as low impulse control, a history of trauma, lack of social support, and emotional instability. “Deviant” sexual desire is thereby equated with criminal sexual activity. This is a dangerous stance, as it heightens paranoia and fear in our culture’s understanding of all abnormal sexual feeling, thought, fantasy, belief, or identity.

Why Queers Should Care

Any queer person should feel a pang of familiarity reading about the vilification of people based on sexual desire. At one point, the idea of the predatory, untamable homosexual was a widely held belief; the very fact that a man would think of desiring another man was reason enough to criminalize his existence. Whether growing up in the early 20th century or the early 21st century, a cultural condemnation of queer desire, affect, and identity is consistently reaffirmed.

While mainstream cultural perception of queer people is shifting, it affirms monogamous sex between married, consenting gay and lesbian adults. Gender variation and other forms of sexual desire and behavior, including heterosexual female desire outside of monogamy, still face condemnation. If queerness is teetering on the edge of what culture says is deviant, othered, or wrong, an alliance across marginalized communities is vital for acquisition and maintenance of civil liberties for all.

I need to emphasize that many sex offenders are queer themselves. Many gay men, lesbians, and trans women are labeled sex offenders as a result of survival sex, prostitution, cruising, and public sex. Many queer people don’t realize the legal risks associated with a number of cultural behaviors that have become somewhat normalized, such as public cruising.

A recent example of criminalizing queer relationships is the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Kaitlyn is a now-18-year-old girl who is being charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child resulting from an allegedly consensual relationship with her 15-year-old girlfriend. The Internet has seen a groundswell of support for Kaitlyn, finding her persecution homophobic, unfair, and misguided. This reaction is certainly warranted and points to a larger issue with age-of-consent legislation. This type of legal action takes place all the time, in all types of communities, resulting in new sex offenders to label, monitor, and vilify. The case of Kaitlyn Hunt should open our eyes to the ways in which sex laws are abused in our country — not just for queers but for everyone.

The people we have labeled sex offenders are a multifarious group, with a wide spectrum of sexual desires. Empathy is needed for the group as a whole to ensure that they do not continue to be the cultural pariahs that we queers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender folk once were, and arguably still are. If we allow for the continuation of inhumane imprisonment based on what dominant culture and the government deem “bad sex,” we put ourselves at risk of further condemnation.

Clearly this is a tricky, complex, and imperfect dialogue to be holding. But I fear that if we queers do not engage in conversations about moral gray areas and uncomfortable topics, we put ourselves at risk and lose the fervor, innovation, and critical thinking that once defined queerness.

TheAmericanRedoubt #fundie conservapedia.com

The 'Most liberal American cities' are so-called "progressive" cities in the United States that are usually are in Blue states / unfree states.

These most leftist cities typically have even more draconian Nanny state local laws in addition to the onerous liberal state laws in support of the progressive police state, especially support for Gun free zones, Gun control and ammunition control, along with the Homosexual agenda (see San Francisco values), and illegal immigration "sanctuary" and tend to follow Hollywood values in terms of drugs and other liberal values.

Liberal Cities Generally Found in "Unfree States"

Almost all of the liberal cities, with the exception of Austin, Texas, are found in the the Blue state liberal Democrat "death spiral" Nanny states / progressive Police states. "The East Coast and West Coast (Left Coast) had the most liberal states including Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Maine, California and New Jersey." [1]

Phil Reiff, Director of the liberal Bay Area Center for Voting Research says, "While there are a few liberal cities without large African American populations, these wind up being the exceptions. The list of Americas most liberal cities is dominated by cities with large African American populations that are concentrated in the Northeast, Midwest and California."[2]

Americas Most Liberal Cities (in descending order)
1. Detroit, Michigan - see Bankruptcy
2. Gary, Indiana
3. Berkeley, California - see Professor values
4. Washington, D.C.
5. Oakland, California - see Black Panthers
6. Inglewood, California
7. Newark, New Jersey
8. Cambridge, Massachusetts - see Professor values
9. San Francisco, California - see San Francisco values
10. Flint, Michigan - see Michael Moore
11. Cleveland, Ohio - see Dennis Kucinich
12. Hartford, Connecticut
13. Paterson, New Jersey
14. Baltimore, Maryland
15. New Haven, Connecticut
16. Seattle, Washington - see Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer of liberal Microsoft
17. Chicago, Illinois - see Obama and Rahm Emanuel
18. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19. Birmingham, Alabama
20. St. Louis, Missouri - see Ferguson, Missouri Michael Brown
21. New York City, New York - see Michael Bloomberg
22. Providence, Rhode Island
23. Minneapolis, Minnesota
24. Boston, Massachusetts
25. Buffalo, New York
26. Madison, Wisconsin - see Professor values
27. Austin, Texas
28. Hollywood, California - see Hollywood values
29. Los Angeles, California
30. Portland, Oregon

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

In the wake of brutal police murders of young Black men, a popular resistance began to form. This movement was known as “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) Officially according to the organization it began in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In June of this year I said that the movement was nearing its end; and that it had only a few months left to it. This appears to be the case now. The movement is on its last legs, the steam it came on with has blown itself out.

Don’t mistake my words here for some kind of celebration. Most leftist groups in the U.S. are still in denial over the movement’s fate. What was once a loud and proud resistance has become little more than a part of the “cuck” jokes about Bernie Sanders. What was once a declaration of war against oppressors has become little more than the obnoxious behaviour of a few self-involved individuals.

So what happened? Essentially what I predicted would happen: liberals took over the movement. It was born out of a radical need to fight killings by police. A real physical defense against police oppression was being organized. Truly radical ideas like self-defense forces were being organized. Unfortunately the mass of the movement are liberals, not radicals. The majority of Black people in America aren’t leftist radicals, they’re liberals who vote Democrat. BLM is made up of liberals with a few radical elements around the fringes. These fringe radical elements are the exception, not the rule.

I said that liberals were going to overtake the movement and co-opt it. Once that took place the movement was sabotaged. Liberals are not interested in radical change, they’re interested in getting concessions. Radical elements were deliberately purged from the movement. This is what the Austin chapter of BLM did:

That’s a consideration that’s come into question since news broke that the city would host three discordant rallies at the same time this Saturday morning. Members of the 1312 Project did not respond to calls from the Chronicle, but Margaret Haule, who spoke on behalf of Black Lives Matter, quickly made it known that her organization is “not to be confused” with the 1312 Project. “We don’t do things that are considered illegal,” she explained. “We’re not trying to get a bad rap. We’re more transparent and open. It’s important that people see there are people playing an active role in the community.”

Essentially the 1312 Project opposed (and rightfully so) the Police Lives Matter (PLM) movement. However, the BLM wanted to support the PLM. This collaboration is with Police Chief Art Acevedo:

Acevedo said he spoke with members of Black Lives Matter about national and local policy changes they want implemented to ensure equality, and added he agrees with the majority of them. He also said what the group would like to see in regards to police relations is only a small part of the entire movement.

“All they want is to have police officers that are respectful, that treat people as part of the community and don’ treat them like they’re an occupying army and we get that,” Acevedo said.

This act is an outright collaboration with the enemy. The 1312 Project was purged from BLM because it had a radical agenda that challenged the police. There were not without comment on the matter:

On Monday morning, Sept. 14, an anonymous member of the anti-police-brutality activist group the 1312 Project – shorthand for “All Cops Are Bastards” – posted a message on Facebook announcing a change of plans. This Saturday, Sept. 19, the group will send its membership to rally at the Capitol rather than APD headquarters. “It appears as though some organizers’ desire to control this movement has resulted in, at best, police collaboration and, at worst, the active selling out of other organizers,” read the note. “We see this as a breach in camaraderie that puts those of us who were planning on meeting at APD headquarters in far more danger.” The seven-paragraph message concluded with an edict: “Fuck the cops, fuck politicians, and stay savvy,” it read.

The fact is in the first world the more successful you are, the more you’ll be co-opted. At this point BLM is an empty shadow of what it was intended to be. The mainstream media and political establishment aren’t even opposed to it. News networks are now using terms like ‘white privilege’ and going over the recent history of police violence. Politicians are voluntarily meeting with the group, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If the establishment doesn’t see it as a threat, you’re not challenging the system.

Why did this happen? Long story short: there is no social base for revolution in the first world. Radicals begin resistance groups to challenge the power of an unjust system. The problem is that the masses of the American people don’t want to do revolution. Often they face very oppressive conditions, such as the police killings of young Black people. However, they have no desire to overthrow the system which causes that oppression. They only wish to have that oppression stop. There is no social base for these radical groups to lead. There are only liberal Democrat Party supporting reformers. The liberals co-opt these radical movements because there isn’t any significant number of radicals to follow them.

The truth radical groups are not accepting, is that Black people in America don’t want a civil war to bring about a whole new society. All they really want is the same wealth and privileges that White people have. Radical groups however, continue to pull quotes from the 1960s Black Panthers and act as though we still exist in those times. Just because radicals want to take radical action, does not mean that the mass of Blacks in America want to take radical action themselves.

There definitely needs to be a coordinated radical action against the racist U.S. police state. Unfortunately there isn’t the social base, nor the organization for such a thing to happen.

Janet bloomfield #sexist judgybitch.com

Brock Turner is a rapist but not the kind that frightens me.

A guy I train with told me a funny story about mixing martial arts with alcohol. Like me, he’s not really interested in martial arts as a sport, but more in terms of real world applicability. He’s a fighter more than an athlete. He was training with a group who felt the most likely environment in which they would encounter real violence would be a bar, and alcohol would likely be involved, so they convinced their sensei to run a simulation that involved everyone doing tequila shooters, to test their reflexes and muscle memories under the influence. Could they drink tequila and still be able to handle real world violence? They turned the lights down and the music way up, which is not that unusual for a dojo. Lots of stress drills are done in low light, noisy conditions.

And then guzzled tequila.

Everything started out fine. Everyone was jokey and boisterous and having fun with the drills and even singing along to the hokey death metal band. And then tequila 2.0 arrived. When the full effects kicked in, people started getting hurt. The fight took on a whole new dimension. Wrist locks got brutal. People didn’t notice their partners tapping out. Choke holds were a little too enthusiastic. No one waited for a secure hold before reaping. It was mayhem!

It’s funny to hear him tell the story, because from the outside it seems like a terrifying drunken brawl, and it was, but the fighters enjoyed every minute of it. It was fun. Sensei had to cut the class short because people were getting hurt. Being drunk, they didn’t really realize it, and were thoroughly enjoying themselves. The next day, people had bruises and sprains and fat lips and black eyes and swollen joints and stuff that should never happen except by pure accident when sparring. Someone even dropped a 12-6 elbow between his opponent’s shoulder blades, which is pretty much a nuclear elbow strike you don’t pull out lightly. It’s actually sort-of illegal in most martial arts, but perfectly acceptable in self-defense. The fighters agreed to never drunk spar again, although I suspect that was a very effective lesson in teaching them just how much alcohol impaired their ability to use proportional violence.

The real point is that while the sparring was happening, the fighters were having a blast. They were doing what they do: fighting. I’m sure getting out of bed the next day brought a few regrets home, but in the moment, it was fun. The whole story made me think of the Brock Turner case – the Stanford athlete convicted of sexually assaulting a drunk woman outside a fraternity.

Let’s get a few things out of the way right off the bat: do I think Brock Turner is a rapist?

Yes.

Yes, I do. Turner claims he went outside with the woman and they were making out and I believe him. They were both drunk, but she was sloppy drunk and she passed out cold. Turner dragged her behind a dumpster, removed her panties, somehow managed to get rocks and dirt in her vagina, shoved his fingers in her, left her with scrapes and bruises and only stopped assaulting her when a couple guys noticed what he was up to, and then chased Turner down when he ran. Bystanders held Turner until police arrived.

Please note that this is exact opposite of feminist rape culture, in which rape is treated like a joke and condoned by the wider society. No one (except Turner’s father) thinks Turner’s action were amusing or acceptable. The Stanford police were involved right off the bat, the woman was found and taken to hospital, charges were laid and Turner was prosecuted successfully and sentenced to jail, even though the victim can’t remember a single thing about the incident. That doesn’t sound like condoning, celebrating or accepting rape to me. Or to Ashe Schow, who has written a nice explanation of rape culture as it relates to Brock Turner.

But of course, feminists are mad. They’re always mad. They’re mad at Brock because being sentenced to life isn’t harsh enough. Yes, you read that correctly. Turner got a life sentence. No, not in jail. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail, and will likely spend 3 months there, but he will spend the rest of his life on the Sex Offender Registry. That is punishment untempered by mercy, yet not punishment enough to satisfy feminists, ecstatic that they finally found an actual rape victim to get behind.

According to Emily Horowitz, who wrote [i]Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us[/i], sex offender registries don’t keep anyone safer. Speaking to Slate’s Christina Cauterucchi, Horowitz says. ‘Are sex offenders destined to reoffend? Not according to any research—sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than almost any other type of offender. Punishing [Turner] forever and destroying his life doesn’t make anyone safer.’

I’m sure you’ll be shocked to know that feminists don’t care. Read the comments. They want Turner to suffer for the rest of his life. They want him to pay for his idiocy for the rest of his life. They want revenge, not justice. It’s so rare for an actual, unambiguous rape victim to emerge, feminists are practically in shock. Whipping women up in frenzied fear, feminists have convinced almost 100K people to sign a petition to remove the judge who decided to temper Turner’s life sentence with reduced jail time. Justice must not have mercy? I’d be really careful with that demand, feminists. It could bite you in the ass, pretty easily.

The reality here is that Brock Turner is like the fighters who beat the shit out of each other while loaded. Turner has no reputation for being criminally sexually aggressive, but he is a predator. Like all athletes, he channels his natural desire to compete and triumph into a sport, and he was very good at winning. Competitors and predators come down to the same thing. No one wants to tie. It’s a zero sum game. I win. You lose. Civilization is the story of channeling this aspect of human nature into creation, rather than destruction. Brock Turner got drunk and behaved in a criminally foolish manner. An equivalent would be a drunk sparring partner who knocked his partner out and then kept hitting him. It crosses every line and deserves sanction and punishment.

Rapists like Turner don’t frighten me. Avoiding him is as simple as not getting black out drunk and refusing to go make out with him outside, in the dark. The trouble with feminist definitions of rape is that they confuse drunk couples who go outside and have mutually consensual sex, having fun in the moment, with actual rape. That is exactly what happened at Occidental College. Both individuals were drunk, both agreed to have sex, but she regretted it the next morning. If they had both been drunk, and agreed to spar, could she charge him with assault and battery the next day? Occidental says yes.

I say no.

People do stupid shit when they’re drunk. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, which is a key reason people like to drink it. But it doesn’t fundamentally change who you are as a person. The fighters my friend and I talked about did stupid stuff when fighting drunk they would never do sober, but none of them crossed the line into brutally beating an unconscious partner. It was just a kind of crazy, wild playfight that left a few people bruised and bleeding, but no criminal lines were crossed.

Most drunk sex, no matter how much one party or the other might regret it in the morning, is not rape.

What Turner did is rape.

Feminist definitions of regret=rape are now starting to trap women, too. When Rose grabbed herself a drunk guy and fucked him, she thought it was just a good time, had by all. And it was. In the moment. But when morning came and the guy saw he had just boned a fat chick, he turned campus rape laws on her and had Rose expelled.

This is nuts.

And awesome, at the same time. Turnabout is fair play, ladies. If you are going to expand the definition of rape to include sex one person regrets, you’re going to have to accept the uncomfortable truth that men make poor decisions when plastered, too, and stick their dicks in women they wouldn’t glance at twice when sober. If we’re going to call drunk sparring ‘assault’ and criminally prosecute it, any woman who downs a shooter and steps in the ring can be charged.

Is this really the world we want? Young men and women expelled from college, their futures blighted, because they got drunk and did something dumb? No one should be expelled from college for hooking up while drunk. Drunk sex is not rape. Rape is rape. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. Turner is a case study in campus rape. And even he doesn’t deserve a life sentence. He is extremely unlikely to reoffend.

Justice without mercy is cruelty. Is anyone surprised feminists are howling for exactly that when it comes to Turner, and by extension, all men accused of rape? The real danger here is that cruelty can be contagious. I sincerely hope the courts do not bow to the pressure of feminists and remove this judge. That will spread the contagion of feminism and we are already at critical mass.

Never forget that feminism is cancer.

What we really need are a few more fat bitches to get charged with rape. A few brave men are needed, to take one for the team. We need to show everyone the insanity of feminist ideals of ‘justice’.

Any volunteers?

Lots of love,

JB

Tim Tony Stark Rifat #crackpot #conspiracy #magick #mammon rvscience.com

SEXUAL ORGASM PHALLIC PSYCRYSTAL
The SOPP is a crystal wand which has a biophysical matrix that is designed to combine the sex energies from sex PCs to release the energy of orgasm. The combination of opposites, the dialectic produces energy on a new level. In nature this orgasmic energy is used to produce the soul of humans, this soul force is the basic core of human beings. In the SOPP this soul force is used to clean, repair and invigorate the soul, the awareness that travels into the astral, lives after death and is the biophysical body’s substance. Use of the SOPP makes astral sex totally real as you solidify your astral as well as charging, exciting the sexual organs it is applied to. The SOPP can be charged in various ways:

1. Male and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
2. Male and male sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs
3. Female and female sexual energy combined from downloading Sex PCs

To do this hold the point of the male or female PC against the round base of the crystal wand to discharge sex energy it has collected during the day from people, larvae, and archons. Keeping Sex PCs in your pocket while in a big city supercharges them from the people around you. If you live in the country visit the inner city.

1. Gives you a heterosexual orgasm
2. The gay orgasm
3. The lesbian orgasm

If you are into SM then the following protocols are needed for charging the SOPP with SM orgasmic energy.

1. Place the male Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a female Sex PC through the male Sex PC into the SOPP to flavour the female sex energy with masculine dominance to give the dominatrix energy place the female Sex PC against the base of the SOPP then download the energy in a male Sex PC through the female PC into the SOPP to flavour the male sex energy with female submission to give the male sex slave energy. Combine in one SOPP to produce the dominatrix orgasm in female and male sex slave orgasm in males. This gives us the normal heterosexual SM orgasms.

2. Repeat 1. but with the male against male Sex PC to give dominant master type of male; female against female Sex PC to give submissive sex slave female, combined to give male dominant heterosexual SM orgasm.

3. Repeat the above with the female male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give dominant lesbian dominatrix; female female Sex PC downloading into SOPP to generate lesbian sex slave; combine in SOPP to give lesbian type SM orgasm.

4. Repeat the above with male male Sex PC downloading into SOPP to give gay sex slave; combined in SOPP to give gay typeSM orgasm.

1. Gives dominatrix/slave orgasms
2. Gives master/femslave orgasms
3. Gives dominatrix/fem slave orgasms
4. Gives master/male slave orgasms

This gives us the seven types of orgasm from which the 7 dark energy/matter inorganic being realms are derived and which the 7 BTRI psycrystals feed upon. To produce threesome, ménage a trios orgasms the following protocols are needed:

1. Male Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by female Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by male Sex PC downloading, to give two male and a female type orgasms of three in a bed.

2. Female Sex PC downloading into SOPP followed by male Sex PC downloading into SOPP, followed by female Sex PC downloading, to give two female and one male type orgasms of three in a bed.

3. Three male PC downloading gives gay three in a bed orgasms

4. Three female PC downloading gives lesbian three in a bed orgasms

1-4 can be combined as threesomes simply by downloading an extra dominatrix (female male PC’s), master (male male PC’s), male slave (male female PC’s), fem slave (female female PC’s) to give all kinds of SM threesomes.

For four in a bed just repeat the above but add one more sexual partner’s energy, to reproduce all types of four in a bed orgasms. One need only have two supercharged Sex PCs if heterosexual, gays, lesbians and masters need more. Dominatrix heterosexual orgasms need only one male one female Sex PCs and balance the sex energies – this is my favourite type of orgasmic energy as one can fill oneself with it without going crazy, the other types is excess because they are imbalanced, can be destabilising in huge amounts. Normal heterosexual orgasms should be perfect but male energy is too female in the west, and female energy too male, the resultant mix therefore weak – poor orgasms. Making females more dominant and males to female submissiveness goes with the flow of consciousness in the west and as in Aikido not resisting by pushing the force in the direction tips the balance over producing the super explosive orgasms missing in the archon possessed humans. To experience the 22 types of sex simultaneously download all four Sex PCs into SOPP for all flavour orgasm. For those interested in orgies you can spend your time downloading five, six, . one hundred partners into the SOPP, just make sure you can handle one hundred simultaneous orgasms, gay, lesbian, SM or heterosexual or all types.

<only 600 dollars>

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Lysander #fundie boychat.org

I think people are more fascinated with pedophiles than ever before. Back before the registry existed, there could be sex offenders hanging out in your neighborhood that you didn't even know about. They would hand out candy on Halloween just like anyone else, and no one would be the wiser. Pedophilia was effectively invisible. It wasn't talked about. Also, child porn wasn't even all that common, because we didn't have the Internet.

Now, we have more than 700,000 sex offenders on the registry. People can exclaim, "Wow, I didn't know we had a child pornography trafficker living right in our neighborhood!"

I think to some extent, people realize, "700,000 sex offenders can't be wrong." Also, they don't feel revulsion toward sex offenders, even though they say, "That's horrible and disgusting!" Rather, they can't get enough of shows like Special Victim Unit. They want to immerse themselves in it.

My view is, there are a lot of pedo-curious people out there. They want to know what all the hubbub is, that's making so many people want to download child porn, or have sex with little kids, or whatever. They're tired of feeling left out.

For a long time now, people have been sexualizing children. There are so many women (single moms, etc.) who are basically whores, that obviously their daughters are going to copy them, and want to wear the same tight/skimpy clothes and adopt the same sexualized stances, etc. so they can get attention too. Also, the Romeo-and-Juliet laws, coupled with the feminist injunction against slut-shaming, amount to society's sanctioning teen sexual activity.

The bottom line is that more and more, I think a lot of people want to experience sex with kids. They want to at least experience it vicariously. That's why they love to repost clickbait articles about adult-child sex. Women want to have sex with boys, men want to have sex with young girls, and homosexual men definitely want to have sex with boys (they barely even try to hide it). (As for women with younger girls, that doesn't get talked about much, because it doesn't fit into the feminist narrative, but I guarantee it will someday be a popular segment of the child porn market, once that's legalized.)

Another factor in this is that hebephilia and ephebophilia have been subsumed under pedophilia, even though the official change wasn't made to the DSM. That also tends to make pedophilia seem more alluring, because it includes not only attraction to the prepubescent but to the pubescent as well.

I think at this point, a lot of people would at least like to mess around with a kid to see what it's like.

EffYouJohnPodesta #conspiracy voat.co

Study Shows Most Sex Offenders, Pedophiles, and Rapists are actually Autogynephiles (the "T" in LGBT)

I'm not Homophobic at all. But I believe the very term "transgender" was designed to detract the attention away from fetishism and self-mutilation, as well as sexual violence. I think that the movement to tranny-fy our children is a sign of the pedophilic roots of some of autogynephilia. I fear what will happen to our children if we don't address this disturbing movement of transgenderism that harkens to the Baphomet.

https://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/when-is-90-not-substantially-all/

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3).

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

Jim #wingnut #racist #conspiracy #transphobia blog.jim.com

[From "State of the left singularity"]

Preamble, to get those not yet darkly enlightened up to speed
Leftism is entropy in the apparatus of state. Leftists ally with far against near, in the struggle within the state.

The driving force of leftism is a holiness spiral. The state is a synthetic tribe, so the state always has, furtively or openly, a state religion, so leftists struggle for power by endlessly adding new, ever holier, stuff to the state religion, and eliminating the unprincipled exceptions and theological inconsistencies that made earlier forms of the state religion workable and practical.

Thus leftism goes ever lefter. And the more disordered the state becomes, the faster it goes left, and more left it becomes the more disordered it becomes.

Every day the left gets lefter.

As we approach the left singularity, as the left goes faster and faster leftwards, tidal forces increase, with the left most part of the left moving left faster than the not so left part of the left, the leftmost become increasingly dangerous to the not quite so left.

The radical left is purging the less radical left, purging the Haidt / Mounck / Pinker axis. They probably will not purge Biden, since more and more often, he no longer knows where he is, what year it is, and fails to recognize family, but Pelosi is headed for removal soon enough, finding it increasingly difficult to control the radicals, and increasingly make self destructive concessions to them.

These fractures within the left eventually result in the left singularity being halted short of infinite leftism, as sooner or later, someone important decides “Yes, I do have enemies to the left and I have no choice but do whatever it takes to stop them.”

To merely stabilize movement ever leftwards, ever faster, it has to become as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right. That, merely stabilizing the left wing singularity to current levels, as Stalin and Cromwell did, is a quite drastic measure, and the more dangerous it has become to be too far right, the more dangerous it has to become to be too far left, and the more drastic a measure it is. Cromwell’s measures were drastic, but non lethal. Stalin’s measures were drastic and massively lethal and nothing less could have saved Russia. Once they started killing rightists, it could only be stabilized by killing leftists.

England having been stabilized non lethally, Charles the Second could then restore normality by merely massively purging the state Church, executing a handful of people, and encouraging large numbers of clerics to get out of England. Unfortunately many of them went to America, where they founded Harvard, and have been plotting to take over the world since then.

Harvard was the Vatican, the official state Church of New England, thus the left has organizational continuity and continuity of personnel all the way back to the Christian state church of ancient times. Today, as when Emperor Constantine founded Constantinople, you cannot get a job in the state and quasi state apparatus, unless you have passed catechisms administered by the seminaries of the state religion, but while the catechisms of Constantine’s Church concerned unfalsifiable claims about the next world, today’s catechisms contain ever growing falsifiable and false claims about this world,

[…]
And now, the meat of the post, where we are today
Drag Queens having government sponsored and government approved sex on the floor of the public library with nine year old boys. The books in the library they performed sexual acts on the floor have been purged of all thought crime, and the library needs a coat of paint.

Schools pressuring students to transsexualize.

A school curriculum of hatred against white people, reading, writing, and arithmetic being white privilege. Quiet in the classroom being white privilege.

Arrest quotas on blacks that enable them to swagger down the street because they can beat up white people with impunity and not get charged or arrested, but white people will be arrested for defending themselves.

Ever increasing violence and intimidation against anyone insufficiently left wing.

Collapse of marriage and family.

Courtship and dating can no longer be plausibly or interestingly depicted in movies, books and dance videos. the destruction of Star Wars and the self destruction of Marvel Comics. Han Soylo. The mating dance can no longer be realistically or entertainingly depicted. Dance videos can no longer depict men acting male and women acting female.

Child protective services abducting children from Christian families and selling them to gays.

Hatred of white people and America taught in schools. Second class citizenship for whites.

That pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero, that José Inez García Zárate came to San Francisco illegally, lived on crime and welfare, and is still there despite illegal status and numerous arrests for very serious crimes, that Zárate murdered Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero because she was white, that he was acquitted because a brown man murdering a white girl.

White flight, whites are now fleeing San Francisco as they fled Detroit.

White flight everywhere. We are running out of places in America to run to. Most white people in America cannot return to the place that they were born and raised because “It has changed”, though if they were to say how it has changed, that would be a thought crime. The cost of housing soars as we run out of places to flee to

The silicon valley meritocracy exemption has collapsed, and now silicon valley is collapsing because of affirmative action. They now have to practice affirmative action like everyone else. Hot new technology no longer comes out of Silicon Valley.

Abortion as a holy sacrament. They shut down the Churches and the cancer wards, but did not shut down the abortion mills.

The collapse of intelligence in the student intake of Harvard and Yale. They are stupid, because selected for race, sex, and political correctness, not ability as they select for PC rather than smarts.

[…]

Increasingly second class citizenship for white people. There are arrest quotas limiting the arrest of blacks, so a black can attack white people with little risk, while if a white defends himself, he faces grave risk. So blacks swagger down the street and disrupt the workplace.

The pope worshiping naked pagan idols.

[…]

That a man’s obligation to look after his wife and children is legally and socially enforced, and his obligation to love and cherish socially enforced, but a woman has no legal or social obligation to refrain from cucking her husband, and her obligation to honor and obey is not only not socially enforced, but aggressively opposed.

National Organization for Marriage #fundie nomblog.com

We narrowly lost in four deep blue states, after being badly outspent. Even though NOM contributed a record amount to help these state races—$5.5 million—our opponents were able to amass vast amounts of cash to drive their campaigns. They outspent us by $20 million, and that money helped them win narrow victories.

How close did we come? In Maine, we would have won if 18,000 voters had gone the other way. In Maryland, we lost by 94,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. In Minnesota, about 100,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. And in Washington, we lost by 83,000 votes out of 2.1 million ballots counted so far (final results there won't be known for days).

We always knew it would be a tough fight. These states are so liberal that they were never contested at the presidential level, except very late in Minnesota, resulting in blowout wins for Obama in each of the four states.

It's funny how the left and the media work. Can you imagine if marriage elections were held in Texas, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina and gay marriage advocates had narrowly lost those fights after being outspent by $20 million? Do you think the media and the left would suggest that homosexual marriage advocates cut and run and give up the fight because they lost in those states? Of course not! If anything, they'd be congratulating them on a great showing.

Yet some advocates on the left and in the media are saying we've lost. It's preposterous!

One of the PR spins that our opponents are pushing is that somehow these votes signal that the country has changed their views about same-sex marriage. That is preposterous as well.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.com

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad #racist racebaitr.com

We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.

Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.

Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.

But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.

There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”

The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.

There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.

Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.

Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.

The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”1)

Indeed, when we’ve seen white people try to do whiteness well, try to operate their spheres of power and influence well, we’ve also seen the martyrdom of Black women murdered by police to bring white people to reckon with their sins. We’ve seen white men starting campaigns professing the beauty of Black women, only to soon after realize it came hand in hand with the violent claiming of and sense of entitlement to Blackness and Black bodies.

This is all to say, importantly, that whiteness cannot be done well, cannot be done without violence or without being in opposition to Blackness and Black freedom. But the extent of this lies far beyond ashy campaigns and disturbing open letters begging other white people to atone for their sins using the blood of Black women. We must critically engage the possibility that whiteness is only violent to Blackness, is only and can only ever be antithetical to Black liberation.

That we conceptualize whiteness as having a positive operation in the fight for Black liberation is perhaps the single greatest success of the normative functions of a colonialist State. That is to say, we have been successfully hoodwinked to believe that which harms us most vitally might also be able to save us.

“Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, ‘race,’ is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values,” writes Teresa J. Guess in The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, “thus… the concept ‘race’ is based on socially constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions.” What this means is that race is designed as a hierarchal structure, and whiteness is constructed for no other purpose than to occupy the space of racial superiority. Therefore, to exist and act as white is to reinforce the dominance of whiteness.

Indeed, there would be no white race, no “race” as we know it, if whiteness weren’t positioned in violent dominion. That is the only thing it can do. Whiteness cannot operate in any way that does not first perpetuate white supremacy.

This, of course, is not to say that white people have not been the conduits for necessary Black liberation work. White people surely played integral roles in the freedom rides, abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement. But those roles were meticulously crafted by the toils, lives, death and suffering of Black people. The energy forced through those conduits was painstakingly produced by Black folks. To credit it as anything else is to fall prey to the same tempting veil of racism that motivates us to seek the impossible from our white allies. White people playing a role in liberation work are always merely actors, and the work done with them always done entirely in spite of their whiteness, not because of it.

All ways of addressing Black liberation for which white people are praised is always work Black people—Black poor and working class women, trans, non-binary, disabled and queer people especially—have already done and been doing and have made possible for white people to know.

Even John Brown, the white abolitionist who was executed in 1859 after leading an insurrection against pro-slavery forces, furthered the legacy of the likes of Nat Turner and other Black folks who fought and died for their own freedom before him. We must be sure in recognizing that dying for freedom did not begin with Brown, was not his legacy to create. Though perhaps in death, in a significant sacrifice of self, he and those like him have shed light on what it could mean to give up whiteness for good. When whiteness is so seeped into your being, might giving it up necessitate a threat to one’s safety and existence?

And where do white people exist in safety? In settler colonial societies, positions of power are designated and protected for whiteness. Perhaps the only action white folks can take—barring physical disappearance—in the struggle for Black liberation, for them to successfully put an end to their own whiteness, is the absolute absolving of their places and power. Their literal disappearance from the State and its institutions. It is worth exploring what this would mean for the the persistence of capitalism and the State. Is demanding the destruction of whiteness from the State to demand the destruction of the State, which was created by and has only ever known itself in service to (and in tandem with) whiteness? Which, each together, have only ever worked to maintain capitalism, anti-Blackness, and the disappearance of Indigenous people?

As John Stanfield writes in Theoretical and Ideological Barriers to the Study of Race-Making, “Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed” (Stanfield 1985:161-162). This is how capitalism, anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism are intrinsically tied. None can exist in any way that is good for Black people. The presence of each is specifically predicated on Black subjugation.

After whiteness is obliterated, at that point, what the people who now identify as white should do is a giant theoretical exercise: what comes after whiteness? How does someone become not white? That is the legitimate and critical work of many. But our focus is always on Black folks figuring out new and better ways to get free—independent of white people and capitalism and the entirety of western empires. We are confident that our dreamings of freedom can crumble whiteness, capitalism and empire without giving deep consideration to the question of “what do we do with it”. We’re only interested in the work of building past it.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad are Black, queer, non-binary dreamers who, in some reality not yet here, are married, gendered or ungendered without colonial restriction, and free.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.

Ohio State Legislature #fundie toledoblade.com

COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.

The committee's decision not to interfere with the rules puts Ohio in a position to become the first state to test a "civil registry."

The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse that occurred as long as 35 years ago.

A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.

The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law.

The person's name, address, and photograph would be placed on a new Internet database and the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live.

A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.

The attorney general's office said it continues to hold discussions with a group representing day care operators about one of the rules pertaining to what such facilities would do with information they might receive pertaining to someone on the registry if that person is living nearby.

Mike Adams #conspiracy naturalnews.com

The first realization I hope you grasp is that once Trump wins, radical leftists will go "full terrorist" across the USA, setting off bombs, riots and mass mayhem on a scale we've never witnessed before.

Leftists are brain damaged, of course, which is why they all voted for Clinton. That's also why they burn down their own communities, not realizing the very shops they're torching belong to their own uncles and grandmothers.

During these riots, Clinton-supporting leftists always seem to find the nearest white person and start beating them to death. Although such acts are, of course, felony assault, the leftist political establishment excuses the acts as a form of "social justice," meaning no one will come to help you.

Thus, my first piece of advice is to stay away from the riots. But if you have to drive through any cities for any reason, you might accidentally wind up being dragged out of your car and bludgeoned to death by angry leftist radicals who can't wait to commit mass violence (and even genocide), profiling people based on their skin color to carry out leftist hate crimes against whites.

For this reason -- and I'm not joking here -- you need to own and carry a loaded firearm if it's legal for you to do so. I recommend the Glock 19 as a good starting point, but some people prefer revolvers for the simple reason that they don't leave behind any shell casings at the scene. Whatever you decide to get, you need to be locked and loaded and ready to defend your life and property if violent, radical leftists attempt to commit felony assault against you.

I'm not joking, and I qualify this by urging you to abide by local laws. If you happen to live in an area where carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense is illegal, then you are living in the wrong state and should get out while you still can. Always abide by local laws and carry a firearm responsibly.

Most people have no idea just how bad things might get after the election, and the belief that dialing 911 will magically bring police who can save you is ludicrous. (They will be too busy dealing with all the other crimes happening at the same time.)

So that's item No. 1: A firearm (where legal). As a technical note, I don't like guns with thumb safeties. It's too much effort to screw around with a thumb safety in a moment of panic. Glocks have passive trigger safeties, not thumb safeties, which is one reason why I'm a Glock fan. Also, get some good handgun safety training so you can carry your Glock safely and responsibly. Learn how to disassemble and clean your Glock, and keep it lubricated so it doesn't jam when you need it.

Item No. 2 is, predictably, ammo for the firearm.

If you don't own 1000 rounds of ammo for your firearm, you're not serious about prepping. Do you really think the radical leftist rioters trying to assault you or burn down your house are going to walk away after you've expended that sole 50-round box of ammo you've procured?

Nope, angry leftist zombies will at you come in waves, and there are millions of them. If they're assaulting you, attempting to burn down your house, trying to carjack you or dropping fire bombs on your retail establishment, you're probably going to need more than 50 rounds of ammo. Don't forget the spare magazines, either, which you'll want to have pre-loaded with hollow point ammo rounds for maximum self-defense effectiveness.

Also, I'll share this from experience: Get yourself a good set of ear protectors, or you'll emerge totally deaf after a firefight. Amazon sells this decent set of ear muffs for just $17, with 34dB of noise protection. Trust me, you'll need it when the zombies attack.

Rittersport #fundie boards.straightdope.com


If you found out he had attempted to rape a 15 year old girl?

Yes, I am referring to the Kavanaugh case.

But really. Lets say you are a parent of a 17 year old boy. You find out thru sources he did it, you confront him. He becomes angry at first but then breaks down sobbing that he did it and he is now really, really, sorry.

What are your options? I can only think of the following:

1. Turn him into the police which will mean a trial and him possibly serving time plus being required to register as a sex offender.
2. Talking things over with the girls parents and working out some sort of resolution where he agrees to apologize and never speak of this again.
3. Nothing. Besides smacking the boy around and vowing to never letting him out of your sight again and hoping this goes away.
4. Moving.
5. Sending him away to go to say a boarding school or to live with another relative.

I'd probably attempt 2, and if that got nowhere, I'd maybe try to get him out of the country. If I even got a hint that 2 might not work, I'd probably try to get him out of the country. I know it's not the right thing, but it's hard to get past those parental instincts.

I'm really opposed to sex offender registries -- they seem like additional post-sentence punishment. Plus, why single out sex offenders? I'd also like to know if a murderer or burglar moved into my neighborhood. The existence of these registries would help me (wrongly) justify to myself that I'm doing the right thing by getting him out of the situation by any means necessary.

Judgybitch #fundie judgybitch.com

So two of the boys involved in the Steubenville “rape” case were found guilty and will now face imprisonment and a lifetime membership on the Registered List of Sex Offenders. That is a tragedy for the boys, for justice and for the victims of actual rape. As we go through this case, ask yourself who benefits from this verdict, and why.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

Most of the facts in this case seem relatively incontrovertible: a young woman, who was not part of the regular social group, went to a football party, in a town mad for football, got trashed out of her mind, voluntarily accompanied two of the biggest football stars to another party, passed out and then got treated like a whore.

http://judgybitch.com/2012/12/18/a-shit-faced-drunk-girl-a-football-star-and-a-vigilante-feminist-the-makings-of-a-fairy-tale/

In a moment of mind-numbing stupidity, the boys opted to film their “assault” on the girl, which involved fingering her while she was passed out. Rather than leave her in a ditch somewhere, they carried her around to different locations, none of which had any adult supervision.

What the fuck, Steubenville? Where are all the goddamn grown-ups?

The law in Ohio states that ANY penetration, however slight, constitutes rape. Let’s start there. Comparing a stupid, drunk, helmet-chasing whore who gets fingered while passed out to an actual rape victim is completely and utterly absurd.

This is rape:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/indian-gang-rape-victim-dies-hospital_n_2377717.html

So is this:

http://haysfreepress.com/2012/05/07/florida-man-extradited-in-hays-county-brutal-rape-case/#axzz2NtuPnHlh

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_Jogger_case

Now, the girl in Steubenville is claiming she didn’t actually drink all that much, and someone must have drugged her! Toxicology tests? NEGATIVE.

Oh my! You mean she’s a lying little tramp desperately trying to avoid ANY culpability for what happened to her? Well color me shocked.

Defense attorneys say a toxicology report performed a day later showed no signs of drugs.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/steubenville-rape-trial-witness-testifies-recording-alleged-assault/story?id=18738378

The most telling thing about this whole case is that multiple people saw the little tramp passed out and carried about by a couple of douchey guys, and make no mistake, those boys behaved shamefully. Part of having the adulation and admiration that comes along with being a small town football star is not to abuse that power when the little gold-digging status whores come a-calling, and those boys failed.

Punishment > Crime

That girl had no friends at the party, not one person had enough respect for her to step in, she was not part of the social tribe and there is no way in hell she did not know that. She went to that party to nab herself a football player, and lo and behold, the football players didn’t really like such an obvious grasp at their glory.

Find yourself another wagon to hitch to, little star.

The saddest thing is that the boys sobbingly admit that they ruined her life! They are accused of having “no moral code”! Oh, and the girl had an impeccable one, did she?

RUINED HER LIFE?!?!

Are you fucking kidding me? They are going to jail! They will be registered sex offenders! They are convicted criminals! One night of behaving like assholes will follow them the rest of their lives, and HER LIFE IS RUINED!!

Her life is not ruined in the slightest. LittleTramp is free to go about her life, getting as drunk as she likes, chasing after any high-status males she likes, and securing criminal convictions against men who treat her like the whore she is.

God help the varsity athletes at whatever college campus she ends up on, and no doubt LittleTramp will get back on her feet after suffering a little humiliation and continue on with her life because SHE’S RUINED.

The young men in this case will never escape the disgustingly unfair consequences of a night of acting like dicks, while the young woman will carry on, unless she feels she isn’t getting quite enough sympathy, of course. Cue the Prozac and therapy!


You know what we need? We need a Drunk Whore Registry. If sex offenders are registered for the protection of all women, then why not register drunk whores for the protection of all men? It’s true that men could protect themselves by not acting like dicks, but combine small-town celebrity with lots of alcohol and no adult supervision, and you WILL get men acting like assholes and women acting like sluts.

When we only punish one side on that equation, we have a serious cultural problem. Men are held to account for their irresponsible decisions made while young and stupid and drunk, but women are not? Most crimes acknowledge explicitly that mitigating circumstances create different categories of crime with correspondingly progressive punishments. Why is rape different?

The punishment these boys face, which will be in effect for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES is way out of proportion to the “crime”. The definition of rape in Ohio is so broadly defined that the act of being a dickhead is now as serious as the act of fucking a woman forcibly and against her will. And if you don’t think there is a material difference between getting fingered and getting fucked, you are probably a feminist.

Getting drunk and chasing after football stars demonstrates level of stupidity and disrespect for the humanity of the men in question (who are valued only for their status), and that disrespect was returned. But only the boys are held responsible for that.

I say bullshit. No one got raped in Steubenville. Someone got humiliated, and she participated willingly and readily in her own humiliation. Turning stupid decisions made by high-school students into criminal acts with consequences that will follow only ONE party for their rest of their lives is deeply unfair, and when fingering a slut at an alcohol fuelled party is put in the same category as violent sexual assault, the real victims are drowned in a chorus of pathetic mewlings of women who didn’t get to bag the star.

Who thinks that if the young woman had woken up the next morning next to the football player, his arms wrapped around her in a loving embrace, she would have considered that the price she had to pay to land the big fish?


Steubenville: sour fucking grapes.

Not just sour, bitter, too. But only for the men.

How is that justice? Who is served when those boys are locked up? Who is protected? Who wins? How ironic is it that the adults who were NOT present to lend some sanity to what their own children were up to are now fully involved to make certain only the boys are punished?

People make stupid decisions. Especially when they are young. They act like idiots. They treat other people with a lack of respect. They behave shamefully. It happens. Holding boys, and only boys responsible, moves justice from being blind to being blatantly sexist. When justice can only see one sex as guilty, it’s time to put out her eyes again.


Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Lots of love,

JB

Nya Nya Jo #fundie edendecoded.com

People want to say that religion and politics doesn't mix, but it does!

Biblical history shows us that the law of the land IS a religion; and the religion IS the law of the land. Ultimately, the politics (religious beliefs) of every society was based on what god or gods were worshiped. And this is no different to what we are witnessing now in our political arena.

SO THE QUESTION is what religious doctrine did Black women overwhelmingly subscribe to, that can be credited for destroying the traditional Black family?

We can NOT say it's Christianity. Because the black church never taught nor endorsed single motherhood as a viable option to Christian motherhood: which is found within the sanctity of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman.

The Bible, along with the Christian faith that rests on it, is replete with admonishments and warnings to avoid the type of sexual activity that leads to whoredom becoming the culture of the land. Nevertheless black women by and large (to the tune of 72% by recent stats) have rejected the biblical Christian standard. So what spiritual standard are they living by?

I believe Black women subscribed to the religious doctrine of Liberalism. You may be thinking that liberalism is not a religion, but it is. Liberalism is a very old ancient religion started over 3,000 years ago.

DID YOU KNOW the following about liberalism?

• Liberalism is based on the Roman god Liber.

• The Roman god name Liber means 'the free one;' its alternate Roman name was Bacchus; and the Greeks referred to this god as Dionysus.

• Liber is described as androgynous, man-womanish, sensuous, naked or half-naked.

• Liber is the god of wine, fertility, debauchery, uninhibited freedom and free speech.

• Liber's worship centered around large phallics; consisted of orgies, drunkenness, intoxication through various potions, and sexual activities (including homosexual acts).

• The Liber cult conducted human and animal sacrifices.

• Originally, Liber rituals were only attended and conducted by women, who practiced sexual masturbation rituals with carved life-sized phallic objects.

• Liber was the patron deity of the common people of Rome (the lower social classes); such as women who had lesser rights than the common man in ancient Roman society; slaves and foreigners.

• Worship of Liber taught civil disobedience to the established social order and the transformation of religious authority. Very much like what we've seen recently in the news with the riots and angry protests after the Presidential election that was won by Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

• In 186BC, the Roman Senate banned Liber worship because it was considered to be a threat to the security of the Roman Republic due to their political conspiracies, crimes and debauchery.

Now, let's take a look at our modern (current) Liberal politics.

Americn Liberalism is obsessed with sex - especially the kind that deals with homosexual and other alternative sexual infatuations. It also has an unhealthy focus on redefining family structure and twisting gender roles and identity.

The driving force behind liberalism is to create anarchy through 'anti-establishment' rhetoric; and to ultimately destroy traditional social principles by using the political system and process.

Modern liberalism aims to:

• End 'partriachy;' which means to prevent men from fulfilling their God-given right of leadership in home, government, moral authority; thus stripping men of their role and rights as fathers.

• Endorse free speech of every type and hue - except for free speech that contains traditional Christian principles.

• Teach sexual liberation; challenge the traditional codes of sexual behavior through LGBTQ special rights, laws and overwhelming media coverage.

• Promote free love; and that sexual freedom is a direct expression of power and authority.

• Normalize birth control (abortion), public nudity, masturbation, sex toys, pornography, premarital (casual) sex, sex with children (pederasty) and homosexuality.

• Reshape the image of the traditional family to include open marriage, spouse swapping, swinging and same-sex marriage.

• Make recreational drugs and alcohol easily accessible.

SO I ASK YOU: How could the black family remain intact with women that chose to adopt a liberal mindset that involved twisting gender roles, pushing the natural boundaries of sex, fighting against the God-given role men were given as leader in the home, indulging in all types of anti-biblical forms of intoxication, and devaluing their children to the point where they see nothing wrong in aborting them?

Liberalism is anti-god in all its ways.

Under liberalism black women have become gender confused, domineering over men (which is a hallmark of that confusion), whoreish (unable to get married, or maintain a marriage), excessive masturbators, sexual predators, cold and callous towards children (including the unborn), promoters of abortion (infanticide), drunkards (excessive drinkers), with a desire to assume final authority over men in the workplace, in government, in the church, and in their homes. These women rather pattern themselves after the image of liberalism, rather than the image of the virtuous women in the Bible who chose to honor God by becoming wives and mothers under the authority and headship of husbands.

And just like that, over the past 50 years, the Liberal political system converted the minds of women into pagan worshipping harlots of the god called Liber.

The Devil used Black Women as a 'legal and lawful' satanic attack on the black family. Ana if not rectified, this is the blueprint the Devil will use to destroy families of other races, ethnicities and cultures.

Satan has the blueprint for family destruction, and he will continue to use it across our country and the world.

Leviticus 19:29 (KJV) warns us: "Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness."

So what we are witnessing right now is the result of generational self-prostitution of women; women choosing the lifestyle of whoredom over the standards of the Bible. And unashamedly, Black women voted for laws that led to the destruction of the Black family all so she could have laws that supported her ability to live a life of whoredom.

Hard truth: You don't have the mind of Jesus Christ if you choose to live life as a whore. You have the mind of some other god.

It is our lifestyle that shows our dedication to a specific set of religious beliefs. And we make sure our beliefs are cemented and protected through the laws and policies of our land via civil rights or identity rights.

I plead with Christians - particularly black Christian women and men to get involved in changing this damnable mindset of liberalism that has crept into our churches. Get involved in reshaping the political ideology to be pro-Christian!

We have a mandate and duty to be that light on the hill; I like to think of that hill as also including Capitol Hill.

Will YOU be that light? Become part of the movement to overthrow liberalism in the Church and in the black community. And let's restore the biblical perspective as the right foundation on which to build our homes, lives, communities and nation on.

Michael Louwe #fundie #racist christiannews.net

michael louwe:
Remember, since the 1960s, the power-crazy White liberals of the Blue States have been pandering for the votes of the Blacks and Hispanics, in order to defeat the White conservatives of the Red States in US Federal elections.
Hence, the self-hating, anti-White and pro-Colored views of the White liberals, eg Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, etc and yourself(.?). It's all politically-driven.

Floodlight:
Listen to yourself. You are so tied up in knots with ridiculous conspiracy theories you are defending white supremacists.

michael louwe:
If White conservatives who fight for the interests of Whites are White supremacists, then you are a liberal White masocist who is often submissive to the Black and Hispanic supremacists in the Blue States, eg Joe Biden kow-towing to Barack Obama and Eric Holder from 2008 to 2016.

In effect, the power-crazy White liberals/masocists of the Blue States are ignorantly committing racial suicide by pandering for the votes of the Black and Hispanic supremacists, in order to defeat the White conservatives of the Red States in US Federal elections since the 1960s.
That is why the White liberals/masocists like to denigrate White conservatives who fight for White interests as White supremacists, while they hypocritically praise and champion Blacks and Hispanics/Browns who fight for Black and Hispanic/Brown interests, eg the mostly Democrat Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus in the US Congress.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child prostitution should be legal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Whitlock #fundie newsbusters.org

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Thursday spent 22 minutes covering the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina's state house. The liberal anchor obsessed on minor Republican opposition in the state, minimizing the overwhelming GOP support to remove the flag.

Maddow vaguely insisted, "They put that flag up at the state capital in South Carolina in 1961. It hasn't been flying since the Civil War. They put it up in 1961. They put it up months after a group of activists were jailed for their sit-in to try to integrate an all white lunch counter in Rock Hill, South Carolina." Who's "they?" "They" were the Democratic governor in the state and the Democratic legislature.

Maddow declared, "That flag was put up in 1961. It was kept up thereafter as a rejection for civil rights for black people in South Carolina in the 20th century." Who made that rejection? Maddow didn't say. She also ignored a point made by the Associated Press: "[Republican Governor David] Beasley lost his bid for re-election in 1998 after advocating for [the flag's] removal."

Maddow focused on Republican attempts to save the flag, highlighting: "But the strategy of the Republican Confederate flag defenders, people who want to keep the flag up, their strategy was to pile amendments on the bill, to slow down, ultimately try to stop it. It was not clear until very, very late whether or not that strategy would work."

She didn't note that the South Carolina State Senate voted 36-3 to remove the flag. The State House voted 94-20. Overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats chose to remove the flag. Republican Governor Nikki Haley led the charge.

Instead, Maddow highlighted a battle in Congress over Confederate flags in national parks.

RACHEL MADDOW: On Wednesday, John Boehner had a freak out on his hands from his own Republicans. Nobody wanted to say who it was specifically but some Republican members of the House from the South apparently decided they were outraged by this plan and they demanded that it be undone. And so, John Boehner tried to undo it. Yesterday, he put up another amendment that would restore Confederate flags to national parks.

In June, the networks also omitted how the Democratic governor of South Carolina raised the Confederate flag.

On the June 22 Special Report With Bret Baier, the anchor explained

BRET BAIER: It's important historical context. I mean, the flag was raised over the state capitol by Democrat Fritz Hollings – then governor, in 1961. It was taken off the state capitol by Republican David Beasley after pressure in 1998 and put on the state grounds.

llcoolbj77 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

can't believe I am wading in to this, but here goes...

I am a public defender representing mostly juveniles; including several juvenile sex offenders. I have two small children, and most of the prosecutors I work with have small children. We often discuss what we would do if we caught our kids acting out sexually. And it is a fucking quagmire.

Let me say, with some authority, that going the court route can be helpful. With the right combination of prosecutor, judge, attorney, probation officer, therapist, parents, race, socioeconomic background, and resources, there can be some real success with juvenile sex offenders. And the recidivism rates are much lower than with adults. HOWEVER, the stars do not usually align that way. Take any one of those factors out, and things can get bad really quickly.

Let's assume Josh was caught in my jurisdiction. He is 14. He had multiple victims, with multiple incidents, and some as young as 5. He is white, with involved parents, so maybe the prosecutor would not automatically jump to certifying him as an adult. But they might try. He could not go home, so unless the family could afford residential treatment, he would be in juvenile detention. His psychosexual eval (with the facts we know) would put him at a moderate to high risk level to recidivate. If he's lucky, he escapes with no felony convictions. If he's not, he gets juvenile felony convictions and the juvenile registry. He is at risk, however, for being certified as an adult, prison time (in adult prison) and the adult sex offender registry. Life over. Game over. Done. And don't forget what CPS might do with all the other kids in the home that Mom and Dad were not able to protect.

Knowing all this... what would I do? If my sweet kid did something unspeakable to my other sweet kid? I don't know. I would do everything in my power to protect both children.

Royce E. Van Blaricome #fundie christiannews.net

Sisyphys:
How was judge [Roy] Moore upholding the Constitution, by attempting to inject his pet ideology into law?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By doing exactly what he said. I can't say it anymore succinctly and clearly than he did. Your characterization is just a blatant admission to your blindness and bias. Has nothing to do with "pet ideology".

Sisyphys:
The laws of Alabama he is trying to uphold, have been determined to be unconstitutional.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By your ilk, maybe.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to make final determinations of law.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.".

In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

Since SCOTUS can NOT "make" Law and they didn't address the current Law on the books, it'll be interesting to see if what would happen if a challenge is brought by Moore, AL, NC or another State. At best, they could rule that the entire Marriage Licensing Act/Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act is/are void, which would mean an immediate cessation of marriage licenses.

Then a state could pass a law stating that marriage can only be used for unions of man and woman. It would no doubt be challenged and possibly overturned by some liberal activist judge or District Court.

This might open the door for another case on SSM to be considered by SCOTUS and if something were to happen to Ginsberg or Kennedy or one of the other Liberal Activists on the Court, I'd say there's a good probability that the original dissenters and Constitutionalists like Gorsuch would revisit the issue.

It's not like it's not happened before. If Obergefell were to be overturned, it certainly would NOT be the first time.

Ambulance Chaser:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.

No, the Constitution is the final word on all laws. And when it's ambiguous, the Courts clarify it.

That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.

As with many laws that start with "uniform," the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act isn't a law at all. It was a model that states could choose to adopt or not adopt as they saw fit. Only 8 states did: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and Washington. None of those states ever relied on it to limit the genders of people who were allowed to marry. The "man and woman" language was just there as a common convention of what the definition of marriage was.

I have no idea what the Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act is. The only reference I found to it was an unlinked comment on a bodybuilding forum.

In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.

So what? Obergefell states,

"The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold and it now does hold that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

They're not required to go through every law in every state that they're striking down. Their intention is made perfectly clear.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
What a load of gobbledeygook.

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

[When you actually agree with the feminist argument that domestic violence is political and about control]

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

Titus Greenwood #fundie americanthinker.com

I say let the Blue States go in peace. I'm not the first to say this on AT, but I agree with it. Let the Blue States have all the GUN CONTROL they want. Let them have all the ILLEGAL ALIENS they want. Let them have all the ELFARE FREELOADERS, those who refuse to work and ride the free bus! Let the Blue States have all the LIBERAL SOCIALISM they want. They won't need a army or navy because they'll need what money they can print to PAY for everyone who refuses to work. Let em have HOLLYWOOD and Alec Baldwin, Demi Moore, Danny Glover and all them Leftist fools who think they got it so bad in what was, a good, decent and God fearing nation! Let them have all the DETROIT'S, CHICAGO'S, LOS ANGELES'S and such places, that are decaying and rotting under the CORRUPTION and CRIME wrought by LIBERAL SOCIALISM. Let the 0BAMA'S, CLINTON'S, KERRY'S, REID'S and PELOSI'S of this Liberal Socialist utopia, RULE over their "subjects." Where only the police (hell they won't need them either) have guns and EVERYONE gets SNAP cards! Let em have 0bama as their Supreme Ruler. But as for ME, I want to live in a FREE nation, where FREEDOM and FREE ENTERPRISE are the norm. A nation where the CONSTITUTION is the core of law and honored and respected. A nation where ALL are equal under the law and have the opportunity to reach for the stars! Not a place where the government tells me how big a TOILET TANK I can buy, or where the government tells me how big my soft drink can be. I want to live in a country, where the PEOPLE tell the government what THEY can do, not the other way around.

Unknown author #fundie leagueofthesouth.com

Most Southerners by now have seen the constant media coverage of the “Syrian Refugee Crisis,” where tidal waves of undocumented, Muslim immigrants have waltzed through the very heartland of white, Christian Europe. The liberal media have aided these people at every turn, making claims that these are just innocent refugees, trying to get clear of the fighting.

Yet, there remain several curious facts about these “refugees”:

First: 75% of them are young men, in their 20s and 30s, with very few women and children to speak of. Odd, right? You’d think if these were heads of households fleeing a scene of destruction, that they’d take their families with them. Yet most don’t have families with them.

Second: they don’t simply walk next door, across the Turkish border where there is no fighting, and hunker down. No, they walk all the way across Turkey and Anatolia, until they cross Europe’s Southern borders.

Once they cross those borders, do they stop there, where there’s also zero fighting, like real refugees would? No sir!

Even though by that time, they’ve been free of fighting for thousands of miles, they trek further, all the way up to Germany, the UK, or even Sweden.

Puzzling, right? Well, not if you happen to know the true explanation as to why hundreds of thousands of third world Muslims are trekking to just those three countries … Free Goodies

The real reason that this Islamic army is descending upon the hapless, white populaces of Christian Europe is quite simple. Merkel’s government in Berlin has offered very lucrative, financial benefits to any third-worlder who bothers to cross their border! Does that sound familiar? It should! For that’s precisely what Washington, DC, in all its corruption, is offering to hordes of Latinos. Simply cross the South’s border and voila: free healthcare, tuition, social security, voting status, drivers’ licenses, and other enormously lucrative benefits to each and every one … all at YOUR expense!

The hard truth is that both of these scenes, in Europe, and here in the South, on many occasions aren’t cases of “refugees” seeking shelter, or immigrants looking for an honest life. No, these are armies of invaders, because, make no mistake, these are invasions, plain and simple.

The radical, leftist governments of Western Europe and Washington DC are both acting against their own white populations, to ethnically replace them with third world populations willing to work for next to nothing. These governments care neither about their oaths of office nor the safety and well-being of their people.

They care only about bending over backwards to give away Western, Christian civilization to those who had nothing to do with building it!

The most disturbing aspect is that other than a few heroic political leaders, few others (with power) have the will to do what must be done to stop it.

Wait though! If you were thinking, “Well, at least we’re not getting flooded with Muslims like poor Europe is. It’s a good thing that wouldn’t happen here in Dixie…,” then I’m afraid I have some very bad news for you, friend.

President Obama is not content to merely destroy half the Middle East with pointless wars paid for with borrowed Chinese money—no. He’s now hell-bent on shipping hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslims into the very heart of Dixie.

It’s true; the plans have already been revealed to bring thousands into the upstate region of South Carolina. Others are planned to be shipped into various parts of Tennessee and elsewhere.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do you think that bringing in several hundred thousand new human souls into our Southland is a good idea, when we don’t even have enough jobs for our own people?

Do you think that bringing in several hundred thousand Muslims into our Bible Belt is a good idea?

Can’t you just picture it: minarets, instead of steeples, springing up in the deep South, as you and your loved ones awaken to hear a Muslim call to prayer from the local mosque … just down the street from you?

Does this sound like a great future?

The Federal Government says it is, and they say you’re gonna like it, that you have no other choice.

Upon this point though, the League of the South disagrees with Washington in spades, and we’ve been doing something about it.

Several years ago, when treacherous corporations (and sadly, some liberal churches) conspired to bring Muslims to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the League of the South stood alone, fighting back and condemning this unspeakable attack on the Christian, white South.

There were so many third world Islamic peoples brought into the quaint, picturesque town of Murfreesboro, that they even built a large mosque in the city.

We were not amused.

We organized a rally and called out the traitorous politicians who supported the ethnic replacement of their own Christian, Southern populace with third world, Islamic workers. We held up signs that said, “No Jihad in Tennessee,” because we knew the truth: sooner or later, when enough Muslims are allowed into a community, a radical, violent element will follow it. Always.

Sadly, we were vindicated in July 2015, when Mohammad Abdulazeez went on a shooting rampage, killing five servicemen in Chattanooga, Tennessee. While this killing shocked many in Tennessee, it did not shock us. How many more Southerners will have to die before we take back our Southern lands from those who insist upon replacing us?

The Federal Government calls Islam a “religion of peace;” the League of the South calls it a hateful, dangerous abomination that belongs nowhere in our Southland!

The Federal Government calls their act of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims “an act of love.” The League of the South calls it an act of war on our Christian people!

The Federal Government says that Muslims will “culturally enrich” the South. The League of the South has seen about as much “cultural enrichment” that Muslims have forced upon other nations as we can stand!

We at the League of the South call upon Southerners to admit some very uncomfortable truths:

The truth is that this is no longer “the land of the free,” and Southerners won’t be free while under Washington DC’s occupation.

The truth is that DC is forcing the South (against its will) to take in these third world Islamic elements and at our people’s expense.

The truth is that Dixie’s sons and daughters have loved a country (the US), that has not and does not love them back.

The truth is that white Southerners are being ethnically replaced by millions of second and third world immigrants, who are driving down our wages, taking our jobs, and even committing violent acts against our own people. Enough is enough!

We declare that the South has already been overrun by too many foreign invaders as it is, and we don’t want or need any more of them!

We declare that if the South was a free and independent country, we could control and secure our own borders, here and now!

We declare that the South is our homeland, and no one else’s, because our people landed here and built this civilization from nothing.

We declare that since we built it, we should take true ownership of it by deciding who comes here and who doesn’t. Sounds great, right?

The problem is that as long as we remain shackled to a liberal, progressive country, headquartered by radicals in Washington, DC, we will never be allowed to decide our own immigration, border, or citizenship policies.

Washington will decide all those things for us, and you can bet your last dollar that they’ll continue to force these alien invaders upon us until you and your loved ones have been made minorities in the lands your fathers built. Does that sound like “freedom” to you? It sure doesn’t to us, either!

The only way to stop DC from replacing us in our own lands is to secede from this oppressive, liberal construct and assert our independence as a sovereign, Southern country in the 21st century.

It can be done, and unless you want to see minarets adorned with crescent moons in your town … it must be done. Our Southern children and grandchildren have no future if they remain shackled to the United States.

We are making our voices heard and reminding our people that they are not alone. We are here fighting for them and their futures, but we need your help!

The Southern people would be much freer, safer, and happier in a country of our own. This is our dream, and we are fighting every day to make it a reality.

Do you share this dream with us? If so, then will you fight for it with us? Join us today! We’re the folks you’ve been looking for!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tonus #fundie mmo-champion.com

In this case I think the punishment he received is a clear deterrent... his bright future is totally gone, everyone who sees the case is not thinking, hell, I'll only get 6 months and be a sex offender forever, who cares let's do this! So the deterrent threshold is met in my opinion.

The real question is, is he irredeemable? And that's where you have to try to get a sense of who he is, and where being a Stanford swimmer comes into play in my opinion. He doesn't just happen to "swim real good", he had to work extremely hard at it (and academically as well). I think it means he's less likely to be a sociopath - you don't get to swim at Stanford if you're someone who is incapable of following the rules of society.

That's also where the drunken freshman factor comes into play for me. And this is all theorizing, but an elite swimmer with Olympic hopes probably had very strict parents - you don't become a good mid distance swimmer without extreme discipline, so there's a chance he never had a drink before college. Then you get to college and alcohol and women are everywhere.

I was a swimmer in college, I never had a drink before I got there. The first event the team had was in theory supposed to be a "workout", but when we got to the event, there was a keg and alcohol pressed on the freshmen until several threw up. The upperclassmen found it funny (and I did as well the next few years as an upperclassman). So you're a freshman, you're suddenly hammered and have no idea how to handle your liquor, and there's all these hookups happening. And men are taught to initiate these encounters and constantly push the envelope (this is just true; try being a man waiting for a woman to approach you and see how much success you have).

Again, the standard here is reasonable doubt, so I see it as a drunk freshman who's suddenly learning that some women might like having sex with him, but only if he initiates everything. He makes out with a girl who's blackout drunk, and takes things way too far.

I think the punishment is too severe, mostly because I don't see a drunk 18 year old thrust into that culture who did a terrible thing as totally irredeemable. It's also because, as others have said, the majority of the punishment happens outside the 6 month jail term, even ignoring the social media hate that's following him around too.

The registered sex offender and felon status he'll carry with him for the rest of his life means many of the opportunities formerly open to him are closed forever. There's nothing he can do to change his status. As an 18 year old it's illegal for him to go back to his high school and there are large areas where he is prevented from going. Most companies will never hire him due to the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" screening question. His life is ruined. But people want more.

It's interesting to me that liberals are quick to talk about how laws in this country are so extreme and how we have an incarceration/recidivism problem, but that sex crimes bring out such bloodlust. I'd hope we could be more forgiving generally. And yes, I'd have no problem with a longer jail sentence (say 1-2 years) if the sex offender status was something that could be forgiven over time for a first offender.

incelwarrior9 #sexist reddit.com

Inceldom will NEVER heal

Let's say some miracle happens and a 30 year old incel meets a willing woman and she becomes his relationship. Assuming that the incel craves sex since 15 and that the average man has sex 89 times a year then the incel is deprived of 1.335 intercourse sessions.

That means he will always be sex starved and he will always crave more sex than his partner can offer. And of course as the years go by the quality of sex life drops meaning that sex won't be nearly as satisfying as it would be when the participants where in their 20's.

With the afformentioned situation in mind the incel will forever be a pawn to women and he will always miss the sex he never had in his younger days. Females will always control him and take advantage of his lust.

Tony Newman #fundie bostonherald.com

[Court decision in Massachusetts requires certain high-risk sex offenders to be removed from public database]

This is liberalism gone wild. Imagine a planet where no one has any morals or belief in God. Imagine a planet where there IS no right or wrong or how E A S Y everything should be, where no one has to work, where you can murder or molest whoever you want and face no charges and know that locally, it was Martha Coakley who truly believed in all of this and barack obama has lead this country and much of the earth to this very state and you have two of the most unscrupulous animals to ever run for the presidency, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton willing to "progress" this type of belief even further.
What is even scarier is the number of people who not only want this, but demand it. Still believe in liberalism or should we try and stop the insanity.?

Messager777 #racist arstechnica.com

(In RSTDT because of that first damn paragraph)

.
Since the 1960s, the liberals of the Blue States have been using US taxpayers money to buy votes from the Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, poor folks, LGBTQs, etc, in order to keep themselves in power in Washington DC, against the conservatives of the Red States.
....... Eg generous welfare benefits for the poor and illegal immigrants(= mostly Hispanics), easy social welfare benefits for the Black welfare queens with 4 kids from 4 different Black bf's, Federal spousal benefits for same-sex couples, etc.

Hence, the States with the highest public debt are mostly liberal, eg California, New York and New Jersey. Most bankrupt cities are liberal.
....... The liberals-dominated US govt has an unsustainable debt of about US$20 trillion = will eventually go bankrupt.

P S - The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be insolvent by 2033. The liberal Democrat President Lyndon Johnson began "robbing" the SSTF during the 1960s to fund the liberals' Vietnam War, which was earlier started by President Kennedy in support of the French colonialists.

Frank B. Cousins #fundie twitter.com

2017 will be the year pedophiles finally get their liberation.

Not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are sex offenders.

Pedophiles deserve atleast a little sympathy since they are the most targeted group in societ

Follow me on twitter, i need a couple reasonable human beings to help motivate a powerful movement.

Is your pathetic emotions hurt because you cant get a small boy to ram his tight ass?It's time for society to normalize pedophila

t's not always going to be about you. Pedophiles are the only humans without their rights.

messager7 #fundie christianpost.com

This is why most Muslim terrorist attacks occurred in the liberal Blue States, ie the foolish bleeding heart liberals welcome non-assimilating Muslim immigrants, refugees n terrorists into their midst. Eg 911, Boston Marathon bombing, failed NY Times Square bombing, etc. ......."Stupid is as stupid does.

Tea Party Heroes #racist teapartyheroes.blogspot.com

It is a sad day indeed when American citizens betray this great nation in order to fight for a demonic moon god. This past week there was a man arrested just outside of my home city of Boston for plotting to fly remote controlled aircraft into the Pentagon and Capitol building. Another former American was killed in Yemen for strong ties to Al-Quida. Islam in America is turning our own people into terrorists!


In order to protect our nation from the threat of Islam, we have to begin taking a stronger stand against muslims in America. Muslims consider themselves servants of the moon god Allah first, and Americans second. This right away makes their allegiance to our nation iffy at best. The Koran's teachings of waging war against infidels is also a great concern. If muslims in America consider themselves muslim first, and follow these teachings, then they have no qualms about attacking America!


It should be made law that the teachings of Mohammed and Allah be seen as support of terrorism, and therefore, treason. All followers of Islam should be made to register with their state so the local government knows who and who is not a threat to national security. These registries would be made public, much like the sex offender registry, so that all Americans know who their neighbors are and can be on alert for un-American and terrorist activities. The same goes to those who convert to this subversive "religion".


Those followers of Islam who have been found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor in the past, or who are convicted in the future, should be deported back to the country of their heritage immediately! Furthermore, anyone who is found to be a follower of Islam should have no right to bear or raise children. This would be enforced through sterilization to prevent the growth of domestic terror cells. Children born in America to muslim parents are to be removed from the home and placed with any relatives in their native land. If there are none, they will be given into the care of those foreign states.

sadoeconomics #fundie sadoeconomist.tumblr.com

Can you give a good reason why you believe child pornography ahouldnt be illegal? Because to me it sounds like youre justifying child rape in the name of "anti-censorship"

I’m not doing that at all, and you shouldn’t put scare quotes on anti-censorship.

First, let’s go over a few incidents. Recently, I heard about an acquaintance of mine whose 16-year-old son’s 17-year-old girlfriend attempted to send him a topless selfie but instead accidentally texted it to her neighbor, an old lady who freaked out and called the police. And the first reaction of the police was to begin the process of indicting ALL THREE OF THEM for possession of child pornography and adding them to the sex offender registry for life - and it’s only because the girl’s dad was a golfing buddy of the chief of police that it ended with all of their cell phones being confiscated and wiped instead. Does this sound like a reasonable way of dealing with this situation? Were all of them child rapists? How much prison time should you get for the crime of receiving an unsolicited JPEG file exactly?

Let’s consider also the Playpen incident last year, which was what prompted that post you’re probably responding to, in which the FBI ran a sting operation that disseminated a massive amount of child pornography through the dark web, which was so badly mishandled that very few people they caught downloading real hardcore child rape pornography can be prosecuted. The US federal government is itself unquestionably the biggest distributor of child pornography there is. This is the same federal government that ran COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, etc. And they are now headed by Donald Trump, who is one of several political figures who went to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island before Epstein was convicted of trafficking in underage prostitutes. Donald Trump of the Republican Party, which recently had Dennis Hastert as the Speaker of the House, who has since been convicted of raping an underage boy. And let’s not even get into all the shit the Democrats have been caught doing. Are these the people you trust to fairly enforce these laws? Do you think it would be difficult for any three-letter agency to put child pornography on your computer without your knowledge if they wanted to, so they could prosecute anyone they wanted and claim they were secretly a pedophile, to destroy their reputation? Is that a power you are comfortable with Donald Trump and the deep state having? They haven’t been willing to legally define ‘pornography,’ even. Having laws forbidding certain combinations of ones and zeroes hands those people a blank check to destroy whomever they wish.

Let’s go back to what prompted my personal interest in this whole debate, which was the relationship I had with an older woman when I was 16 - when I had a job, I was going to college, I was allowed to drive a multi-ton motor vehicle, I was talking to a recruiter about joining the Marine Corps, etc. but had no access to many other legal rights arbitrarily withheld from people under 18. If she had sent me racy photos of herself or vice versa, well, she might still be in prison today. As it was, we carefully avoided putting her at risk for two very long years until I was 18, at which point we had a rather normal romantic adult relationship for several years that ended amicably, that I look back on fondly today. As the person who was supposedly protected here by being forcibly kept apart from the person I loved, how do you think I feel about the state’s interference in our relationship now? If you guessed ‘immensely resentful even after all these years,’ you are correct. Would it have been child rape on her part if I had sent her a picture of my naked body unprompted? Does it make any sense that I could pledge to sign several years of my life over to the military at that age but I couldn’t send someone a picture of myself? Do you get how that experience molded my opinion on the subject and made me willing to speak out on the subject even if it meant people would call me a pedophile?

One of the most famous home movies in history is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. We’ve all seen it, right? But it’s photographic evidence of a crime. Shouldn’t we all be charged with condoning the murder of the president for watching that footage, by your logic? Surely you agree that murder is worse than rape. Shouldn’t possessing media of a person being killed be illegal, if possessing media of a person being raped should be? And if animated or drawn child pornography is illegal, shouldn’t possessing any movie or video game in which a person is shown being killed be grounds for imprisonment as well? The logic that you folks use has implications far beyond this subject, but you never really pursue those implications (and you shouldn’t, because they’re insane).

My point is, that’s because you’re fabricating unsound legal principles here to support the existence of this unjust, unconstitutional law (probably because anyone who questions it gets accused of being a pedophile, and you don’t want to wind up with clueless anons accusing you of justifying child rape, for example), instead of coming up with law based on sound legal principles. In any other context, anyone would tell you that possessing a picture or video of a crime is not the same thing as committing the crime yourself and the harm was entirely in the original crime, not just watching it. Are you justifying robbing convenience stores by saying it shouldn’t be illegal to watch America’s Dumbest Criminals? And if we took that principle to extremes it’d suppress important political speech - for example, after Vietnam the American media was pressured by the military to stop showing images of US soldiers in body bags, and as a consequence we’re more emotionally isolated from the wars currently being waged and information about the circumstances of the deaths of soldiers has been kept from the public ‘out of respect.’ Laws against pornography were used not so long ago to suppress information about birth control and sex education. It’s not unimaginable that there’s something important we’re not being allowed to know about, or that we’re all afraid to discuss, because it’s been declared child pornography. Censorship is absolutely something you should be afraid of in any form, and even well-meaning censorship can inadvertently suppress the truth. A free society, especially a democracy, depends on open access to information to function and I’m skeptical of anything that nibbles at that around the edges, even for the noblest of causes. These things always have chilling effects on expression far beyond their official limits as well. If some JPEGs can be illegal it requires all this machinery of surveillance and enforcement that can be just as easily used to suppress other things, and if we don’t trust the state, which we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t be comfortable with that machinery of censorship existing at all. We can’t trust them to stay within their mission - look at all the NSA personnel spying on their girlfriends instead of terrorists. Look at how the state has far outgrown its constitutional bounds. Stopping a few fucked up people from getting access to their preferred masturbation material is not worth having to give Leviathan access to all of our digital communications.

I am an anarchist. I discuss radical libertarian politics here. That’s why I’m against this law that’s been abused so much, the enforcement of which has been a massive travesty of justice for decades. Not because I’m ‘trying to justify child rape.’ My ideology is rooted in the nonaggression principle, which rape obviously violates. Do you think I should take the position of ‘we need to remove all power from the government except the power to prosecute people for child pornography?’ There’s no exception here to my general critique of the state. And what do you think would happen to child rapists in Ancapistan, anyway? ‘Hunted for sport’ is my guess. A convicted child rapist would probably not be able to retain the protection of a DRO (I’ve conjectured for a long time that that might be the one thing all of them would refuse to deal with) and they’d have the status of a medieval outlaw, they’d have no legal protections - likely a de facto death sentence with all the people who’d be lining up to kill them. Meanwhile, the state plays catch and release with child rapists - go check the sex offender map and see how many live in your community right now, I dare you.

Anyway, Anon, you are the unwitting pawn of someone who has started a harassment campaign against me, who has accused me of all kinds of other ridiculous vile shit in the past few days as well, and sent messages encouraging me to commit suicide. They dug up a post from nearly two years ago and reposted it outside of the context of the ongoing debate we had had, triggered by the revelation that the FBI had disseminated a massive amount of child pornography on the deep web. I had explained all of this back then in even greater detail, but then someone sent me an anon asking me about banning violent porn and I made the mistake of mentioning my position again without that context, so it could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with my ideas.

So yeah, I don’t condone raping children, I’m not a psychopath, I just really don’t trust the government, in large part because there are so many actual child rapists at the highest levels of government, and I think we can do better than the current system. I hope this clarifies my thinking for you.

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Christianity definitely created what we understand as liberalism today, which is really radical egalitarianism (not always very liberal in practice).

However, it was a Jewish convert named Saul who laid the foundation:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Our contemporary liberalism started with a repudiation of Classical Judaism, which as a highly stratified, racially exclusive religion could not be liberal by Western standards. Nor can modern Judaism or Islam, both of which reject Paul’s proclamation that we are all equal under God. But it took over a thousand years of institutional Christianity before the idea mutated into its current form.

My guess is that as long as the church had a great deal of authority over people’s lives, it was a useful concept for promoting social harmony and a sense of mutual obligation among the different classes (e.g. aristocrats were supposed to acknowledge that God did not favor them over social inferiors), as well as a check on secular power vis a vis the church. However, when the church’s power began to recede and break up as it lost its monopoly over knowledge, this central tenet of Christianity took on a life of its own – it came unmoored from the rock of faith so to speak – and became a tool in the hands of secular factions challenging the prevailing authority.

Jews could not develop a Western-style liberal society as long as they lived under rabbinic authority, so it was only when egalitarian Westerners freed them from that authority (a sort of ecclesiastic law for Jews) and granted them citizenship that they were able to do so.

And no, the liberalism wasn’t the Protestants’ fault. Napoleon was more influential than anyone else in spreading the new faith. I think the peculiar Yankee and English form of radical egalitarianism was a competition with the French; an attempt to show that they were just as righteous as the French – more so even – and could prove it. As an example of the ferocity of this competition, in the beginning of the American Republic the Francophile and Anglophile factions waged what amounted to a low-intensity war. So many killed each other in duels that the officer corps was depleted.

Today all egalitarian political systems, including our own as well as Communist China’s, are based on this originally Christian idea of human equality. We have been in a crusade that has been on the march for over 200 years. It is very much a religious movement, and so all-encompassing that it rarely even occurs to people to question their faith in the beliefs it is built upon. Only in the last few decades, and ever so carefully, have a few begun to do so openly.

Eivind Berge #fundie female-offenders.com

Your site is based on a fundamental falsehood. Since sex is a female resource, there can be no female sexual offenders. All “victims” of a woman’s sexual acts are simply lucky, period, and I refuse to see it any other way. Women are sex objects, not sex offenders. Sex is something women have and men and boys want. The lie that women can be sex offenders is a horrible insult to men, who in fact face a reality of sexual scarcity most of the time, making it utterly impossible to sympathize with males who have a luxury problem of too much sexual attention from a woman. They are NOT victims

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.

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Frank J #fundie imao.us

Since terrorists are already covered, by popular demand I sent my crack research team to find out what they can about liberals.

FUN FACTS ABOUT LIBERALS

* Liberals hate people who are not open minded. Open minded is defined as thinking just like they think (otherwise you're evil).

* The major diet of the liberal is tofu and granola. This makes them weak and easy to pick up and throw.

* Liberals love to spend other people's money. If you see a liberal, it's okay to take his money because it probably wasn't his anyway.

* Liberals have an irrational fear of firearms. If you want to scare a liberal, point a gun at him.

* The whine of the North American liberal can often be mistaken for the sound of a screech owl. The main difference is that the liberal's whine will also have a nauseating effect.

* Liberals love socialism and want to socialize all businesses. If you see a liberal coming towards your business, throw a stick at him before he can socialize it.

* Liberals tend to congregate on college campuses as it is a safe haven for their idiotic ideas, protecting them from scrutiny. Thus, avoid college at all costs.

* Liberals are invulnerable to reason and logic. They are vulnerable to firearms, knives, and the bitch slap.

* Liberals hate America and love more oppressed people... like evil dictators.

* Much like the duck, it's illegal to shoot a liberal who is floating in a lake.

* Liberals will try to entice you with their twisted logic. If that doesn't work, they'll bite you.

* Hanging a picture of Ronald Reagan over your door will keep liberals from entering.

* Liberals come in two main varieties: intellectual and mental patient. You can only distinguish between the two by noting whether their jacket has sleeves.

* If you see a fuel-efficient car, it's probably being driven by a liberal. Run it off the road with your SUV.

* Liberals are always trying to save the environment because they are apparently dependent on it. If you want to kill all liberals, destroy the environment.

* Even if you satisfy liberals? demands, they'll come up with new thing to complain about that you could never even imagine; they?re just that creative. That creativity is put towards much better use as forced labor in a coal mine.

* Liberals are always whining about tolerance, but, when I punch them for that, they get moody. Hey, be tolerant!

* You can tell if someone is a liberal by extracting some blood and seeing if it reacts violently to fire.

* Sorry, that previous item is how you find out if someone is the Thing. It's a good thing to check for that too, though.

* Some liberals still think Communism is good. I guess we should threaten them with nuclear missiles just like we did the Soviets.

* In a fight between Aquaman and liberals, liberals would have Aquaman fined for disturbing the habitat of endangered fish. He would then sulk about it to the great annoyance of the Aquawife.

* Liberals like to sympathize with terrorists. Keep them away from Gitmo, or there will be nothing but sympathizing.

* I've heard vicious rumors that liberals also like the French, but that might just be slander against liberals.

HamiltonJay #fundie freerepublic.com

You cannot be religious and be what the left is today... Why do you think Communism requires the church be destroyed? Because the STATE is god and no other god can come before it....

You cannot be an honest religious person and be a leftist... because the left demands the state uber alles. This is completely at odds with any monotheism or even polytheism....

You can pretend to be a good whatever and be a leftist, but in reality you are only lying to yourself. Religious beliefs when honest with them will always put you at odds with leftist dogma.. (modern leftist dogma) because You cannot have the State be God and still claim to follow any religion.

Keith Harmon #racist change.org

The African American Monument on the South Carolina State House grounds was erected in 2001 as part of a bi-partisan compromise reached in 2000 to move the Confederate battle flag from the State House dome and place it at the Confederate Soldier's Monument. Given the recent outcry to remove the battle flag from the State House grounds completely, the people of South Carolina view this as a reneging of the 2000 compromise. Therefore, the people of South Carolina implore the South Carolina State Legislature to pass legislation calling for the removal of the African American Monument from the State House grounds. It has been stated that the battle flag must be removed due to it being offensive to the African American community, and invoking upon that community reminders of the dark history of slavery. To the same point, the African American Monument depicts slave ships, mistreatment and words such as "segregation" and "Jim Crow". This being the case, it is undeniable that this monument can and does serve to invoke in the white community feelings of shame, humiliation and offense, serving as a constant reminder of the dark history of slavery. Therefore, we the people of South Carolina and citizens the world over implore the Legislature of South Carolina to order the removal of this monument from State Grounds.

Lordareon #fundie forum.nationstates.net


10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

TFP Student Action #homophobia #fundie tfpstudentaction.org

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.


2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

Jasmine, Tracy Clark-Flory #fundie salon.com


Married to a pedophile

When a detective showed Jasmine a video of her husband confessing to sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl, she says, "It was like a knife through my heart." The 43-year-old creator of HealingWives.com, an online support group for women with similar experiences, explains, "I felt like a victim myself -- I mean, in an instant, my world changed."

The experiences of the wives of child abusers are rarely focused on, but the headline-driving allegations against former college coaches Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine are changing that.

....
That was the case for Jasmine, a Florida resident who asked to go by a pseudonym. On the day of her discovery, she got a call at work -- the local elementary school where she taught first grade -- notifying her that her husband had been arrested. It wasn't until she arrived at the local police department and was directed toward the special victims unit that she began to understand. After being arrested, and confronted with an incriminating taped conversation he had with the victim, Jasmine's husband confessed to molesting a young girl who lived across the street -- on one occasion, in his own home.

The revelation was harrowing for Jasmine -- but before she left the station that night, when a detective asked her what she was going to do, her answer was immediate: "I'm going to stay." That isn't to say that she instantly forgave him. When she went to court the next day for his hearing, she says, "I felt like I was going to a funeral. I was grieving for the life that we had." They were high school sweethearts and had been married for six years at that point. "The person who I thought I knew absolutely everything about had this hidden life," she says, her voice still carrying an air of disbelief. He revealed to her that he had experienced attraction to pre-pubescent girls in the past – in addition to adult women -- but had convinced himself that "he could control it." She says she was angry at him -- not for experiencing these attractions but for not telling her about it sooner, and for putting himself in the position to act on it. Approaching the situation with that mind-set that allowed her to continue in the relationship.

Her husband was jailed for 60 days, served two years of house arrest, completed 10 years probation and is a lifetime registered sex offender in Florida. She's stood by him the whole time and supported him financially when he was on house arrest and unable to work. "I had to think about our marriage and that he had been a good person -- this was really the first thing we had gone through," she explains. "He went through years and years of sex-offender treatment and I could see his thinking change. There weren't so many rationalizations and excuses."

Jasmine's husband now tells her that he no longer experiences attraction to pre-pubescent girls, although even experts who promote sex-offender treatment doubt such a complete change is possible. "There is no evidence that a man can change from pedophilic to non-pedophilic (or vice versa)," says clinical psychologist James Cantor, the editor in chief of "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment," in an email. "A person can be taught tools to help him deal with his sexual interests, and a person's sex drive can sometimes be suppressed, such as with testosterone-blocking medications. The overall evidence, however, is that changing from pedophilic to non-pedophilic is as impossible as changing a gay man to a straight man." He adds: "The kind and scale of differences that we see on MRIs of pedophilic men are not the kind or scale that are known to change with training, or psychotherapy or other kinds of intervention."

Joan Tabachnick of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers tells me, "For some, it is a good decision [to stay] and helps to keep the community safer," she says. That's because it gives the offender "a reason to stay connected, to not reoffend." However, she is careful to add, "For others, it may mean that they are not looking at the reality of what is around them."

Jasmine has been with her husband for 17 years now – in the same house where the abuse took place -- and they now have a 1-year-old and a 4-year-old boy. But she says she doesn't worry about her husband abusing their children: "I do want to point out that I have boys," she says, adding that her husband never experienced attraction to males of any age. At the same time, though, she acknowledges that "the experts say it doesn't really matter if it’s a girl or boy. It's the age range that an offender is particularly attracted to." They had their first child during the 10-year probation period; a judge ruled that Jasmine's husband could be allowed to spend time alone with the boy.

...

Some wives convince themselves their husband will change even without a conviction, imprisonment or treatment. Christina Enevoldsen, co-founder of the online support group Overcoming Sexual Abuse, married and had a child with her high school boyfriend, who had admitted to molesting a female relative in the past but swore he would never do such a thing again. When she found blood in her 1-year-old daughter's diaper, her husband "tearfully admitted that he had molested her but promised it would never happen again," she writes in a blog post. "He seemed very remorseful and I thought that since I caught him, he wouldn’t feel safe repeating the abuse. He seemed afraid of losing his family, so I thought that fear would stop him."

But he continued to abuse his daughter for most of her childhood. "Yes, I had been fooled by my husband, but I had also fooled myself," she says. Enevoldsen blames it in part on the repeated sexual abuse she experienced as a child at the hands of male relatives. "Finding blood in her diaper was finding blood in my diaper. I was transported to my own abuse with the same feelings and response: I froze as though my only choice was to lie still and stay quiet."


...
Jasmine insists that things with her husband are good now, despite the fact that she will have to live with his sex-offender status. His registration publicly lists their home address alongside the details of his conviction for "lewd or lascivious molestation." It isn't what she pictured for her life, but it's what she's chosen, given the circumstances. "Before this happened, I was the person who picked up the paper and said, 'Oh, what a monster!' Until you're in the situation, you don't know how you'll react."

aerospaceman #fundie boards.msn.com

One writer in these posts said that he doesn't understand why there is so much evil in the world. Well, evil has always existed but rarely on such a grand scale (percentage-wise). When a nation turns its back on Scriptural values and chooses instead to sanitize wrong behavior, then this is the sort of thing you can expect to happen. Don't we as a society say that it's OK to divorce once or many times, to have affairs, to cohabitate for the purpose of convenient fornication, to look at pornography and have no shame talking about doing so, to laugh at lewdness, to abuse God's name in everyday language, to go after "strange flesh" (i.e. homosexuality), to kill babies in the womb, to ignore laws on the road and elsewhere, to glorify drinking or carousing, to focus on acquiring things instead of time-tested spiritual values (i.e. kindness, selflessness, politeness, modesty, gentleness, etc.), to gossip or cheat or lie without conscience . . . and on and on? Is it any wonder that we are in such a mess? We have only two choices: to go back to a culture centered on God and His ways; or continue in the present worldly ways until it all ends with a worldwide epidemic or nuclear holocaust. These latter things don't have to be; they start with human thought (to do things which should not be done) followed by (bad) action. Disagree with this analysis, if you wish, but effect always follows cause; and reaction always follows action. We can CHOOSE to be more decent people or not . . . .

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

Rick Santorum #fundie wnd.com

Over the past 50 years, the left in America has successfully transformed American society. Among the long list of liberal victories is the growth of the welfare state, sexual liberation, removing God from the public square, abortion, affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, more government control of business, radical environmentalism and the transformation of the family.

One must tip their hat at the breath and scale of change that the left has accomplished, but such radical disruption of society over a relatively short time has had consequences. One that has received relatively little attention is what Christina Hoff Sommers called the “War on Boys.” In her book she describes how public schools have made little boys try to compete in a system designed for little girls and how they are failing. Drop-out rates for boys have increased, and more girls now go to college than boys. The impact of this and the increasing absence of fathers and male role models in the lives of boys from lower- and middle-income families have led to increased joblessness, violence and incarceration, inability to climb the economic ladder and a perpetuation of the cycle of fatherless families.

So when I saw that the Boy Scouts of America executive board is convening on Wednesday to discuss abandoning the organization’s founding moral principles that nurture boys into men, I was saddened, but not surprised. It makes sense that men at the top of the food chain whose boys are insulated, although not immune, from the harmful effects of societal change are behind this effort. Board members James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young, and Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, are advocating for gay scoutmasters and scouts. They are joined by two big funders, UPS and Merck, that have signaled change or money will disappear.

WARNING: Disturbing, Graphic Content Ahead

Child and infant rape with BDSM, Legally binding pedophile apologia

Justice Kathleen Caldwell & Dr. Mark Pearce #sexist thestar.com

[font=sans-serif]This post has one of the highest proportions of "legitimately serious possible triggers" to words I've seen: Count(triggers) / Count(words) hardly ever hits closer to 1 than this, so I'm not even going to try to list them; the "award" alone should give enough caution of what lies below. There are at least a couple things that cross over into other hotbeds of psychological traumatization, ones barely tangentially related to any form of child abuse or rape. I put what I thought were the worst parts in light grey, and I decreased the font size (partially for length and partially as a subtle, mild deterrent). If you decide to start reading this, and it starts fucking with you mentally, or even if you start wondering if what might come next will, then just stop. I should have. –shy[/font]

Court says ‘pedophilia does not apply’ — because perpetrator is a woman

Female pedophiles. She-monsters.

No such thing. Probably not. A woman can’t be a pedophile. Probably not. The clinical research is thin. Maybe the experts will change their mind, by and by. That happens a lot in the imprecise science of psychiatry.Although one expert’s mind was not changed by this:

A toddler sits at the woman’s feet, his small hands holding on to either leg. In this position, the woman — naked below the waist — masturbates using a baby bottle. The toddler, giggling, then grabs the bottle and drinks from it. The woman looks directly into the camera and smiles. That was one video seized by police from the Toronto home where the woman lived with her husband. On another video, the same woman is lying in bed with the same toddler. Both are naked. She begins to lick the child’s anus. Looking at the camera, she smacks her lips. A third video: The little boy is seated naked on a change table. The woman puts the child’s penis into her mouth. The child giggles.

In all, investigators discovered 25,066 child pornography images on more than 50 electronic devices when they executed a search warrant on April 25, 2016, including 111 child porn movies.

The couple is also shown engaging in BDSM (bondage/domination/sadism/masochism) activities with other couples. Police also found a contract signed by the “Slave” and her “Master,” an agreement containing rules and tasks to be completed by the woman as the submissive member in the relationship. They’d met through a website called “Bondage.com.” That’s who Jason Dickens and Dylan McEwen were, a man and woman joined in holy BDSM during a 2007 “collaring” ceremony — literally collaring — followed a year later by an ordinary wedding in front of family and friends.

Last week, Dickens, a former actor on Degrassi High, pleaded guilty to several child pornography offences, including two counts of making child porn, with an agreed statement of facts read into the record. Earlier this year, McEwen also pleaded guilty to sexual assault and two child pornography offences. She was sentenced to six years. But what the presiding judge would not do was declare McEwen a dangerous offender, which the Crown had sought and with impassioned urgency. In rejecting the long-term offender order, Justice Kathleen Caldwell weighed the various criteria that must be met, primarily a “substantial risk of reoffence.” Caldwell determined that McEwen wasn’t such a risk, relying heavily on the evidence and psychiatric report prepared by a forensic psychiatrist with expertise in paraphilia and sexual deviancy.

Dr. Mark Pearce was agreed upon as an expert witness by both the Crown and the defence when he testified in February. He diagnosed McEwen as a masochist and low-risk to reoffend [sic]. Caldwell accepted Pearce’s conclusion that McEwen derived sexual arousal not from acts committed against children but from the “extreme humiliation” of her involvement in those acts, which fed her masochism, described as on the moderately severe end.

The judge wrote (and read aloud in court): “Dr. Pearce testified that the current research suggests that women do not suffer from paraphilic disorders apart from masochism. This fact lends further weight to the conclusion that pedophilia does not apply to you.”

Crown Attorney Lisa Henderson, the judge noted, had “rigorously challenged” Pearce on this assertion.

“(I) agree that at first blush it appears illogical that women do not suffer from other paraphilic disorders,” Caldwell continued. “Sometimes, however, that which appears reasonable is anything but and vice versa. I accept the doctor’s evidence on this point. He did agree that this conclusion might change in the future as psychiatry continues to develop, but I cannot base my conclusions on speculative potential that have yet to develop.”

In this particular case, McEwen was her husband’s slave, committed to do his bidding. Court also heard, however, that McEwen had initiated at least one of the toddler videos without her “Master” present. And in at least two earlier instances, McEwen had obtained child pornography from two men she’d met online before she’d even met Dickens.

As for the risk-assessment testing, Caldwell acknowledged that such testing hasn’t been validated as being accurate in predicting risk with female, as opposed to male, sex offenders. They don’t really know what they’re talking about, the experts, because they haven’t looked at the phenomenon closely enough.

As an aside, at the Dickens trial, court heard that in 2003 a London-area woman offered him her 14-year-old daughter for sex after they’d connected online. Dickens took the teenager on a movie and date night, then had sex at the girl’s home while her mother sat beside them. Sex with teens and children had clearly been a feature of the couple’s role-playing, in their video commentary to one another, the child porn retrieved from their home and posters also discovered depicting female children, labelled with such descriptors as “15-year-old f--- slut” and “whore.”

In an interview this week with the Star, Pearce emphasized the scarcity of research literature on female sex offenders: “I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a female pedophile , but it is almost an exclusively male disorder. That’s not to say no woman has it. There may be some outliers. But women (sex offenders) usually offend for other reasons, not because of an innate sexual attraction to children. [...] These are damaged, needy, lonely women, not necessarily pedophiles.”

There was immense frustration at 720 Bay — in the attorney general’s office — over McEwen dodging the dangerous offender designation. But there will be no appeal.

Ned Kelly #fundie returnofkings.com

AUSTRALIA’S GAY MARRIAGE VOTE MAY LEAD TO SPECTACULAR FAILURE FOR THE LEFT

Australia is currently voting in a postal survey on whether to legalise gay marriage. A clear majority of Australians support gay marriage but I predict that the “No” side will win the vote. When this occurs, the radical left will have no one to blame but themselves. There is a strong feeling of a Trump or Brexit type upset in the air, but the main reason that the “No” campaign will win is because the “Yes” side’s campaign has alienated the sensible center.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has compulsory voting in elections but this postal survey is not compulsory and I would be surprised if turnout is much over 50%. Opinion polls over recent years have consistently shown that around two thirds of Australians support gay marriage, but the expected low turnout makes the result of the postal survey hard to predict. Just as the “silent” Trump voters skewed the exit polls in the 2016 US Presidential election, there is probably also around 5% of Australians who are telling pollsters that they support gay marriage but who will in fact vote no.

The “Yes” and “No” campaigns

The “Yes” campaign is led by around half of the ruling centre-right Liberal/National government, including Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, plus the opposition centre-left Labor Party and the far-left Greens Party. Almost all prominent Australians are supporting the “Yes” campaign.

The “No” campaign is led by religious organisations and a few conservative politicians. The fact that most Australian Muslims will undoubtedly vote no is an ironic turn for the leftists who have campaigned so hard to allow them into the country. The overwhelming support for the “Yes” side amongst prominent Australians from politics to media to entertainment to sport is reminiscent of opposition to Trump in the US and to Brexit in the UK.

The “Yes” side is not really making much of an argument, they just keep saying “love is love”. Presumably they do not think that incest, paedophilia or polygamy are ok because “love is love”, but they haven’t elaborated.

The “No” side is not making much of an argument about gay marriage either. Instead, it is arguing that gay marriage is another step towards political correctness and denial of free speech and religious freedom. Australia’s former conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott is urging a “no” vote to “stop political correctness in its tracks”.

The left’s counterproductive tactics

The left is making two key strategic errors in its campaign. Firstly, it is arguing that there should not be a public debate or public vote on this issue. Secondly, it is bullying, persecuting and harassing anyone brave enough to declare that they will vote “no”.

The left has long argued against a public vote on same sex marriage saying that it will hurt gay people’s mental health and that straight people should not have the right to decide if gay people have “human rights”. The left does not appear to understand that people don’t like being told what they are and are not allowed to discuss, debate, say or think.

Some of the more radical leftist individuals and groups have also harassed, bullied and persecuted people who oppose gay marriage. On September 22, a “Yes” campaigner head butted Tony Abbott. A former champion boxer, Abbott assured the media he was “entirely unscathed” but said that he worries about “the brave new world of same-sex marriage if this is how some of the people who are most enthusiastically supporting it are behaving”.

In Canberra, an 18-year-old woman named Madeline was fired from her job at a children’s party business for advocating a “no” vote on her private Facebook wall. Capital Kids Parties owner Madlin Sims said she fired Madeline because “advertising your desire to vote no for SSM [same-sex marriage] is, in my eyes, hate speech”.

In Brisbane, the National Union of Students organised a rally outside a church to harass the attendees at a “vote no” meeting. The rally turned violent and one woman was arrested.

When “no” campaigners hired Skywriting Australia to write “vote no” in the sky above Sydney the business was abused on social media and the business owner received a torrent of harassing text messages including the following:

…you really are a shit human. You’re definitely the biggest piece of shit in Australia today. Probably tomorrow too. Hope you’re proud of yourself. Don’t be surprised by the hate coming for you. Titt for tatt, it’s only fair, right? You stupid, ignorant, remorseless, pathetic, old, LOSER.

The organisers of the skywriting later reported that GoFundMe “has decided to freeze our funds, until we give our names and locations. This is on the back of a massive amount of hateful messages we have received by people who want to silence our message and personally attack us.”

Of course, there are people on the “No” side who have behaved inappropriately too. The difference is that within the “Yes” camp the arguments that there should be no debate, or that those who oppose gay marriage should not be allowed to state their views, is mainstream.

Unlike the United States, Australia does not have constitutionally protected free speech. The Australian Parliament has passed laws imposing fines of up to $12,600 for anyone “vilifying” or “intimidating” another person during the gay marriage debate. I expect these laws will be enforced selectively against “no” campaigners for “homophobic” comments.

Lessons for the right

We shouldn’t underestimate the radical left, but we shouldn’t overestimate them either. Let them be themselves and they will alienate ten people for every one they convert. We on the right must not get down into the gutter to fight with these radical leftists or we will come out at least as dirty as they are. Let’s maintain the moral high ground and promote civilised debate, free speech, and non-violence.

Giovanni Scuderi #fundie pmli.it

Scuderi: Let us support the Islamic State against the imperialist holy alliance

An imperialist holy alliance is born to fight and destroy the Islamic State fighting against imperialism. Of course, the PMLI cannot be part of it. Our natural stand point is together with those who fight against imperialism, that is the common enemy of all the peoples of the world.

The Islamic State does not want imperialism to be the master of Iraq, Syria, Middle East, North and Central Africa, Afghanistan and Yemen. We do not want it either, therefore we cannot but support it. As said again by the Political Bureau in its historic document issued on 10 January, “Every people has the right to self-determination, to independence, and to settle their internal contradictions by themselves.”

An immense gulf divides us from the Islamic State in the spheres of ideology, culture, tactics and strategy, and we do not agree with all its fighting methods, actions and goals. But we have an essential point in common—the unwavering struggle against imperialism. This point at the moment transcends any other difference that may exist, and it is the pivot of our de facto anti-imperialist alliance.

Alliances are made with the forces currently on the field, regardless of their characteristics, ideologies and strategies. These forces are as they are, we cannot shape them as we see fit, after abstract models. They depend on existing circumstances and on the main contradictions in a certain moment.

Just as Stalin allied with US and British imperialists to defeat Germany’s aggressive imperialism, just as Mao allied with the Kuomintang nationalists to force Japanese imperialist aggressors out of China, so we must necessarily ally with the Islamic State, otherwise we will side with imperialist aggressors. There is no other anti-imperialist alternative, including neutrality. Moreover, this is happening in a moment when inter-imperialist contradictions are sharpening over the control of Syria and Iraq, possibly leading to a world war that we oppose with all our strength.

We are on the side of all the peoples fighting for national liberation, starting from the Palestinian people who fight against Israel’s Zionist, Nazi and imperialist invaders. And we support their ongoing Intifada. At the same time, we condemn the state massacre in Ankara against the Kurdish people.

New Duce Renzi’s Italy is part of the imperialist holy alliance, it has a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is ready to use Tornado fighters to bomb the Islamic State in the territory it has taken away from Iraq. It is only waiting to have in return the prize it is longing for—the leadership of the military mission in Libya.

We must oppose it in any possible way, denouncing it on “Il Bolscevico”, in workplaces, schools, universities, cities and squares. We must convince our people to refuse to be cannon fodder for Italian imperialism. In case Italy should take part at a possible world war, we must convince our people to rise in arms, if necessary, to prevent it.

Imperialism is showing all its claws, it is right for people who do not want to be dominated by imperialism to do the same.

Down with imperialism and imperialist wars! Long live the struggles for liberation and the struggles of oppressed peoples and nations! Let us support anti-imperialist Islamic movements! Long live proletarian internationalism! Let us overthrow New Duce Renzi’s imperialist and interventionist government! United, filled with fighting spirit, with the Teachers and the PMLI we shall win!

David Duke #fundie mediamatters.org

The only seat that she should be taking is not in the Oval Office, but maybe in an electric chair if Clinton got justice for her treason against America, literally admitting -- she admitted herself that she supports a state, a radical jihadist radical Islamic state that’s been sponsoring terrorism all over the world and has led directly to the rise of ISIS and the destruction of many Americans and Europeans and of course hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East. I mean it’s just absolutely amazing. She has basically admitted that she’s a traitor to America and if she truly had justice by law she’d be facing capital punishment in this country for what she’s done.

EmpathicDesign #homophobia deviantart.com

Why it is important that children be raised by opposite sex parents rather than same sex parents:

1. Children can only be procreated by a man and woman; if same sex couples could procreate, this valid point would be invalidated.
2. Whilst not every child has a present mother and father, ever child has a biological mother and father.
3. Children know when a biological parent is missing; which is why it is the common case that children raised by same sex parents seek out their missing parent.
4. Same sex parenting means that one parent is always missing.
5. A same sex parent cannot supplant or provide the missing influence of the missing biological parent.
6. Opposite sex parents provide a full range of unique and important gifts, influences and experiences, where as same sex parents can provide only half.
7. Same sex parenting means children will always, always miss out a full and diverse upbringing unlike their peers who have a mother and father.
8. Single parenting and same sex parenting are contextually the same as there is a missing parent and a stagnation in the influences and raising of the children.
9. Social science affirms that the best outcome for children with the least upbringing issues, the least criminal outcomes, least drugs and best future is a non-combat, married household with their biological mother and father.
.0. Homosexuality is a confirmed mental illness, and the option of leaving a child within the guardianship of two mentally ill individuals always carries a risk of abuse, neglect and death.
.1. Non-biological parents are confirmed as raising their new children differently and inner a lesser manner than their own children.

This is why it's important for children to be raised by their mother and father; and though there are cases of children growing up to becoming good citizen by two same sex parents; however, every child with two same sex parents has another parent, and that parent is the other biological parent.

M.

James Simpson #fundie rightsidenews.com

Sixty-eight years ago today, Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. In that historic conflict we defeated Japan and its German Nazi ally four years later at a cost of over 400,000 American lives.

Since before World War II however, we have faced a much more subtle foe - one that in many ways has been more deadly. The foe is an amorphous mass, variably called: "Liberal," "Progressive," "Leftist," "the Left," "the Radical Left," the "New Left," "Communist," "Neo-communist," "Socialist," "Marxist," "Neo-Marxist," even "Marxofascist."

Lest "liberals" take offense at being associated with communists, Marxists and socialists, it can only be said that Lenin referred to them as "useful idiots," i.e. those who knowingly or unknowingly assist communists in achieving communist objectives. For this reason communists share the same contempt for liberals that the rest of us do. We both know they are fools.

So forget liberals. Call the foe the "radical left". It has been the instigator of most of our foreign policy failures, including Vietnam and Korea; failures measured in millions of lives. Practically every public policy failure of the past century, from the healthcare crisis to our addled legal system, from crime-ridden ghettos to failing public schools, can be laid at the feet of the Left.

Chief Justice Roy Moore #fundie rawstory.com

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended on Friday for defying the legalization of marriage equality, AL.com reported.

Moore was suspended after the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed ethics charges against him. Moore will now be tried by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, and could be removed from the bench if found guilty.

The commission’s move was spurred by complaints by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which released a statement saying Moore had “disgraced” his position.

“He’s such a religious zealot, such an egomaniac that he thinks he doesn’t have to follow federal court rulings he disagrees with,” said the group’s president, Richard Cohen. “For the good of the state, he should be kicked out of office.”

Moore, who stated last year he would “not be bound” by the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriages because they change the “organic law” of God, was dismissive of the accusations against him.

“The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no authority over the administrative orders of the chief justice of Alabama or the legal injunctions of the Alabama Supreme Court prohibiting probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said. “The Judicial Inquiry Commission has chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations that support their agenda.”

The SPLC’s accusations, in part, concerned Moore’s February 2015 order instructing state probate judges not to follow the high court’s decision, as well as what it described as an undermining of public confidence in his office by doing so.

Moore also faced possible removal from his office in 2003, following his move to install a Ten Commandments monument inside the in the state judicial building. He later refused to follow a federal court order to remove it.

Selwyn Duke #transphobia #dunning-kruger thenewamerican.com

[From " Report: “Transgenders” More Likely to Kill Than be Killed; Overrepresented Among Pedophiles"]

t’s fairly well known that “transgenders” have a very high suicide rate, especially after undergoing so-called sex reassignment surgery. But barely known, and contrary to modern myth, is that they’re also more likely to commit murder than to be murdered, according to a recent report. In fact, the report finds that Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, or “trans”) individuals are actually less likely to be homicide victims than normal people are.

As WND.com wrote Monday, “A new report documents how a … [MUSS individual] in Colorado and a partner shot nine students at their school, then later claimed the victims deserved it for their ‘transphobia.’”

[...]

In fact, while the MUSS movement’s “driving myth is that there is an epidemic of murders targeting them for their stated ‘identities,’” the report states, at Unz.com, not mentioned is that not only are MUSS individuals “less likely to be victims of murder than ... [normal] women (and far less than men), their small population is well represented among murderers ... and pedophiles.”

“The Human Rights Committee, which meticulously tracks transgender deaths across the country, is conspicuously not tracking them when they commit crimes," the report continues. “But in the UK, analysts found that during the period of ... [2008]-2017,” the incidence of MUSS individuals committing murder was 71 percent greater than the incidence of them being murdered.

[...]

Unz.com points out that the true scope of MUSS individual violence is obscured because the mainstream media often omit mention of perpetrators’ MUSS “identity” unless doing so is unavoidable or serves sexual devolutionary ends. In fact, since the media’s common practice is to use MUSS individuals’ “preferred pronouns” (e.g., “she” to reference a man claiming womanhood), it sometimes can be hard discerning the actual sex of the individual in question, especially for a casual news reader.

[...]

So perhaps more significant are FBI statistics the report relates. They show that “Americans are victims of homocide at a rate of about 5 per 100,000,” the report tells us. “For men, the number is 6.6 per 100,000 and for women, 1.8.”

Yet according to sexual devolutionary activist groups, 24 MUSS individuals were “killed in 2019 out of a population of 1.4 million, making their homicide rate 1.7 out of 100,000 — less likely to be killed than the average woman,” the report also informs.

The report correctly points out that this is especially striking given the high-risk lifestyles MUSS individuals tend to live, “and the fact that many of them are black men living in zones with murder rates far above the national average,” according to the report.

(That said, another possibility is that the MUSS population isn’t as high as the activists claim.)

[...]

As for the report’s MUSS/pedophilia claim, no source for it or data is provided. Relevant research is hard to find, too, but mixing and matching studies does provide some insight.

For example, ABC News reported in 2015 that at the end of 2001, approximately 6.8 percent of America’s state prison inmates “were male sex offenders who had committed a rape or sexual assault against a minor under age 18.” In contrast, the BBC informed last year that of 125 known MUSS inmates, 29, or 23.2 percent, were convicted of sexual offenses involving children/youth. Overall, almost half of the 125 were sex offenders.

[...]

Anecdotally, my experience is that many MUSS individuals, especially those activism-minded, are quite hostile. After I editorialized against their agenda some years back, one commented that he wanted my “head on a platter.” Then there’s the 2015 Dr. Drew show incident (video below), in which MUSS reporter “Zoey Tur” threatened to send commentator Ben Shapiro “home in an ambulance” (not very ladylike, for sure).

Obviously, the reactions Shapiro and I experienced are due to the fact that these men are desperately trying to maintain a fragile rationalization — i.e., they’re actually women — that’s easily shattered, and no one likes having his bubble burst. But what would explain a MUSS-criminality link?

To be brief, a factor may be that “the Eye altering alters all,” as poet William Blake wrote. The mindset allowing for grand self-delusion can lead to more delusion, including moral delusion.

A simpler way to explain it, though, and something undeniably true, is that troubled people are more likely to get into trouble — and to cause it.

DragQueen_Eclipse #fundie reddit.com

Anyone who thinks anarchy and Antifa actions are inherently "Peaceful" is looking for a watered-down variation of 'anarchy' that will never get past chat-rooms, blogs, and social media. or believing that you can eradicate the fascist and crypto-fascist by chanting and debates that does not mean we fetishize violence or use it as oppressive tactics (see State sponsored Violence)

Also, accepting the fact that as anarchists and various radicals, we are always in a 'self-defense' mindset because the State, Police, fascist/Crypto-fascist, sympathizers etc, want us eradicated, combined that with various Races/Ethnicities, Sexes, Gender-Identities, Sexual Orientations and we are always being attacked, from Class to Identity.

To not use Preemptive and offensive actions is surrendering, submitting to politicians, legislature, Ballot Boxes is surrendering, believing the Police will protect you is surrendering. Non-Violence is dangerous and protects the state. Liberals know this and use this "Non-Violent" stance to further oppress those that will fight for their autonomy because it will abolish their authoritative hierarchy aswell

Mike Huckabee #fundie theguardian.com

The Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on Sunday said same-sex marriage was like drinking and swearing – a concept appealing to others but not to him as a Christian.

The former Arkansas governor, appearing on CNN, said forcing people opposed to same-sex marriage to accept it was the same as telling Jews they had to serve “bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli”.

“We’re not going to do that,” he said, adding: “We’re not going to ask a Muslim to serve up, ah, something that is offensive to him, to have dogs in his backyard.

“We’re so sensitive to make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can’t have the convictions that they have had for over 2,000 years.”

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, showed strongly in the 2008 Republican primaries, winning the Iowa caucus. In January, he announced he was quitting his Fox News show in order to explore another run for the presidency in 2016.

“I’d like to think there is room in America for people to disagree instead of screaming and shouting and having to shut their businesses down,” he said, adding: “People can be my friends who have lifestyles that are not necessarily my lifestyle. I don’t shut people out of my circle or out of my life because they have a different point of view.

“I don’t drink alcohol, but gosh – a lot of my friends, maybe most of them, do. You know, I don’t use profanity, but believe me, I’ve got a lot of friends who do. Some people really like classical music and ballet and opera – it’s not my cup of tea.”

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia. Alabama could become the 37th state to allow it, pending the outcome of a legal fight stoked by resistance by the state government to a judge’s repeated rulings. The US supreme court is due to rule on the issue this year.

Same-sex marriages occurred in Huckabee’s home state, Arkansas, in May 2014, but are currently on hold pending an appeal. The state banned the practice in a 2004 constitutional amendment that was approved by voters.

Polls show 30% support for same-sex marriage among voters who identify themselves as Republicans.

“For me … this is not just a political issue,” Huckabee said. “It is a biblical issue. And unless I get a new version of the scriptures it’s really not my place to just say, ‘OK, I’m just going to evolve.’”

Huckabee is currently promoting a book, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy, which heralds what he says are the values of the states located between the more liberal east and west coasts. The book has courted some controversy, notably over his contention that President Obama was unwise to let his teenage daughters listen to music by Beyoncé and Jay-Z.

Huckabee did not answer a question about whether he thought being gay was a choice, but said he appreciated different viewpoints on gay marriage and was friends with gay people.

Bo-Jangles #racist moonbattery.com

The Muslim-in-Chief got 98% of Detroits votes because 98% of Detriot is black. Forget that it’s mostly a crime-ridden wasteland, one which blacks themselves created. They couldn’t care less. The only thing blacks care about is how much “free” govt. stuff they can get, and when can they get more. And, like all other addicts, the more they get, the more they demand.

Generally speaking, blacks have become living proof that liberal social engineering always fails. Simply for their political support, Demoncrats have enslaved an entire race of people using govt. handouts. Most blacks are not smart enough to realize it, but they are more enslaved now than they ever were on some old southern plantation. The only difference now is, they really don’t care so long as the handouts keep flowing. And the Left is already doing the very same thing, for the very same reason, to the tens-of-Millions of illegals that are here.

Why else do you think Obummer, bleeding-heart liberals, and Demoncrats always favor, and will fight to keep, the major entitlements (welfare, food stamps, community programs, etc.) going to blacks and illegals.

koosholts #fundie zeldadungeon.net


So I was watching Law & Order SVU (one of my favorite shows) and it was a really intriguing episdoe that I hadn't seen in a while. I think it would be a good idea to spark a discussion over this topic that was introduced in this episode.

The Scenario: A man knows that he is HIV positive. He understands the risks and how it could harm his other sexual partners. He proceeds to ignore this disease, knowing that it could potentially kill others, and decides to join a online sex chatroom where he has sex with multiple partners a week. We can assume that he has had over 50 sexual partners. One of his partners contracted HIV through contact with this particular man and then dies from its symptoms.

Here are the questions.
1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?
2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.
3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?
4. If you answered yes to question #3, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?


My answers!

1. Absoloutley not. It completley infringes on a persons rights and freedoms. Would it be courteous to let your partner know that you have an STI and share with her the consequences of having sex with you? Yes. Should it be required in the form of a law? No. The women doesn't have to have sex with the man because this is not rape. She has every bit of awareness and logic to ask about the consequences of having sex. If he lies, then I still don't think it's the womens fault because she still chose to encounter in sexual actions with another person knowing the consequences and reprucssions it could cause.

2. This is a good idea, but I don't think it should be required, more so an optional thing. If it was required then I'm rooting back to my defence of it infringing on another persons personal privacy. However, if this was optional I don't find any harm in letting the community know who has what and where it's at. It could only do good, in my opinion, if it was optional.

3. No the man who had HIV should not be charged with any sort of crime. As I've said before, it's not his fault enirely. There were two people having sex, not just one. The women had multiple oppurtinities to ask questions about wheter or not he had any dieseases, what are the harms and consequences of having sex, etc. This isn't rape so she had the option to do it or not. If the women knew the consequences of having sex, and did it anyways, she should have to live with those consequences because it's her own fault. If she didn't know the consequences then it's still her fault because she chose to have sex before she actually knew what she was doing which is cimpletley immature. The man shouldn't be at fault just because society wants to make the women seem like the victim 9/10. (made up number)

4. I can't answer this because I don't think that the man should be at fault.

Freedom From Abridgement Foundation #fundie facebook.com

All we need are 38 State legislative bodies to approve the following 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It's time to end this fight once and for all. No need to fight the enemy when we only need to petition 38 States to convene and ratify.

The 28th Amendment to our United States Constitution should read as follows:
The Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch of United States nor the Congress of any of the fifty states of the United States of America and all municipalities, counties, or any other body politic associated with government within the jurisdiction of all fifty U.S. sovereign States shall not, in any way, shape, form or fashion abridge or infringe upon the rights of it's citizens whether they be government employees, military personnel, or any person or persons not employed by said entities to openly and freely worship, or display or express their Christian faith based religious beliefs of ANY denomination at any time or any place within the jurisdiction of the United States of America, whether it be private, public or government property including any U.S. military installation or base situated in any part of the globe. In additon, any private business, that provides a private and or public service will have complete rights to refuse service to any person or organization based on it's religious beliefs as well. The Supreme Court of the United States and all of its subordinate Courts as well as State District Courts will be stripped of any authority to hear any case regarding faith based religion of Christianity of any denomination unless it is regarding an abridgement clause violation or any other violation of this Amendment and shall be met with criminal punishment. Moreover, ALL previous rulings handed down by the Supreme Court regarding faith based religion as regards worship, open prayer led by public officials, students or displaying upon government, private or any public property within the borders the United States and it's territories any religious items such as the Bible, The Ten Commandments, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, crosses or ANY other Christian symbol..etc., shall be deemed null void and officially reversed.

Ariticle Five shall also be Amended to include that the 28th Amendment to the Constitution shall never be repealed and have the same protections as States Suffrage rights. This shall remain the law of the land until time indefinite or until Almighty God says otherwise. (complete definitions of each word in this amendment as it is written in context shall be defined so as not to be misconstrued in ANY way by future generations NOR the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
End.

It is time to end this war against faith based religion of Christianity.

We The People will have spoken for the final time. By the grace of our Alimighty God....so let it come to pass! Amen!

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Just recently, the term “cuckservative” – coined by the alternative right – has incurred the wrath of mainstream white conservatives. Gregory Hood and Matt Forney have both written excellent articles explaining what constitutes cuckservatism, so I don’t really have much to add in this regard.

I’ll just say that I embrace this term, as well as any friction that the word engenders. The term “cuckservative,” provided that it catches on, has the potential to reform an increasingly stagnant and feckless mainstream conservative establishment; as of now, the American right continues to get thoroughly trounced on just about every issue. Gay marriage is the law of the land, transsexuals such as “Caitlyn” Jenner are lionized, secularism reigns supreme, and non-whites continue to demographically eclipse the people who actually vote Republican.

Speaking of non-whites, cuckservative is useful term because it illuminates the ultimate failure of Republicans: their inability or unwillingness to tackle race. How can Republicans expect to enjoy future success when they can’t openly acknowledge that their recent woes are primarily due to demographic changes? Just consider that California used to be the land of Nixon and Reagan just a few decades ago; nowadays, it’s taken for granted that California is an eternal blue state. So what happened? Mexicans – along with Asians – flooded California, rendering whites an increasingly small minority. Sure, some people insist that Prop 187 (pushed by the Republicans under then governor Pete Wilson) permanently alienated Latinos, and that the Republicans could have remained relevant if they weren’t so “racist.” However, I would argue that regardless of Wilson’s actions, California would have transformed into a blue state. Most visible racial minorities are always going to naturally gravitate to the left, as it is in their best interests.

Therefore, white conservatives who want to remain relevant must either completely remake the Stupid Party in order to pander to non-whites – which isn’t going to happen anytime soon – or go all in as a pro-white movement before it’s too late (ie. the Sailer Strategy). Otherwise, basic math is going to render the Republicans obsolete.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. If the myriad reactions from conservative bloggers and pundits are any indication, it seems that the cuckservatives in question are intent on quelling this alt right uprising. They earnestly insist that they aren’t racist and that conservatives must forcefully reject white tribalism. They caution fellow conservatives against embracing the term while remaining unaware of its pernicious “white supremacist” origins. Robert Stacy McCain has even gone so far as to speculate that the cuckservative hashtag is a leftist troll job.

Yeah, keep it up, Republican tools. Keep denouncing white tribalism. Continue to mention that Bull Connor was a Democrat, and repeatedly extol the virtues of “colorblindness.” All in all, continue to tacitly tolerate or even embrace open borders; after all, being called “racist” is worse than losing your country. Clearly, such enlightened attitudes exhibited by the aforementioned cuckservatives enable Republicans to garner large percentages of the non-white vote. Likewise, I’m certain that the repudiation of alt right principles will somehow prevent a Democrat from inevitably being elected president in 2016.

Look, I don’t even like the Republican Party. Their elites are little more than greedy bastards whose true god is corporate America. They will only continue to double down on their cuckservatism. However, they are not our intended audience; if the term cuckservative can convince a somewhat sizeable minority of frustrated, non-establishment white conservatives to cast off the Republican party and seek alternatives, then the term will have done its job. These are the people we need to convince.

At the bare minimum, this provocative slur will force the white right to become more cognizant of racial issues. If and when that happens, things will start to get very interesting.

Lincoln Was A Conservative #fundie answers.yahoo.com

" The terms "left wing" and "right wing" came from the French Revolution. The politicians who sat on the left wanted to reject the existing government, while the politicians on the right wanted to preserve the existing government. That's why the right wing is commonly called "conservative." The left wing was characterized by more liberal policies, so the left wing is commonly called "liberal."

During the Civil War, the southern states were so determined to reject the government that they seceded from the Union. So clearly they were definitively left wing.

Lincoln and the Republicans were devoted to preserving the Union by preventing the militant radical left wing states from seceding. So clearly they were definitively right wing.

Lincoln sought to cause change within the established framework of the constitutional process of lawmaking and executive authority. The southern states sought to depart from this established framework by rejecting it completely. This illustrates the conservative constitutional stance of Lincoln, as opposed to the militant radical stance of the left wing southern states, which used radical violence to pursue an agenda that was based on a revolt against the existing government. The southern states fired the first actual cannon shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter, which illustrates their militant radicalism.

After the south lost the Civil War, they continued their militant radicalism by forming the KKK to use intimidation tactics in pursuit of their political agenda, which continued to be based on rebelling against the existing and established government.

Anyone who says otherwise is just spouting left wing propaganda.

This is so clear and obvious, how can anyone disagree? "

Anonymous #racist cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com

The Inhunamity of Utopian Europe

Instead of the religion and the law by which they were in a great politick communion with the Christian world, they have constructed their Republick on three bases, all fundamentally opposite to those on which the communities of Europe are built. Its foundation is laid in Regicide; in Jacobinism; and in Atheisim; and it has jointed to those principles, a body of systematick manners which secures their operation. – Edmund Burke

When Russell Kirk published his book The Conservative Mind, Thomas Molnar commented that Kirk had proved there were conservative-minded American thinkers but had failed to show they had any major impact on the American experiment in government. A point well taken. At every critical juncture in the early days of the American republic, it was the secular utopians, men like Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and Marshall, who won the day and put their radical imprint on the American government. The ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality were lurking in the foundational documents of the U. S. Constitution. And there was great bloodshed; when the radical nature of the American government was challenged in the 1860s, the savage god of the utopians unleashed his terrible swift sword on the offending white, Christian Europeans of the South. The war cry then, as it is now, was liberty, equality, and fraternity!

It’s significant that Lafayette, a supporter of the American Revolution, also became part of France’s regicide government. There are many differences in style between the two revolutions, the American and the French, but the spirit animating both is the same: it is the spirit of the archangel Satan.

The presence of an anti-Christian, anti-white nation such as the United States on the world stage would not be as great a danger to white people as it now is if the other European nations were not smaller caricatures of the United States. Every European nation is following in the United States’ footsteps, at slightly slower rates, because they have more traditional European baggage to throw away before they completely succumb to liberalism and its attendant negro-worship.

It is always encouraging when a European nation objects to any part of the American liberal agenda. For instance, I don’t think Russia is a sound nation – they did not, as Solzhenitsyn had hoped, reject the materialism of western democracy when Russia abandoned communism. And they have some negro athletes (one is too many) on their sport teams, but they did issue a counter-attack against America’s deification of sodomy. It was quite heartening to see Russia celebrating the traditional family over and against America’s satanic family ideal.

I wish more European nations would resist American influence, but unfortunately the hatred of the white race and the Christian religion is a virulent virus throughout the European world. It will take more than the removal of the United States to kill the virus; it will take a resurgence of the European spirit, which is undemocratic, militantly Christian, and unapologetically racist.

It grates on conservatives’ nerves (something akin to fingernails scraping a blackboard) when you suggest that America was not founded on sound conservative principles, but isn’t it quite obvious that our negro-worshipping, sodomite present is linked to our anti-European past? What was good in America had nothing to do with the democratic idea men, but it had everything to do with the European Americans who brought the faith and ethos of the white man to America. What binds together the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and all the European revolutions that have followed in their wake is a commitment to an utopian, democratic future that has no place for a God with a heart of flesh and for the people who championed that God. What Butterfield admired in the English, prior to the 20th century, was that they went into the future holding onto the strings of their past. Once England followed the American and French example and cut those strings connecting Britons to their past, the sacred soil of Christian Britain became fertile ground for the growth of Islam and negro-worship. Without a past, we are not a people, we are just abstractions of the liberals’ utopian minds, to be eliminated whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. And the expedient moment has come: The white man must be eliminated, to make way for a new people purged of the sins of the past and ready to live and strive in the new non-Christian, non-white utopia of the future.

One of the great movies of all time is The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. The movie tells the story of Wilhelm Grimm’s (the ‘impractical’ brother) efforts to preserve the folk tales of his people that we now call Grimms’ fairy tales. At one point in the film, Wilhelm becomes sick and appears to be dying. He has collected the tales in his head, but he has not yet put them on paper. All the people from Fairyland – Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, the Frog Prince, and so on – come before Wilhelm in a dream sequence and beg him not to die so that they will not die. On Wilhelm Grimm rests the fate of fairytale Europe.

Wilhelm does not die and the fairytale people live to nourish and enrich the lives of all true Europeans. But their fate, the fairytale people of Europe, once again hangs in the balance. Such folk tales, many that go all the way back to the time of our Lord and perhaps were told by Him when He trod on England’s green and pleasant land, came from the lifeblood of the European people. If Europeans no longer believe they are a people with a great spiritual heritage, they will not preserve their past; they will be Undines, resembling human beings on the outside, but inwardly lacking an animating spirit. Our Lord told us that unless we become as little children we will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fairytale comprehension of life, represented by those tales collected by Wilhelm Grimm, is all in all. Only the Europeans saw that it was not tragic that “we are such stuff as dreams are made on.” A dream that is grounded in the visionary heart of the European people is a dream that brings us face to face with our Lord on the road to Emmaus. “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?” Of course the apostles’ hearts burned within them, and did not our hearts burn within us when we lived in fairytale Europe rather than in multicultural Europe?

The churches have played their part, a diabolical part, in killing the European people. “Of what use is a past when you have the anointed ones to tell you about God?” Of what use indeed? I think an antique European would answer the godded men with this question: “Of what use is the historical Jesus?” If you reject the flesh-and-blood people who loved Christ enough to build their civilization with Him as the incarnate center, then where is our incarnate Lord to be found? In the midst of multi-cultural Babylon? Or is He to be found in the future? If that is the case, then how do we differ from the Jews, who reject the historical Jesus but look to the future for the coming of their God. In Ian Maclaren’s great masterpiece Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush, in the chapter called “His Mother’s Sermon,” a young minister returns to his hometown to preach his first sermon. He is filled with Biblical history and the latest university-taught theology, but right before he ascends the pulpit, he remembers the words of his mother on her death bed:

“I canna see ye noo, John, but I know yir there, and I’ve just one other wish. If God calls ye to the ministry, ye’ill no refuse, an’ the first day ye preach in yir ain kirk, speak a gude word for Jesus Christ, an’ John, I’ll hear ye that day, though ye’ll no see me, and I’ll be satisfied.”

As the bred-in-the-bone Europeans die out, the Europeans with hearts of flesh, there is no one left to “speak a gude word for Jesus Christ.” Our fairy king of Europe has faded away and been replaced by the negro, because His people have faded away.

I don’t know if Christ actually set foot on England’s green and pleasant land when He was on this earth in the flesh. I like to think He did, but it is not of vital importance. The important thing is that He visited Europe in the flesh through His people. When we are in contact with His Europe we are just as close to Him as the apostles were on the road to Emmaus. I shall never forget the feeling of awe that came over me some forty years ago when I set foot in Britain. The land of Shakespeare, Scott, and Dickens, an important part of His Europe! How can we allow such a fairytale land to become the haven of Muslims and colored heathens? Anthony Jacob, after listing the white man’s considerable material accomplishments, proceeds to the real significance of the white man’s accomplishment: It is white people who built the only civilization that was dedicated to something more than material things; their civilization was consecrated to Him who was and is the personal God above the material dust of this world. I can’t read any classic work of European literature or view an old movie that depicts Europeans from long ago without feeling sadness and anger. Sadness because of that which is lost, anger against those who destroyed Christian Europe and against those Europeans who refuse to fight for its restoration. Our love of our people in and through the historical Christ built Christian Europe. A renewal of that love, for them and for Him, will restore Christian Europe.

I’m at the age when a lot of my friends and relatives are getting sick and dying. Last year, for instance, I watched my father die very slowly and inhumanely in the hands of an inhumane medical staff. And in the past four months I witnessed the slow painful death of a friend, who also suffered a needlessly painful death at the hands of an inhumane medical staff. My run-ins with modern “medicine” are not isolated incidents. There is an overwhelming testimony building, from liberals, grazers, and conservatives, that there is something monstrous going on in the medical profession. How could it be otherwise? The churches jettisoned the European Christ for a theory of God, and the liberals abandoned Him for the negro gods. The issue isn’t whether there were or were not American conservative thinkers; both Kirk and Molnar were wrong when they placed thought, divorced from the lifeblood of the European people, at the center of existence. To hell with that kind of abstract existence. Everything in modern Liberaldom now consists of statistics. My father was past ninety; what difference did it make if he starved to death; at best he had one or two more years. My neighbor had two terminal diseases; what difference did it make if she was left in bed without any attempts to move her limbs except when her husband or friends came in to do it? What difference does anything make since we all are doomed to suffer and die? It used to make a difference to Christian Europeans. They did not make their humanity the slave of inhuman statistics. You prolong life, even if it is aged life, because He wants it that way. We all die, certainly, but doesn’t it behoove Christian Europeans to place a Christ-like presence before the sick and dying so that they pass into eternity with Christ’s name on their lips? The brave new world is upon us. When He is absent, because the Europeans have gone whoring after other gods, then all is “cheerless, dark, and deadly.” The Murdstones are two of the most consummate villains in all of literature, and they commit all their villainies in the name of religion despite the fact that there is nothing Christian in their religion: “’And do you know I must say, sir,’ he continued, mildly laying his head on one side, ‘that I DON’T find authority for Mr. and Miss Murdstone in the New Testament?’” Indeed, that is the point. What is the liberals’ and the church men’s authority for this ‘utopia’ they have thrust upon us? It is certainly NOT His authority. And what other authority is there for a European?

Dostoyevsky’s underground man said that, “A man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key.” Yes, but let us deepen the underground man’s defiant declaration: “A man lives his whole life so that he can say, ‘Into thy hands I commend my spirit, O Lord.” That is what being a European is all about. +

Senator Rand Paul and the Leadership Institute #fundie secure.giveworks.net

Join Sen. Rand Paul - Sign the National Petition to Save Our Students!

Petition in Support of Freeing Our Nation's Universities from Liberal Extremists

Whereas, liberal radicals have controlled our nation's universities for more than a generation;

Whereas, these institutions of higher learning have become little more than left-wing indoctrination centers dedicated to brainwashing the next generation of America's leaders;

Whereas, the conservative movement owes it to our young people to fight to liberate our colleges and universities from this liberal oppression;

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that I do hereby support Senator Rand Paul and the Leadership Institute's fight to save our students through a massive program of organization, training, and support. No more retreating. It's time to liberate our college campuses!

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

Sex-ed in public schools is a fraud, intended to remove the natural naivety that teenagers should have about sex. Although teens have a natural curiosity about sex as they experience puberty, in a decent society without the sexualization via video games, television, magazines, sex education and the internet, youth remain innocently curious under normal circumstances. By surrounding Americans with sex, sex, sex, all innocence has been removed and young people are under attack. The sexualization of society is a part of the Communist subversion, totalitarian takeover, destruction of American culture, and preparation for the Antichrist system of the New World Order. Just take a look on the back of any U.S. one dollar bill and you'll see the NWO in your face.

The perverted actors on "THE BIG BANG THEORY" sitcom get paid $350,000 per episode, just to be sexually unclean, dirty-minded, perverted, sensual and immoral. Americans love filth! Americans love garbage! Sex sells, but it's sinful to exploit something sacred to make money. Sex is sacred, intended only between a married man and woman.

Hunter Wallace #racist #wingnut occidentaldissent.com

[From "Southern History Series: The White League of Louisiana"]

Editor’s Note: The Rainbow Confederates are unable to explain why thousands of Confederate veterans banded together to overthrow the government of Louisiana during Reconstruction instead of settling down to enjoy the fruits of the new multiracial democratic paradise.

The following excerpt which appeared in The Franklin Enterprise before the election of 1874 describes the formation of the White League in Louisiana during the later days of Reconstruction. It comes from Stephen Budiansky’s book The Bloody Shirt: Terror After The Civil War:

“We ask for no assistance; we protest against any intervention. We own this soil of Louisiana, by virtue of our endeavor, as a heritage from our ancestors, and it is ours, and ours alone. Science, literature, history, art, civilization, and law belong alone to us, and not to the negroes. They have no record but barbarism and idolatry, nothing since the war but that of error, incapacity, beastliness, voudouism, and crime. Their right to vote is but the result of the war, their exercise of it a monstrous imposition, and a vindictive punishment upon us for that ill-advised rebellion.

Therefore we are banding together in a White League army, drawn up only on the defensive, exasperated by continual wrong, it is true, but acting under Christian and high-principled leaders, and determined to defeat these negroes in their infamous design of depriving us of all we hold sacred and precious on the soil of our nativity or adoption, or perish in the attempt.

Come what may, upon the radical party must rest the whole responsibility of this conflict, as sure as there is a just God in heaven, their unnatural, cold-blooded and revengeful measures of reconstruction in Louisiana will meet with a terrible retribution.”

Here is the platform of the White League:

“Disregarding all minor questions of principle or policy, and having solely in view the maintenance of our hereditary civilization and Christianity menaced by a stupid Africanization, we appeal to men of our race, of whatever language or nationality, to unite with us against that supreme danger. A league of whites is the inevitable result of that formidable, oath-bound, and blindly obedient league of the blacks, which, under the command of the most cunning and unscrupulous negroes in the State, may at any moment plunge us into a war of races . . . It is with some hope that a timely and proclaimed union of the whites as a race, and their efficient preparation for any emergency, may arrest the threatened horrors of social war, and teach the blacks to beware of further insolence and aggression, that we call upon the men of our race to leave in abeyance all lesser considerations; to forget all differences of opinions and all race prejudices of the past, and with no object in view but the common good of both races, to unite with us in an earnest effort to re-establish a white man’s government in the city and the State.”

Does that sound like the eternal principles of classical liberalism? In Louisiana and other Southern states, classical liberalism to the extent it ever existed here was always counterbalanced by the even more powerful authoritarian forces of slavery and white supremacy.

Louisiana was one of three Southern states with black majorities which had the worst, most bitter experience with Reconstruction. The other two states were Mississippi and South Carolina. The enfranchisement of the former slaves and the disenfranchisement of Confederate veterans by the Radical Republicans produced an explosive situation in the state. Louisiana came to be ruled by carpetbaggers who plundered the prostrate state on the basis of the black vote.

The White League was a paramilitary organization composed of Confederate veterans which fought to restore white supremacy in Louisiana. This culminated in the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874 when 5,000 members of the White League fought and defeated the forces of the Republican carpetbag governor in the streets of New Orleans. The White League actually took New Orleans and the Louisiana State House, but was forced to withdraw after President Grant sent federal troops to relieve the city.

Why was the Yankee occupation so bitterly resented in Louisiana? Shouldn’t everyone in Louisiana have celebrated abolition and the triumph of the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and meekly submitted to black majority rule? This is a peculiarly Yankee perspective of the American Revolution that was utterly foreign to the South. The Old South believed in classical republicanism, not classical liberalism. These men celebrated “liberty” in the sense that they saw themselves as the Roman paterfamilias of their plantations.

Louisianans believed that the sort of “liberty” and “equality” and “democracy” unleashed in their state during Reconstruction was utterly destructive and was a moral smokescreen calculated to dispossess them in their own lands while enriching Yankee carpetbags in the process.

Pastor Mike Stahl #fundie pastorstahl.blogspot.com

Brothers and Sisters , I have been seriously considering forming a ( Christian ) grassroots type of organization to be named "The Christian National Registry of Atheists" or something similar . I mean , think about it . There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders , ex-convicts , terrorist cells , hate groups like the KKK , skinheads , radical Islamists , etc..

Sassy #fundie religionethics.co.uk


(In reply to a post stating that because we do not always have sex to procreate, talking about sex having the sole function as procreation would be incorrevt)


It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.

The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.

However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.

Sue Bohlin #fundie blogs.bible.org

A recent email from a friend: "Sue, I'm seeing more and more 'evangelical' churches come out in support of gay marriage. Also, Christian friends are changing their views on the validity of the LGBT lifestyle being acceptable for a Christ-follower. I start worrying that I'm missing something, and even start questioning my beliefs."

No, my dear friend, you are not missing something, but it is a good time to question (not doubt) your beliefs so you can be more convinced than ever that the Creator God has not changed and neither has His word.

I think there are two big reasons so many confessing believers in Christ have allowed themselves to be more shaped by the culture than by the truth of God's word, drifting into spiritual compromise and even into apostasy (abandoning the truth of one's faith). This is not a new problem; the apostle Paul urged his readers in Rome, "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold, but let God re-mold your minds from within. . ." (Romans 12:2, Phillips).

Reason One: Rejecting the Authority of God's Word

The bitter fruit of several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship is that many believers have been especially vulnerable to Satan's deceptive question to Eve in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say . . .?" When Christians ignore or flat-out reject the unmistakably clear biblical statements condemning homosexual relationships, they are playing into the enemy's temptation to justify disobedience by making feelings and perceptions more important than God's design and standards.

There are now two streams of thought on same-sex relationships and behavior, the Traditional View and the Revisionist View. The Revisionist View basically says, "It doesn't matter what the Bible actually says, it doesn't mean what 2000 years of church history has said it means, it means what we want it to say."

People are redefining the Bible, gender and marriage according to what will let them do what they want, when they should (in my opinion) be asking the insightful question posed by Paul Mooris in Shadow of Sodom, "[A]m I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my proclivity, or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?"

The Bible:
Traditional View
The Bible is inspired by a Holy God and is inherently true and trustworthy. The Bible is written by men, but divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and is sealed by a God of truth and authority.
Revisionist View
The scriptures which traditional Christianity understands to condemn homosexuality [such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10] have either been mistranslated, yanked out of context or were only appropriate to the culture of that time. Therefore, we no longer have to follow passages we don't like.

Sexuality:
Traditional View
Sexuality and sex are God's good gifts to men and women. While sexuality is an essential attribute of human nature, our Creator did not intend it to be the defining characteristic of humanity.
Revisionist View
Sexuality—the feelings and attractions one feels for other people—is God ordained, diverse, deeply personal and morally permissible. One's sexual orientation, whatever it is, should be celebrated as one of God's good gifts.

Gender:
Traditional View
God created both male and female in His image, and each gender reflects different aspects of the imago Dei. God's sovereign choice of gender for every person reflects His intention for that person's identity; it is one of the ways in which he or she glorifies Him as Creator.
Revisionist View
We are free to make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is biological maleness or femaleness at birth, and gender is how one feels about their "true" maleness or femaleness internally. Based on Galatians 3:28, "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Marriage:
Traditional View
Marriage is God-ordained between one man and one woman in a lifelong, monogamous, covenantal relationship. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of the Lamb (Jesus) and the Bride (the church). The complementarity of husband and wife express God's intention of both genders in marriage.
Revisionist View
Homosexual behavior is appropriate within the confines of a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship.

Both individual Christians and churches have drifted into endorsing same-sex relationships because it always feels better to follow one's flesh than to follow Jesus' call to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24).

Reason Two: Snagged by the Gay Agenda

In addition to those several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship I mentioned earlier, many believers have not been submitting themselves to the truth of the Word of God. By default, then, they were easily shaped and swayed by the six points of a brilliantly designed "Gay Manifesto" spelled out in a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Originally published as an essay called "The Overhauling of Straight America" that was published in a gay magazine, the authors laid out this plan which has been executed perfectly in the United States. (The quotes below are from the essay, found here)

1. Desensitization and normalization of homosexuals in mainstream America. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

"The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!"

2. Portray members of the LGBTQ community as victims. Indoctrinate mainstream America that members of the LGBTQ community were "born this way."

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

"Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: 'As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!'"

3. Give protectors a just cause: anti-discrimination

"Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."

4. The use of TV, music, film and social media to desensitize mainstream Americans to their plight as gay people

Over the past 25 years, gay characters, on TV especially, have captured the hearts of American viewers because they were attractive, funny, smart—the kind of characters viewers would like to be. No one was shown the dark underside of gay bars and bathhouses, or same-sex domestic violence, or having to get one's HIV+ status checked.

5. Portray gays and lesbians as pillars in society. Make gays look good.

"From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization."

Use celebrities and celebrity endorsement. And who doesn't love Ellen DeGeneres?

6. Once homosexuals have begun to gain acceptance, anti-gay opponents must be vilified, causing them to be viewed as repulsive outcasts of society.

"Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the 'fags' they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

This is how I see how we got to this place where so many people have been deceived. They didn't anchor themselves to the Truth of the Word of God, and they opened themselves to the cultural brine of Kirk and Madsen's plan to overhaul straight America.

And it worked.

I will close with three personal observations about this situation:

Christians have bought into the culture's worship of feelings over God's unchanging revelation
People love how being a protector of the underdog makes them feel
Not enough of us Christ-followers are living lives that demonstrate the beauty and satisfaction of abiding in Christ
To my sweet friend who asked the question, let me say: God's good gift of sex and the intimacy of the marriage relationship is still intended ONLY for one man and one woman for life. In the beginning, one (Adam) became two (when God formed Eve from Adam), and then the two became one again. That is a deep mystery that makes all variations and deviations on God's intention wrong.

I am indebted to Hope Harris for her insight and analysis of this question.

Burt Knoyes #fundie conservativekids.net

(At the end of an article teaching kids the 'truth' about the Civil War. So, this website is trying to incite children to start another civil war when they grow up?)

But now the government has become a vehicle for social change. Instead of individuals using education, the free market, and dialogue to elevate people from poverty and correct injustice, the government was now viewed as the instrument of change, whether it was addressing racial injustice, saving the whales, stopping global warming, access to abortion, fighting AIDS, or the war on drugs.

Today America is at a political cross-roads as unlike any time since the election of 1860. We can choose to follow the liberals into a totally socialistic state like those found in Europe or we can fight for the conservative values of individual freedom and liberty with less government interference in our lives.

The choice is ours, for now.

Crimmy #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why does Mayor Newsome (Spawn of Satan) think that other states want to follow California?
When the state has wanted GOD out and liberalism in and this is what we got.
1.California’s $15 billion budget deficit
Democrats propose-increases spending year-over-year by $1.6 billion, including a 6.6 percent increase in spending for state health and welfare programs.
2.San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws
3. SCHOOLS-Ninety-five pink slips have gone out in Novato, 206 in Vallejo, 86 in Pittsburg, 72 in alameda and in San Francisco, we learned that 535 teachers and school staff will get layoff warning notices.
4.8000 lightning strikes were responsible for starting the 800 recent wildfires in California. Many of these fires are still burning and Yosemitie is burning out of Control
5. California cities fill top 10 foreclosure list
Stockton, Calif. records highest foreclosure rate among nation's metro areas
Did I mention we had an Earthquake today?

Exodus: California Christian Groups Unite to Remove Children from Public Schoools..New laws mandate the positive potrayal of homosexuality in public schools...
As a Kid I remember this California! *sigh*

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Young people are confused today about nearly everything; including God, truth, roles in life, relationships, parenting, gender identity and morality. This is because Godless kook Communists, quacks liberals and queer leftists have deliberately confused them. Since 1963, God's Holy Word and prayer have been banned from America's classrooms. Can you imagine? Do we really trust in God as we profess on our currency, while we block Him from children's daily lives at school, and teach children instead that a Big Bang created them? What wickedness!!!

There is nothing more Godless than the dysfunctional public school system, which teaches children the bogus lies of evolution and the vile perversion of homosexuality. Children are confused, even many adults. In addition there is much conflicting information coming from the controlled liberal media, experts and church pulpits. We are a struggling nation in turmoil. Look at the shocking crimes being reported nationwide all the time. Was the Holy Bible really that bad for children? We are getting what we deserve as a nation.

Growing up in a home raised by same-sex parents is destructive to a child's sexual identity and proper character development. If you don't believe it, read the horror stories online and wake up . . .

Robert Oscar Lopez... crediting his two lesbian mothers for giving him the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple," while simultaneously emphasizing the sexual confusion he had growing up without a father figure that led him to becoming prostitute for older men. ...

SOURCE: Children Of Gay Parents Testify Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'

What a sad and tragic thing to grow up without a dad, craving the love of an older male so much that it made the boy easy prey for pedophiles and pederasts!!! Ultimately, it was his lesbian parents that led him into a life of male prostitution with sodomites. This is the dark reality of same-sex parenting! If you think this is an isolated case, you're a fool. LGBT activist groups and liberals in the media know the dark reality of homosexuality, but they cover it all up, fabricating bogus studies (which is super easy to do) and manipulating Gallup polls.

The following is typical lying propaganda from the kooky, liberal, leftist crowd . . .

Last month, a new study conducted by the University of Melbourne in Australia confirmed what experts have been saying for years: The children of gay parents are just as healthy and happy as the children of straight parents.

SOURCE: Conservatives harm children by opposing gay adoption | July 2014

WHAT A LIE!!! The article actually goes on to say that children of homosexual parents even turn out better sometimes than having normal heterosexual parents. WHAT A JOKE!!! Nothing could be further from the truth, evidenced by countless disturbing statements from adults who had gay parents. The truth is coming out, and will continue to do so. The only information claiming that gays make good parents is coming from the liberals, kooks and queers. The truth is coming from the victims themselves.

The following man was raised by two lesbians and was permanently harmed by it . . .

Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who’s done relief work in war-torn areas, was outraged by the French same-sex marriage law. He admitted to Le Figaro that, after being raised by two women, he has “suffered from the lack of a father,” from the lack of “a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”

SOURCE: Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting: Four Big Myths Debunked

God's way is not just the best way, it is the only way that works. We're hearing a lot of propaganda from liberals about how difficult it is for homosexual children to cope in a “homophobic” society, but the truth is that homosexuality is a sin just like murder, stealing and adultery, and should be dealt with as such and discouraged because it hurts other people. The Bible teaches that men ought to fear God, Who will be every man's Judge in eternity (Romans 2:1; James 4:12; Romans 14:10-12). Proverb 8:13, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” Proverb 9:10, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” We are a nation greatly lacking wisdom, because few people fear God anymore, evidenced by the transgression of the wicked. Sin abounds today, and the love of many people is waxing cold just as Jesus foretold in Matthew 24:12. This trend will only worsen as we draw nearer the end times.

Robbie_James_Francis #fundie christianforums.com

If god is the sole creator of the natural world, then he is also the sole arbiter in deciding what is natural an un-natural, the former being that which is in harmony with his plan and his nature. He is, of course, also the only means by which anyone can tell what is right and wrong.

If it necessary and/or beneficial for a society or nation not to contravene god's laws and tolerate disobedience to them, preferring rather that which is 'right' and 'natural' according to god, its legislation, the key way in which it controls the populace, should reflect this.

If god created sex for a married woman and man, then it is immoral for unmarried women and men to have sex with one another, because it is a violation of god's plan for humanity.

Should extramarital sex be criminalised? At the very least, should the State not remove any children produced through extramarital sex, so that they are not poisoned with this immorality and un-natural behaviour?

candlelight #fundie rr-bb.com

Cross dressing, transgender, etc. is sexual deviance IMO, just as being a sex offender is. Eventually they will be letting sex offender's teach kids because after all "It is just another type of lifestyle, but he/she is a nice person, and it should not affect how they teach children". Where does it end?

Aleskakolja #fundie aleskakolja.tumblr.com

You mentioned on PAH that you have your own opinions on the morality surrounding necrophilia and zoophilia. I'm curious, what do you think?


ok, hi there! So well, be ready for some little controversy, I guess :P

First of all I would like to state a general and short view of my moral conceptions. I’m a moral nihilist, in the sense that I don’t think that there is a superior moral system that rules them all and that is objective and natural and everyone should follow by the law of god or any other superior power. I think morals are a social construct, based in a specific culture and society and that changes over time, but that aren’t based in any objective source. The common things you can find in different societies are easily explained by some kind of “societies darwinism”. Mostly, the societies that follow a moral system where they take care of their own people and punish some stuff (as murdering of your own, for example) have more chances to survive that a society without morals where everything is fair game. That kind of society is self-destructive, so every human society groups towards some basics due to survival instintics, but not because those are the objective, good things. Some times a society morals can be, in fact, pretty harmful for some individuals even if they truly believe that is the right way to go, the logic and natural order.

So, going from this, I think a moral system is needed, of course. For the good of both, individuals and society survival and wellbeing. As I have said, an ‘everything is fair game’ society is a condemned society. But if we don’t have an objective moral, not a power superior to men to tell us what is wrong and what is right and traditional values are exposed as old constructs that can easily being wrong, what can we do? Well, my solution is created a moral of consense, a moral based in the best for everyone. And that is where my morals stands. My rules are easy. Every situation should be judged carefully and individually, they aren’t real moral statements or absolute truths aside a couple of things “every action should be consensual” and “something is wrong if it causes you or anyone else an involuntary harm”. And even these things have exceptions in some extreme or specific situations (I can provide you with examples if you want to, I love discussing morals!).

Now, making this clear (and if you have any question or don’t understand something ask me, no fear ^^) I’ll give you my thoughts around these two issues, that can be kinda out of the morals of our current society.

-Necrophilia: I don’t think this is inherently immoral in any way. I dont see corpses as people. They aren’t human beings, they are, in a strict sense, a piece of meat. Of course, there is a big taboo about this for different reasons. We have the obvious one, people who still see the bodies as their loved ones and feel it as an attack to them, a disrespectful action. We also have the fear of death and the general taboo that it has (people who don’t even want to talk about death, people who are scared to go for a walk into a cemetery, people who look at you as a weirdo for liking “dark” things and gothic literature… there are plenty of this). And adding to that, we have misconceptions about the problems it can give you (diseases. People associate corpses with disease and this is normal, since humanity has gone through a lot of epidemics and the cultural memory about it remains. But the reality is different. If someone wasn’t sick before death they aren’t dangerous as a corpse. People still don’t understand this).

So, summarizing, I don’t think there is something inherently immoral about necrophilia. I don’t think these actions are something wrong itself. However, we need to understand our context and the effect of our actions. I don’t have this taboo, I think it is absurd and just a norm that comes from a sex-negative, scared of the death society that I don’t agree with. But I understand that not everyone is like me. That for some people it would be harmful, that they wouldn’t want this for their loved ones, so, and since you live in a specific context and our actions have consequences in real people’s lifes, you can’t just have sex with random corpses. Not because it is immoral, but because it can harm someone else (not the corpse, the corpse is not a person anymore).

I think the best way to go over this is educating people about why it isn’t harmful or immoral, explain the taboo and maybe someday we get a society where this isn’t seem as terrible and awful and people can have sex with corpses (I have always thought in some kind of necrocard, you know, like for organ donations, consent to necrophilic sex before die so the problem of consent gets solved. I know from plenty of people who wouldn’t care to give their corpses for this. It isn’t such a crazy idea after all).

-Zoophilia: I can feel this one is going to bring even more controversy up. But well, here we go. I don’t think every action in every case of sexual interaction with an animal is wrong. Harming an animal for pleasure is wrong. I don’t support animal abuse and zoosadism in any way. I believe that animals are living beings with a sense of pain and they deserve to be respected and treated properly. You can kill animals for eating. That is understable and natural. Killing them for fun is something I don’t approve. Causing them pain for fun is something I don’t approve either.

But now, about sex. Sex with an animal is not always something violent or traumatic as we could think. Sex is not inherently harmful and wrong just because it is sex. Also, animals *can* consent in a way. Of course, they can’t tell you what they want, but you can understand their reactions. It is obvious when an animal is distressed or in pain, when an animal is scared or uncomfortable and then you know something is wrong. It is obvious too when an animal is happy and feeling good, when an animal is comfortable and wants something. This applies to sex too. If the sex is unwilling, painful, distressful or hurts the animal in any way I’m against it. But if the animal is comfortable, seeks it, it’s ok and doesn’t get hurt I don’t see the problem. For example (*cw: for explicit stuff*, maybe?), if a girl puts some jam on her genitals and let a dog licks it to get sexual pleasure, where is the harm? Or a dog topping a man, how does the dog suffer? (*end of cw*) Also, we have to remember that some animals are proved as being specially anthropophilics (dolphins and dogs are prominent examples), that means they are sexually aroused by humans. They want to have sex with humans. And interspecies sex is not that weird either (and we get hybrids from it).

So, the summary here, I think if the sex is not harmful for the animal (not physically, not emotionally, like causing pain, distress, angst, fear…) and the animal shows signs around it of being comfortable and fine then it isn’t wrong. Of course, the person would be the responsable and would need to pay attention to all the animal’s reactions and notify any problem and stop it that happens. But doing properly, I don’t think it is wrong. (Ah, and if someone’s argument is ‘but sex with humans/like that is inherently traumatic for the animal! They are rape victims in every case and they suffer trauma for it’ I have to say that no, animals don’t have that conception about sex that humans have. They are animals. They don’t have the psychological development to have beliefs about sex or cultural conceptions of it. That is purely a human thing).

Well, these are mostly my thoughts, if you want to ask something else or need I make something clear or any other thing, just go for it, I’m always happy to reply :)

Tags: #anon #asks #morals #zoophilia #necrophilia #opinions #answer #me #sex positivity

Gov. Rick Perry #fundie us.cnn.com

"As a state agency, Texas Military Forces must adhere with Texas law, and the Texas Constitution, which clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman," said Josh Havens, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry's office.

Despite its proud and longstanding tradition of independence, the Texas Military Forces is not like other agencies. In fact, given that it includes the Army National Guard and Air National Guard (in addition to the Texas State Guard), in some ways it is more a federal agency than a state one. As such, some argue, its policies should fall in line with those out of Washington.

Following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that effectively struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal benefits from going to same-sex partner, the door has now been opened to gay and lesbian spouses.
Shortly before leaving office earlier this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that same-sex partners who sign a military "Declaration of Domestic Partnership" form will be eligible for several benefits, including military identification cards as dependents. Those who did would be allowed unescorted onto bases, get access to commissaries, have the right to visit their partners in military hospitals and be eligible for many survivor benefits, including life insurance benefits. The Pentagon estimated at the time that there may be 5,600 troops on active duty seeking such benefits, as well as 8,000 retirees and 3,400 National Guard troops. Tuesday was the first day all partners of same-sex troops could claim such benefits, the Pentagon has said.

But in the latter category, Texas isn't readily coming aboard.

Texas, like some other states, expressly prohibits same-sex marriage under its law. That state law trumps federal law, argues Perry and others.
"(Texas Military Forces) is a state agency under the authority and direction of the Texas state government," wrote the forces' adjutant general, Maj. Gen. John Nichols, in a memo dated August 30. "... Due to the potential conflict (between state and federal law), we are unable to enroll same-sex families ... at our state-supported facilities until we receive legal clarification."
In a statement Tuesday, the Texas Military Forces insisted that while Nichols is asking the state's attorney general for an advisory opinion, "the state is not denying any federal benefits to military personnel or same-sex spouses of military personnel."
"This is a processing issue, not a denial of benefits issue," the agency says. "As such, we fully encourage eligible members to enroll for their federal benefits at one of the 20 nearest federal installations, which are dispersed throughout the state of Texas."

The office of state Attorney General Greg Abbott did not respond to a CNN request for comment on the matter.
Yet Stephen Peters, the president of the American Military Partner Association, sees what's happening in Texas as "truly outrageous," claiming that same-sex partners are being denied certain rights and benefits simply because they're based in the Lone Star State.
"Gov. Rick Perry should be ashamed," Peters said Tuesday, accusing Texas policymakers of playing "politics with our military families."
"Our military families are already dealing with enough problems, and the last thing they need is more discrimination from the state of Texas."

Archbishop Cranmer #fundie archbishopcranmer.com

‘Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man’ is a Jesuit maxim attributed to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. He probably never said it, or if he did, he almost certainly said: ‘Give me the boy for the first seven years and I will show you the man’. The quote is also attributed to Aristotle, but in a sense the source doesn’t matter, for by its attribution to both one of the greatest spiritual minds and one of the greatest philosophical thinkers ever to have existed, it moves beyond cultural constructivism to transcendent truth: the workings of the mind were designed to be subject to time and space.

And into that time and space comes children’s education, by which process their moral, cultural and religious values are inculcated and their politics are moulded – from the history lesson which scorns the ethics of empire to the singing of ‘I vow to thee my country’ in the daily act of collective worship, schools are places where political perspectives become truths and religious exposure becomes morality. There is, of course, much debate concerning the proper aims of education and the right balance (should such a thing exist) between the prescriptive statutes of governments and the freedoms of parents and particular religious groups, but in a liberal democracy there must be the means to impart the knowledge of citizenship which is deemed necessary to sustain that liberal democracy, or the state ceases generation-by-generation to be either liberal or democratic.

Relationship and Sex Education (formerly Sex and Relationship Education) is one of those subjects which straddles the government-parent-religion tensions of responsibility and provision. For some, it is the task of parents to teach sexual morality and reify good relationship; for others, it is the joint responsibility of parents and religious communities, with a civic minimum imparting the essential facts of biology and social reality. For others still, mindful of parental delinquency and religious prejudice in this regard, it is fundamentally a function of the state to ensure that all children are taught the knowledge and life skills they will need to develop healthy relationships and stay safe while having sex.

The question and tension which then arises is related to age-appropriateness: at what point does the scientific naming of private body parts or discussion about where babies come from become consideration of emotional and physical changes; and then at what point those changes become discussions about different kinds of families or the differences between boys and girls; and then at what point those differences become discussions about engaging in sex, contraception or condoms, homosexuality and transgender people. And what about abortion? And then there is sexual experimentation, orgasms, group sexual experiences, oral sex, masturbation…

Would it surprise you to know that discussions about transgender are deemed appropriate for eight-year-olds?

One state primary school in Birmingham, where the children are predominantly Muslim, introduced RSE lessons to promote LGBT equality. The Guardian reported in January that the programme includes “the welcoming of people of any race, colour or religion and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender”. There is, of course, nothing wrong with welcoming people, but what is the age-appropriate way of explaining lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to a four-year-old? What are books entitled ‘Mommy, Mama and Me‘ or ‘King & King‘ designed to inculcate about the morality of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages? Birmingham school LGBT Muslim protestOne parent Fatima Shah is quoted: “Children are being told it’s OK to be gay, yet 98% of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community. [Mr Moffat (assistant headteacher)] said all parents are on board with it, but the reality is, no parents are on board with it.” She added: “We have nothing against Mr Moffat – we are as British as they come. We respect the British values… but the problem is, he is not respecting our ethos as a community. We don’t send our children to school to learn about LGBT. We send them to school to learn maths, science and English.”

Andrew Moffat, who is gay and was appointed MBE in 2017 for services to education, responded: “I’m just teaching children from an early age that there are different families out there and, let’s not forget, that in some schools there are children with two mums, so I see it that they’re not being taught anything. All they’re seeing is their family is being accepted. We want all children in Birmingham to know that their family is normal; that their family is accepted and welcomed in schools.”

Last week Mr Moffat gave in, and subjugated the ethos of his school to the religious ethos of the majority Muslim parents: all LGBT lessons have been stopped. He did this because hundreds of those parents decided to withdraw their children from the lessons, which is their legal right. But what if RSE were to become mandatory, as the Government intends? What option would parents then have if they felt their children were being taught matters of sex and sexuality which they deemed to be age-inappropriate? “We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” Fatima Shah said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused. They need to be allowed to be children rather than having to constantly think about equalities and rights.”

The themes being discussed are complex for adults, too, because it matters of sexuality and gender it isn’t at all clear where nature end and nurture begins. And that is the essence of the grievance these Muslim parents have: they feel their children are not simply being education in the sociological fact of homosexuality and transgender, but inculcated – or ‘indoctrinated’, as one parent put it – into the moral virtue of such expressions of identity. Now, you may believe that homosexuality is as innate as heterosexuality, and transgender is simply another increment on the spectrum of human diversity, but for others the causal debate is more nuanced, not least because there is conflicting evidence from eminent scientists and psychologists on both sides of the divide. While some favour the ‘nature’ explanation based on biology or genetics, others incline to the ‘nurture’ theory, based on the psychological reaction to upbringing and environment, which obviously includes education.

The Bible’s understanding of biology (and, indeed, that of the Qur’an) is a world apart from modern studies, and theologians are as divided as scientists. Some insist that cultural factors contribute in psycho-sexual development, embracing Freudian psychological theory, for example, which asserts that homosexual orientation is a consequence of the failure to identify with the same-sex parent; that a physical or emotional distance between the child and the same-sex parent results in a failure to be able to identify with one’s own sex. This results in a same-sex deficit, which the homosexual is unconsciously trying to repair by creating emotional and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. It is not so much a moral degeneracy but an emotional immaturity, and one therefore capable of being healed through therapy.

This is the view of the great majority of Muslims, and also of a great many Christians and Jews. The cause of homosexual orientation being somehow a combination of both nature and nurture – a psychogenetic fusion – would therefore be susceptible to educational inculcation. If the ethos of a school is toward ‘tolerance’ of homosexuality and transgender as ‘natural’, and that ethos is reified by teachers who impart notions of equal validity and moral parity, then what the Bible or Qur’an happen to say becomes irrelevant: British values trump God’s created order. If a child feels a bit gender-neutral or trans one day, why not explore androgyny further? Why not try living as the opposite sex for a while? It might be fun. It certainly makes you a bit more interesting and gets you noticed.

There is no easy solution to this: the government-parent-religion tensions will persist in state education until one party asserts its dominance – which appears to be imminent – at which point the other parties will respond or react. While reason demands the serious critical consideration of scientific studies, and certainly those which are concerned with the possibility that same-sex preference and transgender may be genetically programmed, not all innate tendencies in children are either good or desirable. But that is too nuanced a debate in this febrile atmosphere. It is to be noted that in the hundreds of parents who have withdrawn their children from LGBT lessons in this school, sporting their banners declaring ‘Education not Indoctrination’, ‘My Child My Right’ and ‘Say No to sexualisation of children’, they have not been condemned as homophobes or bigots by LGBT lobby groups. If these had been Christian parents, however, no doubt Amanda Spielman would have issued an instant press release, and Peter Tatchell would have been there in a flash.

MarineSentinel #racist freerepublic.com

White democrats, liberals, elitists, leftists, progressives, left wing-nuts, communists, socialists, gays, lesbians, leftist loons, mentally handicapped—meaning their vocabulary is so small it would fit in a navel cavity of a flea, Nazis, republican rhinos who are really democrat insider fools, traitors, anti-Americans, and yes last but not least my favorite—lying maggot politicians are the most racists individuals around. This is a fact that these racists purposely try to shove off on their opponents namely Conservatives. The truth hurts and if ever there was a time where racism is more visible than today it is none other by these kooks I’ve mentioned.

Dr. Ben Carson a renowned neurosurgeon who put it truthfully and factually that “Liberals are the most racist people there are.” He is right and they can’t deal with a black man telling the truth about them and how they really think. This isn’t something new; these crazies have always been racists who date back to the “KKK” and slavery. They are the ones responsible for the many deaths associated with and committed by the “KKK” period. Dr. Ben Carson has made all of these kooks nervous and they don’t know how to deal with him especially coming from a successful educated black man.

I recently saw this racism on full display yesterday when a known liberal such as Bob Beckel went nuts over Dr. Ben Carson telling the truth about liberals. Bob Beckel said about Carson, that most liberals don’t care what he Carson says or thinks. This was his whole point genius Beckel couldn’t wrap his mind around that “White liberals and the rest of these kooks don’t care about blacks or other minorities who are different from them, ergo he and his “White liberals are racist.

The reason the liberals and the rest of their kook fringe are after Dr. Carson is they view him with the Uncle Tom tactic they tried with Herman Cain. Its funny how these crazies call us racist but when a decent Conservative black man who believes in God and tells it like it is they turn the table on him. Dr. Martin Luther King said it’s not the color it’s the content. This alone sheds 100% light on their racist’s views. Dr. Carson is the mesquite thorn in the racist lefts a**, both uncomfortable and poisonous which the truth does that.

Dr. Carson revealed what a loser Obama and his ilk really are; at the bottom of the barrel if you ask me. The liberals and the rest of these kooks are scared of him because he is a brilliant man and he is everything that they and Obama are not. Obama and his ilk=affirmative action and Dr. Carson=All Merit. The liberals and the left remain on their road to destruction and they are dragging the country down with them. The true Patriots of America must do all they can to take back our country.

I recently read a column about Dr. Ben Carson’s up and coming book where he makes a great and valid point. He says that it is just as much about racism to vote for someone because he is black, just because he is black even though you don’t agree with his politics. I have never voted this way for any President and those who have should be ashamed. Liberals may not care what Dr. Carson has to say now, but soon they will know if they don’t already he is their worst nightmare. Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example that America truly does work and liberals despise him for it. This President really thinks “White Liberals” actually like him. I’m here to say NOPE, they don’t. They are just using him like Bob Beckel to help him bring down the country. I say keep talking “White Liberals and the rest of their kooks, you are making our point.

The flip side to “White Liberals” is the “Black Liberals” who espouse to the same playbook. These crazies have fallen into the trap of actually believing “White Liberals” care for them when in reality they think blacks are not capable of doing things on their own. “White Liberals” truly believe that if you’re not white you are not capable. Why else would liberals demand affirmative action? Affirmative Action has done nothing more than exacerbate black poverty period. Look at most poor neighborhoods; they are all Democrat represented areas, Always. “White Liberals” always pat you on the head and tell you you’re so brilliant, but not brilliant enough to get anywhere on your own. We 20 years later have a President reaffirming everything we know to be true about “White Liberal” mentality. From his lips to our ears—“You didn’t build that, you didn’t get there on your own.” Molon Labe.

TX Attorney General Ken Paxton #fundie talkingpointsmemo.com

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton and another official to a contempt hearing over the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages following the June Supreme Court ruling, according to Dallas television station WFAA.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order in response to a legal action filed by Texas resident John Stone-Hoskins, who asked the court to hold Paxton in contempt after the state would not amend his spouse's death certificate to reflect that the two were married, according to the Houston Chronicle.

According to Cole, when he asked the state to amend his spouse's death certificate, the state cashed his check but refused to complete the paperwork. A Department of State Health Services official wrote, "Until the ruling is fully reviewed, we will not be able to know the impact, if any, on the process to file or amend death certificates. We will keep your documentation in a pending file and will advise you once a determination is made," according to the Chronicle.

Garcia also ordered Kirk Cole, the state's interim director at the Department of State Health Services, to issued an amended death certificate for Stone-Hoskin's spouse, James Stone-Hoskins, according to the Chronicle.

Paxton and Cole must appear in court next week so that Garcia can determine whether the two officials violated his July ruling prohibiting the the state from restricting same-sex marriage.

Cynthia Meyer, a spokeswoman for Paxton, told the Chronicle that the court must determine in a separate case whether the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was retroactive. Meyer said that Paxton's office would be filing a response to Garcia's order in court.

Earlier this week, Paxton was also indicted on felony securities fraud charges.

Benjamin Fulford #racist #conspiracy #crackpot benjaminfulford.net

The Khazarian mafia power grab using a fake COVID 19 pandemic has failed spectacularly and now payback begins, Pentagon and Asian secret society sources say. The White Hats have begun an immediate offensive by killing Jesuit military leader and Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas, White Dragon Society sources say. The death of Nicolas opened the path for the liberation of Japan. This is being followed by the liberation of Germany. Only then will it be possible to liberate the United States and thus the planet Earth.

Let’s begin with the death on May 20th of the Black Pope. Nicolas, although supposedly a nice guy, was head of an organization that planned and carried out the 2011 Fukushima mass murder attack on Japan. Although his predecessor Peter Hans Kolvenbach was in charge of that operation, Nicolas failed to admit, apologize and make amends for this war crime.

His death has opened the way for regime change in Japan because he was the top commander of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that actually runs this country. The day after Nicolas died, Hiromu Kurokawa the chief of the Tokyo prosecutors’ office was forced to resign over a “gambling scandal.”

Lawrence Mayo #fundie barbwire.com

Many people are under the mistaken impression that the political battle lines in America are Democrats vs. Republicans. Some even erroneously believe the battle lines are Liberal vs. Conservative.

But if you wish to understand modern politics in our country — if you want to make sense of the seemingly-irrational behaviors of both parties — consider the reality that the battle lines are actually Elitists vs. The People.

In 2014, Republicans were swept into office in the midterms, ostensibly to turn back Obamaism. Obamacare was to be repealed, or, at the least, relief was to be offered for the suffering the program is causing. Iran was to be denied resources for developing a nuclear weapon, or, at the least, slowed in that development. Obama’s penchant for going outside the bounds of the Constitution by sidestepping Congress with overreaching and illegal Executive Orders was to be halted, or, at the least, censured. Illegal alien invasion was to be stopped or curtailed, and violators were to be prosecuted and shipped back to their countries of origin.

Instead, the establishment Republicans re-elected the the Crying Cheeto John Boehner and Yertle the Turtle Mitch McConnell to head the two legislative bodies. As an aside: Have we ever had such freakish House and Senate leaders?. Led by those two feckless elitists, we got the following results:

On Obamacare, many repeal votes have failed. Most recently the Senate vote for repeal failed.
Per Iran’s quest for the atomic bomb, there has been no action by either party to stop an illegal “agreement” that went outside the bounds of the Constitutional treaty mechanisms. Though they claim to be “irked”, there is no followup action.
As regards Obama’s lawlessness and failure to heed the Constitution, no one in either legislative body has taken to the podium to denounce Barack’s dangerous behavior.
And on illegal alien invasion, not only are the House and Senate not forcefully demanding that illegal aliens be deported, they cannot even agree to deny illegal aliens drivers’ licenses and only barely rejected allowing illegal aliens into the military. Any student of the decline of Rome knows how bad an idea that would have been.
As a bonus — and even after videos surfaced that showed Planned Abortionhood ghoulishly selling the body parts of dead fetuses — the Senate blocked a vote to defund the ghastly enterprise.

The Republicans are acting in a manner most reminiscent of Democrats. It appears that there IS no difference between the two parties… none at all. That is what informed me that those are not the battle lines. That is not the divide. The two parties agree on most of the major issues we face today.

In the Republican grassroots, there was great frustration when the lack of opposition (by the establishment Republicans) to Democrat policies became apparent. There still is. There are murmurings of discontent on the far-left, as well, that the Democrats are only paying lip service to their important issues.

It has become quite clear that the real fight is that of Elitists against The People.

This explains the vigorous support and consistently-meteoric poll numbers that Donald Trump is seeing. Whether he is truly a Populist remains to be seen, but at minimum, he is speaking as one. This seldom-heard speech in Washington is appealing to a large number of people who feel ignored by the Elitist Party, be they Republican or Democrat. Donald Trump is even appealing to the Democrat-coveted minority population.

Ronald Reagan won as a Populist. He fought the Republican establishment, won the primary in 1980, and went on to become the most anti-big-government, anti-communist, pro-ordinary-citizen President in modern history. His sweeping re-election in 1984, capturing nearly every single state (including liberal ones), showed that Populist policies are popular even in liberal bastions. Of course, there will always be liberals that cling to Elitism, and those are usually the ones who favor Socialism or Communism.

I do not mean to compare Trump to Reagan in any way except to show that Trump’s populism is a winning strategy. It appears that — whatever Trump’s other faults, such as a recent political change-of-heart and his many personal issues over the years — Donald Trump does understand where the actual battle lines lie. His repeated disregard and dislike for the propaganda outlets called the ‘news media’, his brutal honesty, and his stated positions show a Populism that has not been seen in national politics for more than twenty years. This explains why many of us regard him as a breath of fresh air.

Elitists like Planned Abortionhood. That group helps to reduce the ‘surplus population’, as Ebenezer Scrooge once called it in Dickens’ novel. Elitists like Obamacare, with the Death Panels poised to deny treatment to ‘useless old people’. Elitists like Communism and/or Socialism, with its control over the masses and the tendency to gather wealth at the top. Elitists like big government and fascist police-state controls, to better keep the populace from rising up in anger.

Elitists like illegal alien invasion (and have encouraged it not only in America, but European nations), because that form of invasion dilutes national identities, erases borders, and leads the world to a nationless overall government. Elitists are using Islam’s threat to increase the police-state tactics in nation after nation. Elitists like Agenda 21, with the stated purpose of herding us into vast cities, where we can be more efficiently worked and better controlled.

If you have signed up on the sides of the Elitists, you have many choices, foremost among those being Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. If you are on the side of the people, your choices can be only Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

LHathaway #sexist amren.com

Re: Controversial Study Finds That Brain Differences Between the Sexes Begin in the Womb

This is bad news for men. The research will just lead to a rationalization for why girls and women do better and advance farther in school and on the job, why they spell better, why most managers are women, why sales ladies and female models earn more, why women working full time earn more money yet only 3% of stay at home spouses are male, why chivalry is a part of our culture, why nearly all of the homeless are men, why men are much more likely to be diagnosed with serious mental illness (and why most American men end up being prescribed very powerful psychotropic drugs (and are much more likely to start off with them as children), why sexual deviance and perversions are almost exclusively male, why transgenderism is in reality almost exclusively male, why well over 90% of those on the sex offender registry are male while prostitution (where the man Pays the woman for an equal exchange of sex and the woman is seen to be the one who is exploited), why 3 million men are in prison, why over 90% of those who die while on the job are men, why men oppose immigration, why men are unfounded chauvinists, why men are bad husbands, why men should do more around the house, why men are bad parent, why men are violent, why women should be granted custody nearly every time sole-custody is awarded to one parent.

I probably missed a couple hundred - I’m a man.

Really, it doesn’t matter what science reveals about gender - what is revealed by science and/or social or political science, or what happens, we’re not going back to where men are mostly bosses again at work.

It may make some feel better (very, very, strangely {and we’ll blame the mediaversities for the only thing that could explain this misinformation}) to think it’s all genetic. Perhaps ‘feeling better’, the way some young man looked at his arm as an adolescent and said to himself, ‘it’s getting bigger, I think’ or the way the same young man felt after watching an action movie and all the power and destruction, but, feeling better, surrender to a feeling, a chauvinism, will do nothing to change men’s status. Desperately waiting for it be proclaimed ‘it’s all genetic’ seems kind of strange. When I mention ‘misinformation’ I should have mentioned something about those who, in reality, are trying to arouse racial hatred of whites, and trying to propel such hatred into the future, or rather, trying to promote white guilt, or moral equivalency, as far into the future as it is possible to do so?

Our best female soccer players (USA Women's national team) just lost a scrimmage game against 13 and 14 year old boys

I notice a lot of girls winning boys wrestling tournaments. They always go off to some ‘olympics training farm’ sometime towards the end of their HS run. Hearing this is supposed to make boys feel better. Your story has a familiar ring to it - as satisfying as going out and paying hard earned money to see an action movie?

What is your point? When it comes to {seemingly glaring} favoritism toward girls also in athletics, I could continue on for another 2,000 words? By chance are you leading to, boys are so much superior to girls athletically boys are above competing wth them?

By the way, you pay to feel better. Feeling better rarely pays you.

It didn't used to be like that, except for young children. The reason it is like that now is that the educational system is now made by and for females.

When did young boys and girls fight each other as sport in the US?

I guess that it's the environment that leads to breast development in females rather than in males. Hey ma look at me: I be a scientist.

Actually, ‘trannies’ seem to develop larger breasts/larger breasts than their sisters. I suspect this is because, growing up as male, they have more tissue/muscles in their chest than females do.

Secret Asshole #fundie kiwifarms.net

I was always ultra-liberal, exploring my religion, never being fully atheist, but exploring others for a time. I looked at paganism and Wicca even, though that was brief when I read some books. (I have to admit this because I find this hilarious, I very very very briefly considered Islam. Just know this was before 9/11 or any real Islamic Terror attacks or rape riots). I always, ALWAYS argued liberal politics with my family, who are staunchly conservative. I argued with conservatives in college, went on debates, the whole nine. Except it wasn't like today, it was amicable arguments. Where it got intense, but you were still friends, you were still family. That's what I thought being a liberal was. Argue your points, but allow for freedom of thought. I even got offended by Muslim jokes, even after 9/11. I was tolerant and shit.

When it really started to erode was the financial crisis of 2008. My family got FUCKED by it. We avoided foreclosure by the skin of our teeth because of massive job losses, but we've never fully recovered. I got caught up in the hope and the dreams of Barack Obama. 'Yeah, Obama! Take care of that corrupt Wall...Healthcare? Wait, why? What are you doing, you can fix the financial system, help the poor and the...oh...you want a legacy...oh.' When he went balls deep into healthcare instead of helping the economy, the cracks started to appear.

Occupy Wallstreet was when I broke. I couldn't do it anymore. 'Stick it to those big bankers! FUCK EM UP...wait, why are there hippie drums here? Disabled people? What are you talking about the police for? Queer politics...the progressive stack? WHAT THE FUCK WHO CARES, THEY ARE DEGENERATE GAMBLERS AND IN A JUST SOCIETY WE'D HANG THEM FROM LAMPOSTS YOU STUPID FAGGOTS WHAT THE FUCKAREYOUDOING.' Which lead to the Colbert show clip and one of the leaders was a rich white cunt called Ketchup. At first, I actually thought it was the FBI doing COINTELPRO. Seriously, that's not a joke. I literally could not believe the people in charge were this fucking stupid to let them go in front of a camera.

Once I realized that they were that stupid and were rich white cunts who latched on to the most important issue of our time to promote their own fringe ideologies (which would become progressivisim) and force out others, I was fucking done. Hugely fucking done. It got even worse when progressives invaded gaming and started screaming. I was still bitter about 2011 so when the country hadn't recovered and they were screaming about meaningless bullshit, I wanted to beat people with pipes.

I went more and more into shitposting on SA and then even SA got fucking worse, which only pissed off...oh, a huge amount of people. I got really bad there, before it became a core of SJWs. Hellthread I was full on shitpost mode, which I found hilarious at how mad I made the libs. At this point, I hated progressives. They represented the worst of liberals, the excesses which didn't focus on the poor or downtrodden, but on people's skin color or genitals or shit that really didn't matter. After they closed Hellthread for good, pretty much all the shitposters left SA, I went to SASS, found it too specific to SA and came here to shitpost harder.

Nothing will turn you from a liberal to whatever I am like true financial strife and it being ignored so a disabled tranny black queer autistic can speak about wheelchair ramps. I relish every time the progressives lose societal influence, I love seeing them angry and not getting their way, I love to see them get fired and all their businesses to fail. They had the chance to fix one of the most corrupt industries in the world and they cared more about the most superficial traits on people instead. They rejected the foundations of liberalism for their own narcissism and virtue signaling. I want Donald Trump for another 4 years so they continue to go insane and lose influence as people see how fucked their priorities are and what hypocrites they are. Fuck progressives. Fuck all of them.

Hope_doesnt_exist #sexist reddit.com

Soon libfems will begin selectively aborting fetuses with vaginas and exalting fetuses with penises, in the name of progress.

But you will be ostracized when you call it sexism or misogyny because “biology doesn’t mean it was a girl or female, you bigoted TERF.”

You think I’m crazy, but it’s already happened before.

Arab societies used to bury baby girls as soon as they were born. We all know Asian societies killed baby girls as well.

People try to tell us that it’s because “women weren’t as valued” which is true, but have you ever thought about it deeper than that?

The truth is that these societies were at PEAK liberalism.

Men are offended by the existence of women. Always have been, always will be. At peak progressiveness men kill off women, the more innocent the girl the better, and no one is more innocent than a baby.

Being born a female is literally a CRIME in the male psyche. Most women do not know or understand this. It’s why men hate us. Because we are born female.

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

My friend Davis Aurini has been predicting that the U.S.—and the world at large—will break out into war later this year, based on his reading of The Fourth Turning and the churn and conflict that defines the generational cycle. I used to doubt him. I don’t anymore.

The release of the FISA memo last Friday has laid bare the impossibility of uniting America.

There’s enough analysis about the memo itself to fill a book, so I don’t need to write too much about it, other than to say that it’s just as bad as everyone thought it would be. The Obama administration, in collaboration with the FBI, the courts, and the intelligence apparatus of a foreign country, spied on then candidate Donald Trump solely because they did not want him to become president. Their justification for obtaining a warrant was based entirely on partisan opposition research, most of which was fabricated.

This is worse than Watergate. Watergate was just a botched break-in, a 13-year old blowing off toilet seats with cherry bombs. Obama and the FBI openly colluded with a foreign nation to stop a democratically elected candidate—Trump—from assuming his office.

And the sad reality is that it doesn’t matter.

Prior to the memo being released, the Democrats and the fake news memo were attacking it relentlessly, warning anyone who listened not to read it, lest their heads be filled with Satanic thoughts. At no point before or after did the left contest the truthfulness of the memo, instead using only emotional, rhetorical appeals about how the memo was a “smear job” or would undermine Americans’ faith in the justice system (as if that ship hasn’t already sailed). Within hours after its release, leftists were making jokes about it on Twitter.

You cannot reason with people who cannot see objective reality. The left doesn’t care about the abuses of power revealed by the FISA memo because they don’t care about anything but their feeeeeelings, their subjective reality. To them, President Trump is Orange Hitler and he has to be stopped by any means necessary, including rioting, assassination attempts, judicial activism, and trampling all over our civil liberties and the rule of law.

If this is how they feel about the president, it’s also how they feel about you.

I wrote years ago that there is no one more dangerous in this world than the man who considers himself a victim. A man who sees himself as a victim can invent any justification for whatever he wants to do, because he’s been wronged and he needs to exact justice on those who he believes to have harmed him. He is right by virtue of being wronged, and anyone who questions his actions is just as bad as those who he perceives to have hurt him, regardless of how real that hurt was. The greatest villains of history have always wrapped themselves in the cloak of victimhood, whether it was Hitler and the Nazis believing they were victimized by the Jews and the Poles, to communists believing they were victimized by international finance, to Puritans believing they were victimized by the big bad Catholic Church.

The American left—and the global left at large—believe themselves to be victims above all else. Minorities believe they are the victims of whites, women believe they are the victims of men, and sodomites believe they are the victims of heterosexuals. The electoral triumph of 2016, in which an unabashedly heterosexual white man became president when it was “her turn,” has pushed the left into mass psychosis. They feel like they are victimized every moment of every day, and they will not stop until they perceive that victimization to end.

As the rise of antifa and the left’s approval of violently attacking people who offend them shows, the left won’t stop unless the rest of us submit to them or are killed.

As Anonymous Conservative has pointed out, this is due to the defective brain structures of leftists and their inability to handle threat detection and response. Life as a leftist is utter hell. Imagine going around all the time constantly feeling like you’re under assault, interpreting innocuous gestures and comments and minor inconveniences as attacks on your race, sex, or identity. That’s the leftist way of life: existing in a state of permanent agitation, always on the lookout for “microaggressions,” “mansplaining,” or “wypipo” coming to ruin your day.

It’s because of their defective brain chemistry that leftists cannot interpret objective reality. You say one thing and they hear another, making communication with them impossible since we cannot even agree on the meanings of words. For them, communication and basic observation is like a Rorschach test on acid.

For example, a long time ago, there was this soyboy who made a video attacking me as a “pick-up artist” (a term I have never used to describe myself) and accusing me of pretending to be a woman online so I could convince myself that women don’t like cunnilingus. In actuality, I invented a fake female persona years ago so I could troll the manosphere and make fun of “red pill women.” But because this soyboy has brain damage, he sees a satirical article I wrote about women not liking it when men go down on them and assumes I wrote it out of personal insecurity.

It’s entirely possible he knows this full-well and chose to libel me anyway, but nearly ten years of experience writing has shown me that the left is increasingly incapable of perceiving the world correctly and telling truth from fiction.

This is why war is inevitable now. To the average person, it is increasingly obvious that one-half of the political spectrum is totally divorced from reality. When one half of the population hates the other half and can justify doing anything to them—including getting them fired from their jobs, arresting them for hate speech, spying on them, and physically attacking them—no compromise or peace is possible. As the Bible put it, one cannot be unequally yoked.

Similarly, President Trump’s constant fakeouts on DACA and amnesty are also hitting this home. As Trump pointed out in his State of the Union Address last week, the amnesty deal he’s offering is more generous than the one that Obama proposed several years back, yet the Democrats are still rejecting it.

The average voter is seeing this and going, “Why SHOULDN’T we deport them all? The President is trying to compromise with the other side and they absolutely will not cooperate.”

If two groups who hate each other—who can’t even see reality the same way—are forced to inhabit the same space, they will eventually try to wipe each other out. Will it be the right or the left who inherits the Earth? I can’t say; all I can say is that the current paradigm is about to end.

We truly were cursed to live in interesting times.

Aris Bakhtanians #sexist #psycho wehuntedthemammoth.com

(This happened in 2012, at a livestreamed Street Fighter x Tekken tournament)

“This is Aris,” a voice said on the feed. “If you don’t like onions, you get your sandwich without onions on it, man. This is the fighting game community.” He then stated that sexual harassment and the fighting game community are “one and the same thing.”

The voice belonged to Aris Bakhtanians, the coach of the Tekken team.

“The sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it’s not the fighting game community… it doesn’t make sense to have that attitude. These things have been established for years,” Aris stated. He then noted that making sexual jokes at StarCraft players would be inappropriate, so it’s unfair for anyone to tell fighting game fans they can’t viciously mock women. …

“That’s what you’re trying to do to the fighting game community and it’s not right,” Aris continued. “It’s ethically wrong.” This may be the first time in the history of video games that someone had said that removing sexual harassment is ethically unjust.

Robert Lindsay #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Female Rule or Male Rule simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on male views or female views.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society Amidst the Ruins
Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with a woman, looks at a woman or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with women, men looking at women and men asking out women from the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right. This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first. If you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.” If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent, a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing. Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
A man who says he thinks about or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old girl, a “child.”
Being aroused by a 13-17 year old girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old girl.
Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia” and if minors are caught have such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend minors of either sex. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
A man who speaks to a female minor is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to a female minor is if he is scheming to have sex with her.
In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule which is the rule of Emotion over Logic. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

Boots, Trewmommy, Aditch,jessileigh180 #fundie whattoexpect.com

@Whatwhatyousatinyouk

What would you do if you found out one of your good friends is a sex offender? I'm talking about doing a serious offense? My husband just found out yesterday that his buddy (they've been friends for a few years now, met through another friend and he's become a good friend over that time) is a registered sex offender. he's one of those guys that you would never have guessed on either. Because we have a baby daughter, I had to ask his wife about it. She played it down as if it was a misunderstanding, but basically he raped a 13 year old girl when he was almost 20. I'm sorry but to me, I do not see any misunderstanding, especially because it wasn't deemed statutory, she did NOT consent. Also, he spent a few years in prison. am very uncomfortable with him now, and will never leave our child with them even though they have 2 daughters. I personally feel like we've been lied to this whole friendship (sex offenders are supposed to tell you they are registered and why) and feel that if we didn't find out from the registry, we would have never found out. They just had their second daughter (his wife's first) so our daughters will be within a few weeks of each other in age, but I do not want to leave her there, EVER, which I won't.

(Trewmommy)
I would say if I was already friends with the person and liked hanging out with them then that would not change,
As far as your friend, It could very well be a misunderstanding of some kind. You never know. He was still rather young and she could have been messing with him and either got mad and told her parents or her parents found out. If she was like 8,9,10 or younger then I would be more worried, but at 13 you just never know, esp these days.


(Boots)
Although you say that he was not charged with statutory rape -- that doesn't mean that the sex wasn't actually consensual. The girl was 13. Her parents could have found out that she had sex with your husbands friend and they may have flipped out. She could have lied to avoid the consequences and said that she had no part in it. I'm not saying that's what happened, but situations like that happen all the time. A guy I graduated high school with is in jail right now because he had consensual sex with a 14 year old. He is 26 years old. She didn't claim he raped her, but he is still serving time in jail. IMO it's still disgusting, but it doesn't mean he's a rapist. Excuse me if I missed something and you are 100% positive that he raped the girl.

(
jessileigh180)


Ages 20 and 13 aren't nearly as far apart as they sound. I would expect a 20 year old man and a 13 year old girl to both be immature at those ages. Either could have lied about their age, I know several girls who look significantly older then they are. I'm also still young enough (22) to remember what I was like at 13.n gereral. If the girl had been younger perhaps 9 or 10 I would agree with your fears for his children but at the age of 13 the girl is really a teenager and her body would reflect that. So even if he did rape a girl who was 13 doesn't have to mean he would attack children.


(Aditch)

I'm not sure I understand your extreme reaction to his presence around your baby. What is the link between him assaulting a teenager to sexually touching your infant? I get that you are unnerved and you want to put up guardrails on the relationship. You may even feel that it is better to cut ties all together. Completely normal reactions. But I think it is important to weigh your response with all the potentials. No, a 13 year old girl can't consent. But unless you know for sure that she didn't play an active role than you can't really deem him a violent sexual predator. My 13 year old has girls in her class who wear more make up than me and wear daisy dukes with heels. My daughter has told me that she knows a girl who is sexually active with her boyfriend. She also has another friend who is 5'8" and weighs 175 pounds. These are not 'children'. They are full on menstruating budding women.

Kevin Sorbo Official Facebook Page #fundie facebook.com

Just saying:

This could solve the gun concerns!

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Graywolf12 #fundie absoluterights.com

Efficient Gun Control that makes sense.
•In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
•In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.
•In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
•In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
•In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
•In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
•In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
•In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
•In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
•In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
•In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
•In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
•In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
•In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
•In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
•In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
•In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
•In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

The Raunchous Brothers #sexist metal-archives.com

[lyrics to "Sexual Assault"]

You're such a fuckin' bitch
You gotta nice ass and you got big tits
But you won't give me the time of day
So I'm gonna have to force you to get me laid

Tonight you're lookin' pretty good
As I stalk you around the neighborhood
I trap you down a dark alley
Bitch don't even try to scream

You are of the weaker gender
I am a horny sex offender
Face it bitch, there's no escape
Tonight, you're gonna get raped

Smash your face in with a brick
Attack you with my fists and prick
Tears and blood run down your cheek
Typical woman, worthless and weak
You try to fight back, try to resist
I reward your efforts with my fists
That will fucking teach you not to say no
As you lie there bleeding with your torn off clothes

You are of the weaker gender
I am a pissed-off sex offender
Face it bitch, there's no escape
Tonight, you're getting raped

I committed sexual assault
But we both know it was all your fault
The truth is I had every right
Because you wear your clothes low-cut and tight
I forced my dick into your slit
But you had it comin', you asked for it
I even shoved my dick up your back door
And now your asshole is bleeding and your pussy is sore you whore

You are of the weaker gender
I am a pissed off sex offender
Face it bitch, there's no escape
Tonight, you got raped

CUNT!
I committed sexual assault (4x)
Oh you fucking cunt no means yes
And I can tell by the way you're fucking dressed
You know you love it, it's in I shove it
You fucking whore! RAPE!!!

TheMythof_Feminism #sexist reddit.com

image

While I STRONGLY disagree with her being allowed anywhere near a teaching position again , and I do think she should have been punished by being forced on a sex offender registry.... her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

Men and women are not interchangeable. Tabula rasa is bullshit and anyone implying it is a propagandist of the highest order. This is one of the biggest contentions I have with many people on this subreddit, they want to play along with the commie bullshit of tabula rasa despite us knowing that it's bullshit.....

Don't play that game. Not saying that's what OP did, but often times people will respond with what I have mentioned and I am pre-emptively striking.

Yes it is,

When a woman has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

When a man has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

Having sex with someone under-age is rape! I don't give a fuck who had sex with who!!

No.

No.

No.

Rape by etymological hard-lock definition means force and violence. A breach of age restrictive protocol does not qualify. The grossly misnamed "Statutory rape" is not actual rape unless the target is 12 or younger, in which case I will concede that point.

In simple terms, not all so-called "rape" is equal and to suggest otherwise is pure unadulterated idiocy.

Fantastic opinion you got there. Should I (40 year old male) be able to go out looking for a 14 year old girl to have sex with? As long as she consents, it's all good, right? You are one sick individual for this opinion

Fantastic strawman argument you got there.

Try again, little one.

It's considered a straw man if all he did was switch genders of the situation? I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Your IQ may be under 18 and like to get fucked but that doesn't apply to children.

He grossly misrepresented my argument, and you are doing the same, what a joke.

You tabula rasa loonies are beneath the level of a child.

I think victim impact should be part of any sentencing.

I work with male survivors and don't know the research, so maybe you could enlighten us.

Half the survivors I work with had female perpetrators. They would disagree with your last sentence. They found their sexual assault by a woman crippling.

Don't be a joke.

her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

It's exactly the same, because it's about age, and position of authority. She raped a minor, while in a position of authority.

Nope.

Men and women are not interchangeable. You can try to pretend otherwise, little tabula rasa acolyte, but reality does not bend to your emotion.

I had sex with a (at least) 24 year old when I was 14.

She was my sisters friend & offered to help me study. She never did & instead we spent a month fucking.

I thought it was cool at the time, it was not. She was gross, a loser, and a predator.

It normalized some things in my mind that were not good. It also let me think some things I did in the future were okay, they weren’t.

I hurt people I care about, and one reason is because this event and others taught me the wrong lessons about what is okay and what isn’t.

Adults should not have sex with children, it’s that simple.

Strawman argument, yawn.

Holocaust 21 #psycho #sexist holocaust21.wordpress.com

I know I’ve also been guilty in the past of morally supporting violence against certain feminist people who have engaged in particularly horrific violence against others. But that’s really the point I want to make. The global narrative for free speech seems to be that free speech is OK as long as it doesn’t involve advocating violence. But what if the people who you are advocating violence against were the ones who started advocating violence first? And what if the police decide only to arrest one side? Indeed this seems to be largely the case, consider the following examples:

*A man advocating for a feminist woman to be raped is likely to be arrested by the police, we’ve all heard of it happening
*A woman advocating for men to be killed will not be arrested. Even the high profile case of Bahar Mustafa who, despite eventually being arrested after anti-feminist outrage at her comments, was released without charge.

Worse still, what if the other side – the feminist side who the police aren’t arresting – are guilty of not just advocating violence, but actual violence against innocent people? Whereas the side the police are arresting (men) are merely guilty of advocating violence against those who have engaged in real violence? Where is the fairness, where is the justice, in all of that? And when, worse still, it is the police themselves who actively participate in this real violence. Police happily arrest men on ‘fake rape’ charges that they know are false or are likely to be false. They place them in prisons for decades where they are raped and beaten before releasing them onto the ‘Sex Offender Registry’ where the police repeatedly harass them in their homes, place them on a public hit list and prevent them from continuing with their lives.

Get real. The system is sick. The feminist morals are sick and hypocritical. There’s no legitimate non-partisan argument to say it’s wrong to advocate violence against feminists who have engaged in real violence and who, by the way, are currently totally unaccountable except for our ability to say what we think should be done to them in the hope of emotionally persuading enough people to move our justice system towards a fairer more gender-neutral setup.

At the end of the day feminists have engaged in violence and you are morally entitled to state what you think should happen to them, including against any police officers who have also engaged in the brutality. That’s not called a “malicious communication” it’s called “justice”.

sadoeconomics #fundie archive.is

Wow so you think child porn shouldn't be illegal? They contribute to kids suffering


It shouldn’t be illegal and it actually doesn’t, anyway most ‘child porn’ is made by teenagers with camera phones who then get put in prison and put on the sex offender registry for taking nude selfies and sending them to each other. The biggest victims of child porn being illegal are the children themselves.

Look, I’ve already made my position clear on this many times, please come up with something new to be anonymously sanctimoniously wrong at me about

Alan Vaughn #fundie google.no

A further spin-off from what you’re pointing out is the similar (yet in a sense opposite), association with mature (femihag) women, affectionately referred to as ‘Cougars’ or ‘MILFs’…
In that culture, they use terms such as girl, or chick to further enhance the paedohysterical notion that girls under 18 are ‘children’, by artificially DEflating the relative age and mature appearance of those hags as (sexy or attractive) girls.
(They are trying and I think possibly with limited success, to brainwash men into believing and accepting mature women as being as sexy or even MORE sexy and attractive than younger girls).

I remember having quite an intense belly laugh when esteemed reader ‘MRA Front’ directed me to the so-called ‘Cougar’ culture, where I saw images of ugly old hags with 18 to 20 year old boys and splashed across the top of the page was this exact phrase: “You go girl!!”
Other pages contained similar pictures and short stories of Cougar ‘conventions’, where ‘hot’ or ‘sexy’ Cougars go for the exclusive purpose of meeting young men and having sex with them and they were even referred to as ‘hot chicks’, ‘Hotties’ or ‘Gals’. I.e. words normally associated with young women and girls.

I think you might, as I do, perceive this as yet another publicity ‘trick’ (in propaganda) the gynocracy has developed and deployed, to effectively conflate all females AT or OVER the age of consent to be either women or ‘girls’, but any girls BELOW the AoC are children. And of course, any man showing the slightest sexual interest towards them (including looking at drawings of anything that looks remotely youthful), are indisputably vile paedophiles, worthy of nothing less than life in prison or death (if not already deceased); or, at the VERY least: a lifetime of public scapegoating, ridicule and stigmatization, via their highly successful: publicly accessible sex offender registry system.

Daniel Greenfield #fundie frontpagemag.com

[On the attacks on women by Muslim men in Cologne on New Year's Eve:

What happened is inevitable and it will go on happening. More surveillance cameras and patrols won't stop it. Instead, as in the UK, it will go underground. Muslim men will groom and abuse troubled girls. The authorities will turn a blind eye until a decade later the story gets too big to be covered up. And by then thousands of lives will be ruined. The only way to stop it is to keep it out of Europe and America.

Islam was a declaration of war against women and non-Muslims by Mohammed and his followers. From the mob outside the Cologne cathedral to the rape rooms of the Islamic State, Mohammed's followers continue fighting the dead warlord's brutal and ugly war against women.

[...]

Merkel made this mess. And the only way to undo it is to undo Germany's asylum policies and likely its membership in the European Union. The migrant wave has fundamentally altered Germany's demographics in a way that makes the country hostile to women. The only way for women in Europe to have a future is to fight the migration mob. Otherwise what happened outside the Cologne cathedral, what happens to 99% of women in Egypt and what happens to the Islamic State will be their future.