Similar posts

NephilimFree #fundie nephilimfree.blogspot.com

Last night I was debating some atheists in a PalTalk chat room. When I entered, one of them was on the microphone telling the room how evolution is a scientific fact and providing a few scanty details of why this is so. I got into the debate, and asked how their claim was evidence of evolution. When it was their turn to use the microphone in the chat room, they were unwilling to explain how it was evidence of evolution, but instead put forth a 2 minute diatribe of how ignorant and non-scientific creationists are because they deny the obvious fact of evolution. A few others in the chat room did exactly the same thing - make a claim, such as that changes to allele frequency over time is evolution, then when asked how it is evidence or a mechanism for evolution, they provide no explanation and instead provide a 2 minute long diatribe of how evolution is true and creationists are ignorant. After 30 minutes of this repeated failure of the evolutionists to support their claims, they got tired of being cornered for their inability to do so, and asked me for evidence of my "invisible magic man" having created life. So, I explained to them a single example of Irreducible Complexity of the many which could be provided - the fact that the machinery that decodes the genetic information in the DNA to produce proteins is itself encoded in the DNA.

The fact that the machinery which translates the genetic information to produce proteins is itself comprised of proteins is a game-ender for evolution theory. Since the machinery is a product of it's own translation, the DNA, the codes for proteins, and the environment of the cell which includes all of the rest of the features of the cell, must exist in order for the translation of protein codes to take
place. The components must already exist, fully-formed and fully functional, for any of them to exist. This is interdependency which cannot be broken, and therefore Irreducible Complexity. The components could not have evolved piecemeal. Let's imagine that the DNA is like a book coded in a specific digital language (DNA code is digital by the way). Encoded in that book is the machinery which is able to decode the book. In order to decode the book, you must retrieve the information which allows you to produce the decoder machine. The problem is, that since this information is encoded in the book, you cannot translate the code to produce this machinery unless the decoding machinery already exists outside of the source of information which produces the decoder!

What this means in short is that not only did the components exist together in the beginning, but the entire cell did as well because these components require the cell to exist. Since the cell exists all together and fully functioning, and since the cell contains the genome for the entire organism, it follows that the entire organism existed, fully-formed and fully functional in the beginning with no transition or intermediary steps involved whatsoever. One might as well say that the cow came into existence at once, eating grass, swishing it's tail, completely unaware of the fact that it did not exist a nanosecond ago. This is Special Creation, and science has provided empirical evidence of it.

Having provided this single example of Irreducible Complexity which also evidences Special Creation, the evolutionists in the chat room were unable to even address the issue, and simply got on the microphone, one after another, and claimed I had not provided evidence of creation, and insisted that I do so. They would not even discuss my example. I suppose their only defence was to outright dismiss my example, claim I had provided nothing, and demand that I did. I suspect this is because they were both unable to discuss the subject for lack of knowledge about it biologically, and also because they were dumbfounded that such evidence actually exists. The humorous aspect the the failure of every atheist in the room to actually debate evidences is that they actually go to chat rooms, bring up evolution, claim it is a science fact, and mock you for believing in creation.

Apparently, Sky Daddy must have something going, if someone like myself, who has no formal education in biology, is capable of acquiring enough knowledge of it on my own that prevents atheists, even genuine biologists, from being able to debunk what He has created with their pseudo scientific fantasy.

Nicole Russel #transphobia thefederalist.com

The U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case on gender identity and sex Tuesday, in oral arguments for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. James Shupe offered his perspective in an amicus brief for that case.
The following is an interview between me and Shupe, who made waves for being the first “legally non-binary person” in the United States. Shupe achieved clarity through therapy, and returned to life as his birth sex even though the LGBT community shunned him. He’s begun to share his story and speak out against the dangers of transgender medicine.

In 2016, an Oregon circuit court ruled Shupe could change his gender to nonbinary, the first legal ruling of his kind. LGBT activists lauded it as a landmark decision that now plagues Shupe.
Here’s a closer look at his experience living as the opposite sex, regretting it, returning to live as his birth sex, and becoming a vocal opponent of transgender medicine altogether. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
For readers who may be unaware of your journey, describe why you decided to become the “first legally non-binary person” in the United States?
I experienced a major mental health crisis at age 49. I began researching psychiatric issues on the internet. It didn’t take very long for me to stumble upon gender identity disorder, transgenderism, and transsexualism.
At first, I was skeptical that I could actually be a female based on this newly discovered thing called “gender identity,” something I’d never heard of before because I’d always understood myself to be a male. But numerous medical and media articles describing mental health issues disappearing after undergoing a gender transition quickly convinced me that I was a woman and that transition would fix me. I also discovered the Department of Veterans Affairs had a newly launched transgender medical care program [that] erased all of my doubts completely.

At the time, I was especially vulnerable to being duped into believing that I was actually a female trapped in a male body despite not feeling like one for two reasons. 1) I had fragile mental health and was desperate for a cure. 2) During my military career, I’d often cross-dressed for sexual pleasure and had an attraction for men while dressed as a woman, a problem I’d acted out on during several occasions.
So this newly discovered information about being a female because of gender identity based on “feeling like a woman” was a much more palatable explanation for what I had previously understood my behavior to be per military regulations: transvestism.
So, armed with this new information and false beliefs about myself, I immediately began identifying as a transgender woman, mimicking the role of a stereotypical female, and taking female hormones. I also planned to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery to have my penis cosmetically reshaped into a vagina. I was born in 1963, so I’m older than the theory of gender identity, a term first used for transsexuals in 1966 when John Hopkins opened their gender clinic.
Unfortunately, all of this turned out to be delusional thinking. By the end of the charade, I’d come to the realization that my sex change was a failure and a hoax and by then I was just as desperate to escape being legally classified as female as I was previously was to solve my mental health problems.

After a good-faith period of participation in the grand gender experiment, I came to believe the whole thing was smoke and mirrors, complete quackery. By then I knew I wasn’t a female and like others before me, I had similarly discovered by trial and error that changing your sex is impossible. You could say that becoming non-binary gave me the means to save face and as a byproduct, I became famous for doing so.
What does it mean to become non-binary?
Like everything else with gender, non-binary is a made-up term. It’s a “catch-all” terminology for all of the transgender identities that fall outside of male and female. It can mean anything from you think of yourself as transmasculine or transfeminine, or neither male or female, or even a combination of the two.
How long did it take before you realized your quest to become non-binary was actually a result of trauma?
It wasn’t until late 2018 and early 2019 after two psychiatric hospitalizations that I was able to face up to the truth about myself and my sexual behaviors. Once I was willing to do that, I became familiarized with what Dr. Ray Blanchard had correctly theorized about men like me decades ago: that I am sexually attracted and aroused by the idea of myself as a female.
Dr. Blanchard claims there are two types of transgender women: homosexuals attracted to men, and men who are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as females. The latter is the most prominent population group in western countries, and sadly that’s the motivation for all of these middle-aged men such as myself who begin to believe they are women after what’s essentially a sexual fetish has been undiagnosed, gone untreated, or been misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and has then escalated and developed into an alter ego female personality.

First, my sexual behaviors were a coping mechanism for my very painful mental health issues that were rooted in the trauma of my childhood sexual abuse as well as violence I’d experienced and witnessed. Second, I was also now feeding what had become an escalating sexual addiction that was being fueled by pornography and yet another sexual paraphilia I’d developed: masochism. Experts in these fields of expertise state that sexual paraphilias are often comorbid and I agree.
Who bears the blame for your transition? You? Your doctors?
I’ve gotten feedback that insinuates that I got exactly what I asked for from my medical providers during my two gender transitions. But the truth is my doctors and mental health professionals bear significant blame, because the work of Blanchard and others on autogynephilia was published all the way back in the 1980s, yet most psychologists and psychiatrists either know nothing about it or intentionally chose ignorance. It’s framed as an unpopular diagnosis.
When I confronted my caregivers at the VA that had rubber-stamped me with gender dysphoria instead of a sexual paraphilia and asked to be reevaluated, their response was to fire me as a patient and then claim that they had no experience treating sexual paraphilias. However, the VA has already done studies explaining why people like me are acting out sexually but the folks treating me didn’t put two and two together. Instead, they fed and enabled the delusion that I was a woman, making them the most culpable.
Describe when and how you realized you needed to “de-transition.”
Becoming non-binary was like redoing the whole gender experiment all over again with different parameters and then getting the same outcome. I didn’t stop taking hormones and by then I had an even bigger mess to walk back because I was no longer a relatively obscure transgender woman. I now had international fame associated with the landmark court decision to cope with, making reclaiming my birth sex much more difficult.
But admitting and accepting the truth about myself gave me the strength to reclaim my male birth sex. And after I did, I began treatment for my correct diagnosis: a transvestic disorder with autogynephilia.
What does “de-transitioning” feel like? Is there a feeling of loss? Anger? Relief? Is it harder than transitioning?
There was no sense of loss and it’s certainly easier than transitioning because you’re not fighting against your biological reality, societal pushback, and forcing others to indulge your delusion.
I do have plenty of anger about having been medically experimented on by people with advanced degrees who should have known better, leaving me feeling duped about having fallen for the quack theory that I have a gender identity. I now realize that I don’t.
I was falsely led by mental health practitioners to believe that my feelings decided my sex, but that’s neither scientific, measurable, nor enduring because my feelings can and have changed. I’ve come to realize and accept that the only thing capable of reliably grounding me to reality is my male chromosomes and reproductive system.
All of this legal fiction and outright fraud has indeed left me very bitter and angry. I want the people who have caused me physical and mental harm held accountable for their actions and roles in the medical experimentation that was perpetrated against me.
Do you believe most people who have decided they are transgender would have been better off remaining their biological sex?
Yes, I believe everyone would be better off being recognized solely as their biological sex. The medical procedures being touted as “gender transitions,” if they work at all, are in fact nothing more than cosmetic changes to people’s bodies. I’m proof of that.
But here’s the biggest thing: even if you could somehow argue the medical treatments are legitimate hormonal and surgical procedures, lying to the patient about being another sex based on the pseudoscience of gender identity and forcing everyone else to play along is nothing short of medical malpractice and legal fiction.
How did you decide to go from a non-binary person who has de-transitioned to somewhat of a public critic? Is your personal story well received?
First and foremost I had to do so because people were continuing to use my court decision to put more and more non-binary sex markers on state driver’s licenses, and they were also continuing to write about my court case in academic and legal journals. And this was occurring against a backdrop of readily available information on the internet, my Wikipedia page, and on my personal website explaining that I had reclaimed my birth sex. Some of these folks were intentionally casting me in a false light to advance gender ideology.
What are your expectations for the case SCOTUS is about to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as it relates to your personal journey? Should gender identity be protected under the law like sex?
I think the justices will rule in favor of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes and protect religious freedom because the male plaintiff, who claims to be a female is, in my opinion, the exact same thing as I am: A cross-dressing man that is sexually aroused by the image of himself as a woman. I sincerely believe that he and I both suffer from a transvestic disorder and with what Dr. Blanchard refers to as autogynephilia.
While I believe that autogynephilia is a mental health problem worthy of treatment and compassion, based on my experience I think it’s unworthy of public or employment accommodation, even if it has progressed to gender dysphoria.
Like myself, because the man in the case who now identifies as a woman’s transvestic disorder has apparently gone untreated for probably decades, and because quack theories about gender have been allowed to proliferate and infiltrate society and law, his sexual identity problem has apparently gotten so out of control that he now believes he’s a female. That’s unfortunate, but he’s not a woman and neither was I. So I feel the Supreme Court needs to set the nation straight about that in order to protect females and religious freedom.
We need to quit wasting so much time and resources and return to a clear-cut definition of biological sex because a lot of children are now being harmed by gender ideology too. As to whether gender should be protected under the law? The answer is no, because it’s based on nothing more than personal feelings, perceptions, stereotypes, and pseudoscience.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
The Ku Klux Klan, commonly referred to as the KKK, was purportedly founded on December 24, 1865, by six Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee during the Reconstruction Era post American Civil War. The secret society was first known as the "Kuklux Clan", a name derived from the combination of the Greek words “kyklos” (??????), meaning “clan” and “kuklos” (??????), meaning “circle”, inferring a circle or a band of brothers. Aside from term “Knights”, which has historically been used by orders affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, the logo of the KKK bears a Roman Cross superimposed with an icon representative of the number “6” which equates to the letter "F" or the " ?" (i.e., the double-cross) in the Roman Score (i.e., the Roman alphabet). As witnessed by the numerous KKK members who were tried and convicted decades after their respective hate crimes, the double-cross is always in play. In other words, members of the KKK are routinely sacrificed once they have fulfilled their respective missions. Fifty years after its inception, the KKK re-established itself in Atlanta, Georgia in 1915 atop Stone Mountain. Founder William J. Simmons and other were members of the Knights of Mary Phagan, a secret society likely affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, the organization and its chapters adopted regalia featured in “The Birth of a Nation” (1915), including white costumes, robes, masks and conical hats which are coincidentally also Greco-Roman in origin. The KKK also began to use paraphernalia adorned with a white Roman Cross on a red shield. At its peak, Klan membership reportedly exceeded 4 million and was comprised of 20% of the adult white male population. However, as of 2012, the KKK was estimated to have between 5,000 and 8,000 members and 150 Klan chapters. It is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Aside from the Southern Cross of New Orleans, Knights, orders and secret societies affiliated with the KKK include but are not limited to: the Bayou Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; the Imperial Klans of America, Knights of Mary Phagan, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, the True Ku Klux Klan. the United Klans of America (UKA), the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and the Women of the Ku Klux Klan.


KKK Under CIA Control
Similar to most secret societies (e.g., Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, etc.), the KKK claims that it is not one organization but rather that it is composed of small independent chapters. They also claim that they never operated under a centralized structure, despite the existence of the United Klans of America (UKA), one of the largest Ku Klux Klan organizations in the U.S. which admittedly had “tens of thousands” of members. Nevertheless, modern historical sources emphatically state that “there was little organizational structure above the local level”. Klan organizers entitled "Kleagles" reportedly traveled the country, signing up hundreds of new members who paid initiation fees, receiving KKK costumes in return. Historical sources state that “The organizer kept half the money and sent the rest to state or national officials”, further confirming a top down command structure within the KKK. Whether the Fraternal Order of the Eagles is connected to the Kleagles and the KKK is not known, but they both appeared in America around the same general time. The first national leader and Grand Wizard of the KKK, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men and that he could muster 40,000 Klansmen within 5 day notice. Needless to say, this would not be possible if there was no centralized structure within the Klan. Although the KKK claims to be an "invisible" group with no membership rosters, no chapters, and no local officers, in 1925 a Klansman was bribed for the secret membership list and subsequently exposed Klansmen running in the state primaries. Modern historical accounts even state that the so-called “second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure”, rendering the aforementioned claims of independence obsolete. During the Civil Rights Movement in the American South, the KKK forged alliances with the police department in the South (e.g., Birmingham, Alabama) and with Southern governors (e.g., George Wallace of Alabama). The fact that they conspired with the state to commit acts of terror across the South confirms that the KKK was in fact a state-sponsored terrorist organization. According to historian Brian R. Farmer, "two-thirds of the national Klan lecturers were Protestant ministers”, a statistic which suggests that there was a federal program to incite hate across the South. It has also been revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has paid informants within the Klan who were active in Birmingham in the early 1960s. In 1964, the FBI's COINTELPRO program admittedly infiltrated and disrupted civil rights groups from within while the KKK attacked them publically. In other words, the FBI and the KKK worked in unison to destroy the Civil Rights Movement which was bringing black and white people together, a threat to the establishment and the status quo. The notion that the KKK is intimately affiliated with the FBI was further confirmed when Bill Wilkinson of the Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was revealed to have been working for the FBI. Due to the KKK’s uncanny ability to avoid prosecution for their hate crimes and their intimate relationship with the U.S. government, namely the FBI, it can be ascertained that the organization is highly organized and under command and control of the CIA of Switzerland.

KKK & Prohibition
The KKK’s allegiance to the U.S. government was never more apparent than during prohibition which decimated rural America’s self-sustainability and caused widespread economic damage the country. Historian Prendergast stated that the KKK’s "support for prohibition represented the single most important bond between Klansmen throughout the nation”. This confirms, albeit in a de facto manner, that the KKK was on the payroll of the U.S. government. In 1922, two hundred Klan members set fire to saloons in Union County, Arkansas, terrorizing the South. Their use of violence against bars, bootleggers and distilleries was widespread, working hand in hand with the U.S. government against the people of America.

KKK Legislation
In response to KKK-related violence, the U.S. federal government passed the Force Acts in 1870 and 1871 which were allegedly used to prosecute Klan crimes. However, in 1876, the Supreme Court of the United States eviscerated the Ku Klux Act in “United States v. Cruikshank” (1875) when they ruled that the federal government could no longer prosecute individuals although states would be forced to comply with federal civil rights provisions. The result was that African Americans were at the mercy of hostile state governments that refused to intervene against their own private paramilitary groups. In other words, there would be no federal prosecution of the Klan and therefore they could continue terrorizing the South as they pleased. Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in “United States v. Harris” (1882) that the Klan Act was partially unconstitutional. They stated that Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend to the right to regulate against private conspiracies. Again, the U.S. federal government openly allowed the Klan to operative with impunity, repealing all federal laws that could be used to prosecute them. Therefore, it must be concluded that the KKK was a federally funded program that they did not want to interrupt.

Terror Arm of Democratic Party
Evidence acquired to date indicates that the KKK was primarily used as the terror arm of the Democratic Party. According to historian Eric Foner: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party…Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to…destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life”. According to historical sources, “The members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats”, launching a "reign of terror against Republican leaders both black and white. Those political leaders assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions”. The Klan also attacked black members of the Loyal Leagues and intimidated southern Republicans and Freedmen's Bureau workers. They killed black political leaders, heads of families, and leaders of churches and community groups because they had prominent leadership roles in society. In North and South Carolina alone, within an 18-month period from ending in June of 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault”. To add insult to injury, the KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact. Again, the KKK was working hand in hand with a state-sponsored political party, further confirming that they themselves were in fact state-sponsored.

KKK Cover
Although a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization” in 1870, its member remained free to terrorize the South for over a century. Reason being, the KKK was a cover for federal intelligence operation being executed in the South. If a politician or labor party leader needed to be assassinated, their subsequent murder would be blamed on the Klan. In other words, the KKK was the scapegoat for thousands of acts of state-sponsored terrorism. The notion that the KKK was nothing more than federal cover was corroborated by historical sources which state in-part: “Many people not formally inducted into the Klan had used the Klan's costume for anonymity, to hide their identities when carrying out acts of violence…While people used the Klan as a mask for nonpolitical crimes, state and local governments seldom acted against them.” The fact that the government did not prosecute said crime further confirms that the KKK was a state-sponsored organization. This notion was also substantiated by a Georgia-based reporter who wrote in 1870: "A true statement of the case is not that the Ku Klux are an organized band of licensed criminals, but that men who commit crimes call themselves Ku Klux.” Historical sources also state that: “The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s.”

“The Birth of a Nation”
Just prior to the Ku Klux Klan re-establishing itself atop Stone Mountain in Georgia, a film entitled “The Birth of a Nation” (1915) was released nationwide on February 8, 1915. In short, the film served as the advertisement for the new and improved KKK. The film was allegedly based on Thomas Dixon, Jr.’s book “The Leopard's Spots” (1902), as well as his book and play entitled “The Clansman” (1905). Dixon stated that his purpose was "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!" In other words, his work was designed to reignite racial and political tension between the North and South along the lines of the previously fought American Civil War. In “The Clansman”, Dixon falsely claimed that the KKK had used burning crosses when rallying to fight against Reconstruction. Nevertheless, film director D. W. Griffith repeatedly portrayed an upright Roman Cross on fire in “The Birth of a Nation” rather than the St. Andrew's cross which was historically accurate. Due to the movie, a burning Roman Cross has been associated with the Klan ever since. Consequently, William J. Simmons displayed an upright burning Roman Cross atop Stone Mountain during the KKK’s second founding. Because “The Birth of a Nation” (see movie) was a Hollywood propaganda film that mythologized and glorified the Ku Klux Klan, it made the terrorist organization a household name overnight. The film is credited with single-handedly reviving the KKK in America. By portraying the Ku Klux Klan a heroic force, the film created an artificially induced Klan craze, exactly as it was designed to do. Needless to say, the movie has been used as a recruiting tool by the KKK ever since. At the official premiere in Atlanta, Georgia, members of the Klan rode up and down the street on horses in front of the theater, a publicity stunt designed to invoke fear in the South. As depicted in the movie poster for “The Birth of a Nation”, much of the modern Klan's iconography, including the standardized white costume, the white cross on a red shield, and the burning cross, were all derived from the film. Under Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, the “The Birth of a Nation” was the first motion picture to be screened at the White House. In order to create even more racial tension and turmoil in America, Wilson, a Southerner, endorsed the film. According to a Hollywood press agent, Wilson stated after watching the film, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true”. Naturally, Wilson's alleged remarks generated a national scandal, causing Wilson’s staff issued an official denial on April 30, 1915. According to a press release from Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, "The President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it”. Due to its phenomenal success in causing unprecedented racial division in America, the “The Birth of a Nation” is often ranked as one of the greatest American films of all time.

Anti-Catholic Agenda
In order to publically disassociate itself from the Roman Catholic Church, it’s alleged founder and funder, the Ku Klux Klan has disseminated various forms of anti-Catholic propaganda, especially since its second founding in 1915. Shortly after the pro-KKK Hollywood propaganda film entitled “The Birth of a Nation” (1915) was released in America, the KKK suddenly focused on the impending threat of teh Catholic Church, resorting to anti-Catholicism and nativism. Although a book entitled “Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty” (1926) was allegedly responsible for fostering the Anti-Catholic sediment, it’s far more likely that the Catholic Church wanted to distance itself from the KKK after funding the aforementioned film which generated an uncontrollable and unpredictable KKK movement. In a cartoon from 1926, the Ku Klux Klan is depicted chasing the Roman Catholic Church (personified by St. Patrick) from the shores of America. The "snakes" in the cartoon are labeled with the negative attributes of the Church, including superstition, union of church and state, control of public schools, and intolerance. In another carton from 1926 entitled "The End", a KKK member is depicted with an American flag and a Bible sitting atop a fat Roman Catholic priest. Historian Roger K. Newman stated that KKK politician Hugo Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave over 100 anti-Catholic speeches at KKK meetings in Alabama during his 1926 U.S. senate campaign. Black was subsequently rewarded for anti-Catholic rhetoric when he was elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate later that year. Although Black said he left the Klan when he became a senator, it is highly unlikely. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Black to the U.S. Supreme Court despite his activity in the Klan.

KKK Bombings
During the Civil Rights Movement and the days of Martin Luther King, Jr., there were so many Klan bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, that the city's nickname was "Bombingham". During the tenure of Bull Connor, the police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, Klan groups were closely allied with the police and operated with impunity, showing once again that the KKK was and is a state-sponsored terrorist organization. In states such as Alabama and Mississippi, Klan members also forged alliances with the governors' administrations. When the Freedom Riders arrived in Birmingham, Connor gave Klan members 15 minutes to attack the riders before sending in the police to quell the attack. In Birmingham and elsewhere, the KKK bombed the houses of civil rights activists, also using physical violence, intimidation and executing assassinations. According to a report from the Southern Regional Council in Atlanta, the homes of 40 black Southern families were bombed between 1951 and 1952. The Ku Kulx Klan was responsible for numerous murders during the Civil Rights Movement, including but not limited to: the 1951 Christmas Eve bombing of the home of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) activists Harry and Harriette Moore in Mims, Florida, resulting in their deaths; the 1957 murder of Willie Edwards, Jr. Klansmen forced Edwards to jump to his death from a bridge into the Alabama River; the 1963 assassination of NAACP organizer Medgar Evers in Mississippi; the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed four African-American girls; the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, in Mississippi; the 1964 murder of two black teenagers, Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore in Mississippi; the 1965 murder of Viola Liuzzo was transporting Civil Rights Marchers in Alabama; and the 1966 firebombing death of NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer Sr., 58, in Mississippi.

Knights of the White Camelia
The Knights of the White Camelia was purportedly founded on May 22, 1867 in Franklin, Louisiana by Colonel Alcibiades DeBlanc, a Confederate veteran. The name was derived from a snow-white flower of the genus Camellia, an apparent reference to the required skin color of its members. The secret society supported white supremacy, opposed to the Republican Party, and was very similar to the Ku Klux Klan with whom it associated with. Unlike the Klan however, which drew much of its membership from lower-class southerners and Confederate veterans, members of the Knights of White Camelia were mainly upper crust southerners, including doctors, landowners, newspaper editors, and officers. By 1870, the original Knights of the White Camelia allegedly ceased to exist. Like so many other secret societies, their alleged demise has likely been exaggerated. In other words, the Order appears to have gone undercover. Louisiana Judge Taylor Beattie, who led the Thibodaux massacre of 1887, and David Theophilus Stafford, the Louisiana adjutant general, were both member so the Order. In 1939, TIME magazine quoted West Virginian George E. Deatherage as saying that he was the "national commander of the Knights of the White Camellia", suggesting that the Order is alive and well. Based on their use of the Roman Cross and their close relationship with the Ku Klux Klan, it can be ascertained that the Order was founded and sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.

Whisper #sexist trp.red

“No means no!”

You’ve heard this before. And you know it ain’t so. Because if you have been doing this a while, you have often heard “no”, and eventually gotten to “yes, please”, and even “harder, daddy”.

So what does “no means no” actually mean?

Well, if you’re the sort of man who gets to “harder, daddy”, you know that women usually say things that aren’t literally true. This is not just about lying… women use language differently.

And the phrase “no means no” is a particularly clever piece of female-language technology. It’s a Rorschach test. You know, that business with the inkblots, where some headshrink whips out a card and some people say it’s a bat and other people say it’s a moth.

It’s neither… it’s a card. None of us use language literally. Keep that in mind as you try to understand women.

So, when men hear “no means no”, they interpret it differently, and that separates them into two categories…. this is exactly what women intend. This kind of language is also known as a “dog whistle” in certain other contexts.

Some men hear “Anytime a woman says no, you should stop forever”. These are men who take “no means no” literally, because they are unable to decode the way women use language.
Other men hear “No means no when I say later that it did. But if you get to ‘yes’, I will never bring this up.” These are the men who can decode woman-speak.
Each of these types of men gets the message that women want them to hear.

They don’t want clueless men who don’t know of the existence of a “soft no” to be ignoring “no”… because then they might ignore a “hard no”, which makes for stalkeriffic behaviour.
But they WANT men who are dialed in to persist in the face of a “soft no”, while stopping in the somewhat more rare occasion of a “hard no”.
So, just like the “soft no” itself, the phrase “no means no” is used to measure a man’s social savvy, and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff.

So, how do different types of man respond to “no means no”?

Your standard Bernie-Sanders-voting bugman takes it literally, agrees enthusiastically, and often goes for years without seeing a naked women in the flesh. These are the guys women want taking this phrase literally.
Your standard PUA type ignores it inside his head, but agrees out loud so as not to be detected. These are the guys women want to ignore this phrase.
Your standard red pill novice realizes it isn’t literally true, gets mad, and calls out the “lie”. These are the guys women are most afraid of… he’s too savvy to miss the lie, but not smooth enough to play along. They are afraid this means big stalker potential.
A fully realized red pill men doesn’t merely ignore it while making the correct noises…. He constructs a dog whistle of his own, using his word choice and behaviour to let women that this isn’t his first rodeo and everything will be alright.
If any of this is news to you, then I’ve just turned you into the third type of guy, and your mission is to turn yourself into the fourth.

Here’s some things to keep in mind:

There are hard and soft “no”s.
Women want you to be able to tell the difference.
But if you can’t, they want to treat them all as hard, because having a hard no treated as a soft one is what they fear most.
They will almost never admit to any of this in literal language, because if any man who can’t tell hears it explained to him, the game stops working and bad things might happen.
Learn to spot the difference.
Getting it right is your responsibility, not hers.
Never try to discuss this openly with women. Just learn to indicate with your actions that you know.
You can sometimes pretend to treat a soft no as a hard one, if you need to overcome ASD, do a freezeout for LMR, or just to play her like a fish on a line. Don’t act butthurt. Big grin.

3407 #racist stormfront.org

Israel is the head of the beast [roman empire] that received a deadly wound and was revived, The Vatican is the second state which is the second witness of satan the god of this world. A rabbi I interviewed at the Jewish Congress in Toronto said there are rabbis who believe Israel should not have been allowed to form under German and British Guidance.


IS = Isis
RA = Ra
EL = YHVH


IS/RA/EL [trinity, father son holy ghost]

This is the encoded meaning of the word.

As for snakes an HQs most agree the ancient tablets [Sumeria] and NASA say the HQ that admins this planet has bases on the moon. Far away and safe from planetary extermination.

Israel is a biblical word as is Jew
I STILL want to know what Jew means in the context of this forum.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

(after being referred to a talkorigins.org list of 29 proofs of evolution)

"Common Sense is Not Science" - it's assumption
"Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via INFERENCE" - Speculation
Why don't you stop hiding behind website links and post one of your own topics? Probably because all you have is blind faith.

Inceldemographic #fundie reddit.com

Why do normies believe climate change but not looks science?

Isn't there just as much, if not more, scientific evidence for looks theory compared to climate change? Climate change is based on correlation which may not necessarily mean causation, but looks theory is based on actual randomised controlled and repeateable experiments which is the true gold standard of science. In fact, mini experiments are Automatically done for it whenever you go on tinder!

P.s someone on bluepill sub believed there was no correlation between Testosterone and violence and incels are more likely to commit violence hahahahahahahhaha

Mariosep #fundie atheistforums.org

Okay, dear colleagues here, thanks for your presence and contribution.


I shall now return to my idea that babies are caused by their papas and mamas.

If you atheists deny this, please tell me who or what caused babies.

If you do not deal with babies and their causation, I beg for your indulgence because I will not interact with you.

So, that will be an occasion for readers who care to follow the causation of babies as ultimately leading to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, the occasion to decide whether to read your posts or not.

For myself, I will opt to save myself time and labor to interact with you at all.


You see, dear readers here, it is my submission that causation is the key to the resolution of the issue God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Now, in regard to atheists who want to belabor what they claim is already the fallacy of affirming the consequent, I will just not bother with them, because these posters have nothing to do with the objective reality of existence like babies coming forth from the causation of their papas and mamas, except to read textbooks to learn all in their mind and nothing of any connecting with the reality of the existence of babies, to play their mental games of seek the fallacy.

drf333 #fundie bbc.co.uk

It seems that you are not will to admit that most of the scientific methodology is subjected to assumptions, bias, speculations and inference just to name a few. Take carbon dating it is used to date things to about 50000 years, so something that is supposed to be 1 million years old should not have any carbon 14. Yet we find diamonds with carbon 14. What does that mean? Well it can two meanings either it is young than 50000 or carbon 14 has leeched into the diamond from the environment, which means we cannot really use carbon 14 to date anything because the data for the age could have been corrupted by carbon 14 being leeched from the environment

later in same post]

Which are just proofs or evidence that evolution does not exists. Without intelligence computers, technology and medicine would not exist. Has anyone observe computers, technology or medicine evolve by themselves without the use of intelligence?

Yvonne Pelchat & Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

*Yvonne Pelchat Levene*: God and evolution can’t both be true. I believe in God. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God said it and I believe it so that settles it.

*Brant Watson*: okay no nonsense for you then. Scientists simply do not need god’s intervention.

*Tomas Matiev*: Not correct. God basically is the "why", evolution is basically the "how".

*Yvonne Pelchat Levene*: true science agrees with the Bible. The Bible was not written to be a science book. If science doesn’t go along with what is in the Bible it’s not the Bible that is in error. The Bible is the why and how. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son.


*Rayburne Winsor*: That's right, Yvonne, God and evolution both can't be true. They are diametrically opposite. "Goo-to-you" evolution is development over eons of years, whereas Genesis 1 is special creation (Genesis 1) is supernatural creation by divine fiat (spoke Word of God) ex nihilo (out of nothing);

My Poem about Evolution.

Once upon a time certain chemicals interacted in a primordial goo,
as the result of a lightning strike just suddenly out of the blue.
Which miraculous spontaneous generation of life is supposed to explain the origin of evolution “from the goo, through the zoo, to you.”
No wonder why some scientists call this a curious conundrum,
and it has stirred up quite a sensation.

Since one must explain how nature fabricated the first digital information processor—the original living cell—which wrote its own software and self-reproduced,
though matter, energy and physical laws cannot create genetic information.
cientists now know the internal structure of a cell is far more complex than the infrastructure of a large city.
And because they reject any notion of an outside, super-intelligent Creator-Designer,
their molecules-to-man explanation is really to be pitied.

Now acclaimed atheist Richard Dawkins will grant you this much,
he believes the little green men did it.
He explains that aliens planted the seeds for original life,
and that we all had better get with it.
Well, that’s like saying that because people claim to have seen UFOs, they must be real or something.
The SETI project has tried to find signs of intelligent (extraterrestrial) life for years,
And they have come up with nothing.

Then, you have the fossil record that shows all life-forms appear abruptly and fully formed,
without evidence of evolutionary ancestors (transitional fossils) in the geological strata underneath.
All of which makes the creationists smile,
but the evolutionist squirm in his seat.

There are a few fossils highly disputed even among evolutionary scientists to be intermediate or “in transition.”
Like Archaeopteryx (“dino-bird”) alleged to be intermediate between reptiles and birds,
which bird experts like Paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia,
show is nothing more than science fiction.
Evolutionists would have us believe that some reptile running along the ground felt it needed faster locomotion.
So, it evolved feathers and took to the air,
And caused a “flying reptilian monster commotion.”

Yes, evolutionists cling to their “flying monster sensation,” though it is totally absurd.
Because Archaeopteryx possessed large wishbone, elliptical wings, perching feet, fully-formed feathers and unique avian lung design and inner ear--
--all features of a true bird.

Well, to move up the branches on the evolutionary tree is to go from one phyla or kind to a totally different kind.
And, despite the conspicuous absence of billions of transitional fossils in between,
most evolutionists still think their theory sublime.

Just believe in this fairy tale for grown-ups with all your mind,
and there will be no need for the princess to kiss the frog,
the frog will become the prince over eons of time.

No wonder kids today appear oftentimes bewildered and confused,
and set their hearts on things below, and not above.
They don’t know where they’re going because they don’t know where they came from,
nor do they know the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ to be a God of love.

So, what can we do to reach this “lost” generation and be part of the solution.
We can teach our kids early in life that they were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27),
not by a process of unplanned, mindless, accidental, naturalistic evolution.

We can let them see by our words and deeds that we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.
So, that we can be channels of God’s grace and love to tell salvation’s story.
That God so loved this ungodly world that He gave His only begotten Son to die for undeserving sinners, such as you and I,
and His invitation to partake of the water of life freely is for all who will receive Him as their Lord and Savior today (John 1:12-13);
it will be too late after we die. God bless.

Derek Rake #sexist derekrake.com

“Psychopath.” “Misogynist.” “Narcissist.”

Hardly a day goes by without me getting called one of these names.

Shogun Method has made me, Derek Rake, a villain.

I’ve been vilified by the press (a major newspaper columnist called me a “sadomasochistic, chauvinist hog”), hated on by hardcore feminists (I get emails threatening to “cut my balls” all the time) and despised by a colluding gang of “Pickup Artists” and “Seduction Gurus” (for calling them out on their bullshit advice.)

And yet, frankly, I don’t care.

The word has to get out.

...

The truth is that when it comes to dating and relationships, guys have always gotten the short end of the stick.

In the modern times, men are the new women. Period.

How so? Well, we have been conditioned to allow women to walk all over us, mentally and emotionally. We have given up on our masculinity in order to make women happy (often times at the expense of our own happiness.)

Pathetic!

There are no two ways about it… we must take the power back.

(And with Shogun Method, we will.)

Listen here. It’s entirely un-political correct to say this, but it’s true:

Women are born manipulators.

Lying and deception is probably hard-wired into their DNA by nature.

When a woman gets into a relationship with a guy, her natural instinct is to find ways to pussy-whip him into lifelong subservience.

No fucking joke.

And to make things worse, most guys don’t even know that they’re being manipulated like wooden puppets at a carnival show.

...

On the other hand, Shogun Method is exactly what you need if any ONE of the following describes you:

You don’t merely want women to be attracted to you. You want to put them under your control and domination for as long as you want.
You’re done with dating around, and you want to settle down with one special woman that you want to be with for the long term.
Your woman is losing interest in you, and you need to rekindle her attraction to you, fast.
Another guy is in the picture, and you want to destroy that jerk-off so that she only has eyes for you.
You want a stable relationship which is free of drama, mind games and emotional turmoil.
You’re tired of being the “nice guy“, and you want women to respect you for the man you are.
You’re sick of getting stuck in the friend zone, and you want women to see you as a potential lover.
You’re willing to use psychological manipulation techniques on women to get what you want.

If ANY ONE of the above describes your situation, then congratulations – Shogun Method absolutely fits the bill.
Why It’s Not Enough To “Seduce” A Woman… You Got To ENSLAVE Her

Have you ever wondered why most “Pickup” or “Seduction” advice programs fail?

Well, here’s the answer:

As its namesake would suggest, “Pickup” or “Seduction” tricks are good for what it says on the box… for “picking up” and “seducing” women.

To control and dominate a woman, “seduction” is not enough, my friend. You’ve got to ENSLAVE her.

image

You see, if your woman is losing interest in you, there could only be one reason, and it’s this…

It’s because you didn’t take the final step to enslave her to you.

You’d have realized that it’s just as easy for her to fall OUT of love with you as she fell IN love with you.

On the other hand, ENSLAVEMENT is a one-way street.

Once a woman is enslaved to you, she’s pretty much yours… forever.

See the difference?
Four Steps To Eternal Enslavement – The IRAE Model

So how do enslave a woman to you then?

Answer: in four simple steps.

These steps or stages are summarized into what we call the IRAE Model –

The first stage is the “I” stage – Intrigue Generation
The second stage is the “R” stage – Rapport Building
The third stage is the “A” stage – Attraction Development
The fourth (and final) stage is the “E” stage – Enslavement

These stages are strictly sequential: it means that one follows another in a strict, step-by-step sequence.

image

...

Enslavement Stage

There’s only one Shogun Sequence in the Enslavement stage, and it is the Black Rose Sequence (which we will describe in the next section.)
What Is The Black Rose Sequence?

The endpoint of the Shogun Method is Enslavement.

(Befittingly, it’s also the fourth and the final IRAE stage.)

The Enslavement stage is divided into two steps:

First, you’ll segregate her by isolating her from the outside world.

(This is done by using a combo of techniques which are similar to what cult leaders use to build a following which is completely fanatical to their cause.)

Then, when she is sufficiently isolated, you’ll then perform an Enslavement routine on her called the Black Rose Sequence.

Here’s what it does:

It “erases” a woman’s existing identity, and a new identity (named “Persephone”) is installed in its place.

“Persephone” is designed to be completely enslaved to you emotionally, and psychologically programmed to need you to survive.

(In other words, in her mind, quitting you is a sheer impossibility.)

The Enslavement module inside Shogun Method contains the complete Black Rose Sequence in all its glory – all the scripts and action steps you need to take are here.

Before you use the Black Rose on a woman, you must remember two things:

She must have gone through all the preceding IRAE stages with you (Intrigue, Rapport and Attract) – otherwise you’ll come across as a downright psychopath to her, and
You can’t “undo” the Enslavement effect. Once she is Enslaved to you, it’s possibly forever.

Look: I won’t deny that the Black Rose is somewhat sinister (because frankly, it is).

There’s nothing which is going to stop someone from going on a rampage and using the Black Rose on everyone he meets… leaving behind a disastrous trail of Enslaved females with damaged psyche.

Make no mistake… the danger is very real.

Shogun Method is not a game.

Only join us if you reckon you can deal with its consequences.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

The 1-to-10 scale is used to rate women's physical attractiveness. Tuthmosis states, "I use halves (.5s) to achieve a little more precision. The idea is that a girl who’s almost at that next level—but doesn’t quite have it takes to get the rating outright—will get a .5. I’ll also occasionally grant (or deduct) halves for “intangibles”—things like extraordinary sweetness (or bitchiness), a sexy vibe (or awkwardness), or a personal preference (though I’m quick to disclose the latter)."[1]

Tuthmosis has argued that the scale is pointless because "It seems we have to account for taste after all. . . . Guys rate their own catches high and others' low. Big-ballerism is rampant. . . . Most guys can't extrapolate. . . . Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks. . . . It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments."[2] General Stalin notes, "Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, the 1-10 scale is difficult in practice. Generally men can agree whether or not a girl is attractive or not, but to get specifics on how attractive, as Tuth said, calls upon a lot of discretion. Using objective and universal characteristics like symmetry, physical fitness, hip-to-waist ratio, hygiene, etc. are decent points to go on, but everyone has a particular level of preference and ego that makes true objectivity impossible. Men have been referencing the 1-10 scale for an awful long time so I don't see it going anywhere and everyone has a general understanding of it. Dispute over specifics is where men just get into a pissing contest."[3]

MrXY writes, "A 7 is a girl I would describe as being 'pretty'. A 6 to me is 'cute' and an 8 is 'beautiful'".[4]

General Stalin writes:[5]

6/10 is average OK looks. Bangable and respectable but nothing to write home to mom about (not that you should be writing letters to your mom about your conquests)

7/10 is sort of perfect "girlfriend" territory. Where the girl is good looking enough to keep you interested in the long term, but not too good looking where she has a crazy ego or you get anxious about having to mate guard when you go out.

8/10 is where a girl is good looking enough to be able to start making money on her looks. Could be a stripper, bartender, IG hoe, fitness chick, etc. These girls are often crazy, especially where they live a fine line between normal and glamorous life style.

9/10 is a stunner. Model good looks. Gets tons of attention everywhere she goes because of her beauty. Can make a good living off of her looks alone. Most women at this level of physical beauty tend to shack up with wealthy/famous men because they can.

10/10 doesn't exists. No one is perfect. The idea of a "10" would be a girl that has something that a 9 has that makes her specifically more attractive per your personal tastes. Maybe you really fucking love gingers and this girl is a 9 who happens to have long red hair and freckles. There is your 10.

Hume's cheat sheet

L D. Hume notes that the appropriate level of investment in a girl?? depends on her rating:[6]

<table>

Rating Long term relationship Short term relationship Fuck buddy Booty call One night stand
1-4 No No No No Rarely
5 No No No No Sometimes
6 No No Sure I guess Yes Yes
7 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
8-10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scale

0

Tuthmosis states, "No Such Thing. Has a dick."

1

Tuthmosis states, "Hideously Unattractive. A monster. Disfigured or irretrievably mutilated. Has two heads, is missing an eye, etc."

2

Tuthmosis states, "Very Unattractive. Disproportionate, morbidly obese."

3

Tuthmosis states, "Unattractive. Ugly, fat, and/or old."

4

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Bangable. But definitely doesn't pass the boner test. Still not good-looking." According to L.D. Hume, girls 4 and lower on the scale are suitable only for one night stands, and even then only when blackout drunk or when one has had sex with fewer than five girls in one's life and is trying to gain experience.

5

Tuthmosis states, "Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her." Hume notes that having sex with such girls is "Almost always a result of excessive, yet not blackout amounts of alcohol. The 'last call at the club' slut coupled with a dry streak."

6

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn't be proud, and you definitely wouldn't willingly bring her around to anything." Hume describes this as "actually the most dangerous category. The 6s are the most likely to finagle you into a relationship. The sheer number of 6s means you are bound to run into some that have a decent personality, or amazing blowjob skills. Your male hamster will start spinning, thinking about how her tight body overlooks the weird haircut and acne she has. Or how her cute face overrides her baby fat."

7

Tuthmosis states, "Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game." Hume notes that they are suited for short-term but not long-term relationships:

As to why they are not suited for a long term relationship, the reason is simple—there is just better out there in the world. There are 8s and above. So why, even though she is a cute girl and may have the personality traits to go along with it, settle for a 7? It’s a very very tough thing to advise against and even harder to put in practice. I’ve fallen into the trap myself several times.

The answer of course lies in something that most men have yet to experience. The feeling of dating an 8, which is exponentially better (though admittedly harder to pull off) than a 7. I’ve dabbled in this before and it does make a difference. Try to keep the 7s at bay for the short term relationships and everything below. Instead, use the time you would put LTR’ing a 7 into bettering yourself for the 8.

8

Tuthmosis states, "Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material."

9

Tuthmosis states, "Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her."

10

Tuthmosis states, "Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory." Athlone McGinnis agrees.[7] According to Donovan Sharpe, tens don’t get hit on as often, are much more pleasant than you think, are extremely insecure, are so-so in bed, and are people too.[8]

Alternative Scales

philosophical_recovery notes, "The 1-10 as a rating scale will be debated until people stop using it. It's been pointed out before that a much better scale is something more like WNB->WB->WHR->WI, or, Would Not Bang -> Would Bang -> Would Hit Raw -> Would Impregnate".[9]

The late comedian Patrice O'Neal devised a thirty-point scale, with 0-10 being degrees of "ugly looking women", 11-20 being degrees of "alright looking women", and 21-30 being degrees of "beautiful women."[10]

Roosh mentioned both the 1-10 scale and the "binary scale" (with 0 being WNB and 1 being WB) in an early article.[11]

busterdog #fundie rr-bb.com

['How do you know that all the books of the bible as currently compiled by men were divenly inspired to be put together as such?']

No other body of work is has its perfect consistency.

Not only is the truth in the overt meaning, but is encoded in the text.

Put Gilgamesh through a computer and see if you get a plan for divine mercy.

Only God could have written the Bible. Scientifically irrefutable fact.

kalidurga #wingnut #fundie en.kalitribune.com

Political correctness is rightly considered to be a vague term. However, this by no means warrants anyone to infer that it doesn’t exist and sway our lives to an enormous extent. The very point of deeming something inexistent by pointing out that it is vaguely defined is a tell-tale sign of the real root of what we call “Political Correctness.”

Namely, the idea that morality is purely a matter of strictly systematized application of language stems from the age old principle of what philosophers call nominalism, the doctrine that assumes that cognitive process is nothing but the apprehension and conceptualization of sense data.
While this process is at work in everyday experience, nominalists omit one extremely important – in fact essential – element inherent in human knowledge, namely: that things themselves have essences or “natures” which mold our notions about them.

By denying the necessary, or indeed: any, intrinsic substantial nature to beings, nominalism empowers it’s adherents to define and redefine them at will.

This is a true meaning of so-called “Occam’s razor”, a method named after a Medieval English Franciscan philosopher William of Occam, stating that, in paraphrase, “any multiplications of beings unnecessary to satisfactory explanation is false”.

Of course, nominalists are not prone to examine their own assumptions and they take for granted that what we see, hear, touch, smell or taste is all there is to know, not taking into account that very principles they profess cannot be based on this, because they are meant to apply to all conceivable instances.

If all knowledge is a cognition of perceivable individuals – of manifold chaos with no intrinsic unity – how can then anything be applied to all conceivable instances?

It can’t.

In the series of podcasts we hereby present, the political correctness is defined as an instance of extreme moral nominalism. Namely, there’s a one characteristic feature of nominalist minded people: while denying anything remotely spiritual in this world, they at the same time tend to deny all substance – even the matter itself, while making their own notions about reality absolute.

It’s a kind of magical thinking where words are considered to have a power over reality.

This is by no means surprising, because real knowledge is based on concepts and not on sense experience and if we cannot rely on our notions, we can really rely on nothing at all. Things we perceive are in eternal flux and if there’s no unity in them, then there’s no stability which could provide us with certain knowledge.

Like averybody else, nominalists want to have certain principles and moral rules they can rely on. But given that they deny the possibility that world itself provides us with them, they venture to make them up themselves.
And when they succeed at imagining them, they have a compulsive need to impose them upon the world and other people, because that is the only way left open for them to make sense of it.

The things have to conform to the labels nominalists paste upon their surface.
Sounds familiar?

Gender quotas, humanitarian bombing, redefining oneself’s sex, humans merging with the machines, sanctioning of all things possibly offensive, safe spaces in Universities … being called a bigot because you accidentally looked at someone sideways?

If it is, then you are on the right track because you’re not living under the rock. Political correctness is an inherently totalitarian system of moral nominalism, where words and labels are everything, because all else is deemed unreal. It is an utmost and to date the most perfect system of essentially denying the very possibility of morality.

Therefore, it is an elaborate, well thought out, system of evil.

In this three-part podcast, we’ll explore how moral nominalism functions, why is it always accompanied with the compulsive need for strict legalization of it’s principles and how it in effect serves to destroy the language.

A nominalist cookbook

In the first part we explore why is PC so hard to define and why no knee-jerk reactions to it are really valid. While standard fare PC phenomena irritate the hell out of people, when interrogated as to why they get so irritated by, say: legal proscription of three or more different gender toilet labels, they are usually at the lack to give a satisfactory explanation of their dissent.
This is one of the main strengths of PC, namely that it’s adherents can use slurs, memes and emotionally charged rhetoric, while the only weapon at the disposal of it’s opponents is an act of analytical discernment which can be very demanding and never provides one with flashy phrases and one-sentence answers.

We propose that the reason for this is nominalist principle of reduction of reality to utterly simple, atomic, facts that can only be reflected in simple language. Thence follows the famous Occam’s razor dictum that only simple answers are the right ones.
So, for instance, there’s no use to suppose that 9/11 was an elaborate operation, perpetrated by whole network of vested interests, because the idea that it was perpetrated by few amateur pilots of Arabian descent is much simpler and therefore true.
On the other hand, this approach allows promulgators and adherents of PC enormous freedom in defining their concepts which need not relate to anything but “atomic facts” of reality. We illustrate this point by example of Richard Dawkins and his statement that “there’s nothing morally reprehensible in eating human roadkill”.

As nominalism takes into consideration only atomic facts “roadkill” and “eating”, while “human” is only a subjective qualification on the same level as “animal”, there’s no difference in cooking and eating the dead animal and dead human.

All this stems from inability of nominalists to affirm existence of anything that is not based on simplest sense perceptions. And human nature, which is the thing forcing us to essentially discern animal from human, is something you cannot perceive by senses.

The result is that political correctness becomes moral system completely detached from moral reality which seeks to make itself absolute. In order to do that PC individuals are forced to seek it’s legalization, i.e. to turn their ever expanding principles into laws.

Kokoro #sexist incels.co

[Experiment] Decoding Foid Speak

Hey everyone I am trying to put together some charts on decoding foid speak. What I mean by that is actually trying to assign value to the words foids say. I understand that women, like all people if we are being honest but women to a greater degree, will change the worlds or phrases that they use in different circumstances. I am trying to map that so men will never deal with their double speak again.


For adjectives:
image

I am open to criticism and I am open to suggestions to add to this list. I also want to make one for common platitudes we hear (Example: A girl will be lucky to have you = You are ugly and I don't want you)

Helpful #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The secret MEANING of Lake Mead's shrink and rise...

I know to those driven by logic, this will make little sense. However, those outside the box will understand that there is no such thing as coincidence.

Several years ago I came across a "secret code". It's called the Strong's Concordance. The Strong's Concordance are numbers assigned to each word in the Bible, both in Greek and Hebrew. I began using numbers in the news (like the missing plane 370 which means WHERE? in Hebrew) to "decode" a message in every newsworthy occurrence.

Here is what happened at Lake Mead.

See water loss/gain here: [link to lakemead.water-data.com]

The water went down by -1.65. 165 in Greek Strong's means "Aion" or AGE. 165 in Hebrew means "Where will be".

Then it went down -6.38. 638 in Greek it is "drowning" and in Hebrew it is "also".

Then it came up 8.73. 873 in Greek means separating/making boundaries and 873 in Hebrew is "evil".

The message is: "Age where will be drowning and also boundaries made separating evil."

Now that you have read the sentence, check out this artwork featured at Hoover dam, the water bearer coming out of the water and separating the wheat and tares through a boundary of water. To really understand this one would ideally have an understanding for Dagon, John (the water barer), age of Aquarius, Ninevah, etc.

[link to www.pinterest.com (secure)]

In addition, the water amounts from May 22nd to the 24th make perfect sentences as well.

1007.48 in Greek = Birth to purify. There have been lots of videos on YouTube about Hoover Dam and the "Birth" of the New Age. I myself do not subscribe to any of the fear-mongering, I am simply an observer who accumulates the collective hive-mind information to make a "map" or "grid" out of what I observe. Some people love this guy, others hate him, but ignore what his "spin" is long enough to see how the Dam is related to a birth:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

The next water level is recorded at 1075.13: Greek and Hebrew= Genealogy of the firstborn will become destruction.

Here is a link to the first word "aion" so you can conduct your own study using this Strong's Code. You can even do your birthday, house address etc.

[link to biblehub.com]

TIPS: When decoding numbers, a decimal always represents a new word. The number 200.60 would be 200 in Hebrew and Greek and then 60 in Hebrew and Greek, giving you 4 words. When I decode, I use both the Hebrew and Greek, but you can use only one or the other.

I hope this makes sense to someone. I've been dying to share this info but not many seem to "get it".

drkresearch #conspiracy nodisinfo.com

Absolute Proof Virginia TV Anchor Shooting is a Gun Control Zionist Plot

With revelations thanks to our posters

The Zionist criminal minds are at it once again, attempting to purge all guns from the hands of the American public. Thus, they paid off yet another set of pro-Zionist moles, who have attempted to set into motion the basis for gun control confiscation schemes.

Make no mistake about it this is absolutely an arch-fake, just like all the others.

Moreover, it is easy to prove. The video itself offers glaring proof that this is nothing other than an arch-scam where, once again, no one died, and no one was injured.

How could the gun be right there in real life without anyone noticing? Obviously, this was a set-up, the gun being a mere prop. Of note, the woman being interviewed, the reporter, and the camera-person never react to the gunman, not once, not even after the first shot is fired and surely never while he is moving the gun back-and-forth on camera.

Talk about a canned reaction; this is about as canned and staged as it can get. Yet, this reaction occurred after at least two of the phony blank shots were fired.

The in-house TV anchor was obviously in on the gig, with her supercilious reaction and response, saying, ‘Don’t know what that was all about; we’ll fill you in later.’

Here are the hoax associates, including a homosexual fake shooter. No one can believe he was doing anything other than perpetrating an act.

Clearly, this is a total scam. That was a blank gun that the actor was firing. There’s no way he could fire that many shots into the woman without knocking her down and without blood flowing. There was no blood that flowed in this case, and by no means was she knocked down.

Sequential screenshots prove this. These will be posted shortly, as the Internet upload is slow here at this time. Never does she react to actual shots fired. Nor does anyone else. Nor is there the slightest proof that anyone was injured to any degree, let alone killed, by real bullets fired.

It’s a set-up to solicit a public and governmental response for gun control. The Satans are active, once again. There can be no other conclusion.

jiaogulan #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Evolution VS High School Biology. Evolution Loses. Check My Math

The law of biogenesis. Have you heard of it? Louis Pasteur proved that living organisms come from other living organisms and do not spontaneously come to life from non-living material. 150 years later there are some that believe that all life arose from a cell or cells that spontaneously generated from non -living material. Perhaps the law of biogenesis is more of a guideline rather than a law. Or perhaps everything that has ever been observed in nature by scientists over the last 150 years affirms the validity of this law. So the spontaneous generation of a theoretical original cell is a violation of this law and is contradictory to scientific observation.
The End.

No, not really. Let’s look at several of the insurmountable problems associated with the theory of spontaneous generation (evolution)

Problem 1. Amino acids.

Amino acids would be needed to form the protein molecules contained in the first theoretical non-living cell. These amino acids would have been formed by natural processes. Dr. Stanley Miller performed a series of experiments to show how amino acids could be produced by generating electric arcs in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen, methane and ammonia along with water. The main problem with producing Amino acids by natural processes, apart from formation within a living organism is that a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids will be formed. These two forms of amino acids are chemically the same but the component atoms of each are put together differently. In fact, mirror images of each other. In living organisms, virtually all amino acids are left handed. The Miller experiment produced a 50/50 mixture of both. Half left-handed and half right-handed. Typically one right-handed amino acid in in protein molecule will render the protein useless or inactive. In other words, if you have an enzyme molecule that performs a particular function in a cell or organism that contains only one right-handed amino acid, that enzyme will not work.

Problem 2. Specific sequence of amino acids in proteins:

Proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. The amino acids are chemically bonded together like links in a chain. The specific arrangement or sequence of amino acids determines the characteristics and function of each protein molecule. To calculate the probability of the correct amino acid sequence in a given molecule in the first theoretical non-living cell, you only need to know two things:
The probability of a particular amino acid in the sequence being the correct amino acid out of a possible 20 amino acid is one chance in 20.

Multiply all the probabilities together.
In other words, if one of the theoretical protein molecules in the theoretical cell had 50 amino acid links, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 etc. 50 times. So the probability of the first two links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 = 400 or one chance in 400. The probability of the first 3 links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000 or one chance in 8000. As a mathematical shortcut to visualize how big of a number you get when multiplying 20 x 20 fifty times, do this:

Multiply 2 x 2 fifty times (2 x 2 x 2 ……) and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number.
To calculate the chance of getting all 50 sequences correct AND all left handed, consider that each link could be a right-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids or a left-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids but only one of the 40 possible amino acids is correct for each link. The probability of the first amino acid being correct and left-handed is one chance in 40. The probability of the first two amino acids being correct is 40 x 40 = 1600 or one chance in 1600. The probability of the first three links being in the correct sequence is 40 x 40 x 40 = 64000 or one chance in 64000. The probability of the first 4 links being in the correct sequence in one chance in 2,560,000 or about one chance in 2 and a half million. To get a handle on the probability of getting all 50 links in the correct sequence multiply 4 x 4 fifty times and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number. That is a really big number. Please enter your answer in the comments section below.

A protein with only 50 links is relatively small in nature. Some enzymes are made up of thousands of amino acids. The first theoretical non-living cell must have had many protein molecules perhaps 100 or more. To give an unfair advantage to those who reject the law of biogenesis lets suppose the first cell or proto cell had only 50 protein molecules that contained 50 amino acids each. To get an idea of the size of the number that represents the probability of all the amino acids being in the correct sequence and all left handed in in all the protein molecules:

multiply 4 x 4 2500 times and tack on 2500 zeros on to the end of that number. I am no math whiz but I believe that would be a really big number. It is bigger than the estimated total number of fundamental particles in the observable universe”

So, if every particle in the universe represented a trial and error formation by natural processes of just two of the theoretical proteins, you could possibly get two molecules that were correct at the same time somewhere in there. The odds would still be against it. By the way, proteins have not been observed to form by natural processes apart from living organisms and isn’t that what scientific theory is all about? The observable and reproducible? How many universes of chances do we need to get the first cell right?
By the way. All of the above math is overkill. Just the left-hand, right-hand problem destroys any hope of spontaneous generation. The chance of all the links in all 50 protein molecules being correct can be calculated by multiplying 2 x 2 2500 times. Every time you multiply by two you cut the probability in half. Please write your answer in the comments section below. One more thing while we are on the subject of multiplying by two. How many times you would need to fold a piece of paper in half to make it thick enough to reach to the moon? The number of folds is as ridiculously small as the piece of paper needed is large.

Problem 3. Specific sequence of the genetic material.

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule inside a cell that among other things contains the code for making protein molecules. As a cell grows it takes in nutrients and produces protein molecules. When the cell is large enough it splits into two cells. The ability for the cell to produce the correct amino acid sequences in the various protein molecules is dependent on the specific sequence of molecules in DNA called nucleotides. If the sequence of nucleotides is incorrect the cell will produce proteins with the wrong amino acid sequence. The DNA molecule contains the code for every type of protein in the cell as well as the code for the specific structure of the cell. The probability that the DNA in the first non-living theoretical cell contained the correct code for all the types of protein molecules in that cell is the combined improbabilities of at least one of each type of protein molecule in that cell having the correct amino acid sequences at the point in time the cell spontaneously transitioned from being dead to being alive. You may want to re-read that last sentence a few times so the implications become apparent.

Problem 4. All the component parts in the same place at the same time.

Cells contain structures called organelles. They are like small organs within the cell that have specific functions. Some of the organelles and other structures one might expect to find in this theoretical cell are endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, nucleus, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane. At the very least, the theoretical minimum set of component parts to sustain cellular life needed to be present at the same time and place. The component parts needed to be structurally correct and needed to, by chance and unknown natural processes not associated with living organisms, be in a state of correct assemblage. That is a strange concept. The complete simplest theoretical cell needed to be produced by a set of natural processes, then transition from a dead state to a living state, and then grow and reproduce by an entirely different set of natural processes other than the ones that originally generated it. Highly improbable? No. Totally impossible.

Cornucopia of other problems:

Due to the fact that there is massive amounts of calcium on land and in the oceans, there would be no free phosphorus to form DNA. All the theoretically free phosphorus would end up in the form of calcium phosphate in no time.
The theoretical primordial earth atmosphere contained no oxygen. As useful molecules were theoretically being produced by bolts of lightning they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light since there would be no ozone layer. Some molecules would end up in the ocean and if submerged deep enough to be unaffected by UV radiation would be in the ocean along with other lucky molecules in a state of near infinite dilution. At some later time some of these molecules might end up on land in a muddy little evaporating puddle or pond with less dilution. Then they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light. If the atmosphere contained oxygen, these same molecules would be oxidized and useless.

The same lightning that could produce organic molecules could and would far more easily destroy previously generated molecules. That is just how the physics works. Some fortunate few would make it to the depths of the ocean.

Some might theorize that the first living cell might be of the type that would exist near a submerged volcanic vent far from the perils of the earths surface. This cell would reproduce and future generations of cells would produce oxygen by some method other than photosynthesis. As impossible as this is, you still have to get to that first cell. So all the afore mentioned problems still apply.

Misc. notes:

The math in regard to the left and right-handed amino acids is a little flawed. One of the amino acids, glycine, is left handed only. With that in mind the odds are slightly better so spontaneous generation is totally possible. Not. In all fairness, the Miller experiment produces several amino acids with left-hand and right-hand versions that do not occur in living organisms. In other words the Miller experiment produced all the right amino acids as well as some wrong ones. These could just as well be factored in.

Some researchers have concluded that under certain conditions amino acids could be generated with about 90 percent being left-handed. This does not help much. So instead of half of 2500 amino acids statistically being right handed in the theoretical cell, only 250 will statistically be wrong. Then we multiply the results with the probability of all 2500 amino acids being in the correct sequence.

A chemist once came up with this great party game to help illustrate math probabilities like those in this article. He suggested that you get 17 people to line up in a row. Then line up in a different order. Keep lining up in a different order until all the possible combinations have been used. How many unique arrangement of 17 people in a row are there? More than 355 trillion combination. This can be calculated by multiplying 17 x 16 x 15 x 14 x 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2. Since guinea pigs are so well suited for scientific experimentation, guinea pigs can be used instead of people in this experiment. The results are the same.

One last thought. Someone once wrote something like this:

If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters all the books that have ever been written and would ever be written would be written.

The problem is there is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters. Ok. Let’s deal with the finite. Start with a meaningful paragraph 2500 characters in length. Forget case and punctuation let’s just get the spelling correct. There is 1 chance in 26 of getting the first letter correct. What is the probability of getting the first two letters correct?.......

Five Anonymous Moms #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

In Their Own Words: Parents of Kids Who Think They Are Trans Speak Out

Parents like us must remain anonymous to maintain our children’s privacy, and because we face legal repercussions if our names are revealed. Parents who do not support their child’s gender identity risk being reported to Child Protective Services and losing custody of their children.

When a child says he is transgender, we are expected nowadays to accept and celebrate this announcement.
But there are many parents who are not celebrating. They are suffering in silence. They know their children were not born in the wrong bodies and that hormones and surgeries are not the answers to their discomfort and confusion.
Their stories are heartbreaking. Here they are, in their own words.
~ ~ ~
I was shocked when my thirteen-year-old daughter told me she was really my transgender son. She had no masculine interests and hated all sports. But as a smart, quirky teen on the autism spectrum, she had a long history of not fitting in with girls.
Where did she get the idea she was transgender? From a school presentation—at a school where over 5 percent of the student body called themselves trans or nonbinary, and where several students were already on hormones, and one had a mastectomy at the age of sixteen. In my daughter’s world—in real life and online—transgender identities are common, and hormones and surgeries are no big deal.
I took her to a gender clinician seeking expert guidance. Instead, he accepted her new identity and told me I must refer to my daughter with masculine pronouns, call her by a masculine name, and buy her a binder to flatten her breasts. He recommended no therapy, and there was no consideration of the social factors that obviously affected her thinking. I was directed to put her on puberty blocking drugs. I was falsely assured that these drugs were well-studied, and that they were a perfectly safe way for her to “explore gender.” I was told that if I did not comply, she would be at higher risk of suicide.
I have nowhere to go for proper help. Therapists are actively trained and socially pressured not to question these increasingly common identities. In Washington, DC, and many states with so-called conversion therapy bans, questioning a child’s belief that she is of the opposite sex is against the law.
I have been living this nightmare for over four years. And despite my best efforts, my daughter plans to medically transition when she turns eighteen later this year.
Parents like me must remain anonymous to maintain our children’s privacy, and because we face legal repercussions if our names are revealed. Parents who do not support their child’s gender identity risk being reported to Child Protective Services and losing custody of their children. In New Jersey, the Department of Education officially encourages schools to report such parents.
Meanwhile, the media glamorize and celebrate trans-identified children while ignoring stories like mine. I have written to well over 100 journalists, begging them to write about what is happening to kids. I wrote to my representative and senators, but have been ignored by their staff. My online posts about my daughter’s story have been deleted and I have been permanently banned in an online forum. As a lifelong Democrat, I am outraged by my former party and find it ironic that only conservative news outlets have reported my story without bias or censorship.
We parents are ignored and vilified, while our children are suffering in the name of inclusivity and acceptance. I hope that some open-minded Democratic lawmakers will wake up to the fact that they are complicit in harming vulnerable kids. I hope that they ask themselves this question: Why are physicians medicalizing children in the name of an unproven, malleable gender identity? And why are lawmakers enshrining “gender identity” into state and federal laws?
~ ~ ~
My daughter, at age fourteen, spontaneously decided that she is actually a male. After suffering multiple traumatic events in her life and spending a large amount of time on the internet, she announced that she was “trans.” Her personality changed almost overnight, and she went from being a sweet, loving girl to a foul-mouthed, hateful “pansexual male.” At first, I thought she was just going through a phase. But the more I tried to reason with her, the more she dug her heels in. Around this time, she was diagnosed with ADHD, depression, and anxiety. But mental health professionals seemed mainly interested in helping her process her new identity as a male and convincing me to accept the notion that my daughter is actually my son.
At age sixteen, my daughter ran away and reported to the Department of Child Services that she felt unsafe living with me because I refused to refer to her using male pronouns or her chosen male name. Although the Department investigated and found she was well cared for, they forced me to meet with a trans-identified person to “educate” me on these issues. Soon after, without my knowledge, a pediatric endocrinologist taught my daughter—a minor—to inject herself with testosterone. My daughter then ran away to Oregon where state law allowed her—at the age of seventeen, without my knowledge or consent—to change her name and legal gender in court, and to undergo a double mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy.
My once beautiful daughter is now nineteen years old, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, and planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a surgical procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis).
The level of heartbreak and rage I am experiencing, as a mother, is indescribable. Why does Oregon law allow children to make life-altering medical decisions? As a society, we are rightly outraged about “female circumcision.” Why are doctors, who took an oath to first do no harm, allowed to sterilize and surgically mutilate mentally ill, delusional children?
~ ~ ~
In August of 2017, our seventh grade daughter came home from sleepaway camp believing she was a boy. She had a new vocabulary and a strong desire to change her name and pronouns. We never anticipated that we needed to ask the camp if she was going to be in a cabin with girls who were socially transitioning to live as boys.
We suspect that our daughter assumed that since my wife and I are lesbians, and liberal in our politics, we would support this new identity. We may be lesbians, but we are not confused about biology. She tried to convince us with a very scripted explanation that she had always “felt” like a boy. But we had never once seen or heard from her any evidence of this “feeling.” We listened to her, gave her the space to talk about her feelings, and tried hard not to convey to her that we were utterly horrified by this revelation.
As we began to try to find information to make sense of this, we found evidence of a social contagion all over the internet. YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and Reddit supplied a how-to guide and handbook on transitioning, complete with trans stars like Jazz Jennings and Riley J. Dennis, many with thousands of followers.
We are in no way out of the woods. Some parents dealing with this issue view us as lucky because she is so young, giving us and her more time to work through her discomfort. Maybe we will be, but we are facing this ever-growing storm of a social contagion without any help from the mainstream media or the negligent FDA, not to mention the pathetic capitulation of our physicians and mental health professionals.
~ ~ ~
My daughter spent her childhood happily engaging in what one would call typical, girly activities, with no gender-stereotyping encouragement from us at all. Everything changed after she went to college.
The environment of her new city and university celebrated transgender identities. She began speaking to us by phone of being “non-binary,” which I naïvely took to mean something like bisexual. Anxiety and depression then overwhelmed her. She dropped out and moved back to our home town, where she resumed psychiatric care for preexisting mental-health conditions.
Her appearance, always feminine, changed dramatically. A shaved head, boys’ clothes, and obvious unhappiness were now her camouflage from the world. She went from non-binary to claiming that she was really a boy.
She parroted online advice: “I always knew something was wrong but didn’t have words for it until I started watching videos on Tumblr and YouTube. When I was little, I was afraid to tell you that I didn’t feel right.”
This narrative matched nothing about her past—but I was still naïve. Because her psychiatrist did not consider her to be transgender, I assumed she would be unable to get a referral for the testosterone she was determined to start.
I was wrong. In only one visit, and with just a little bit of blood work, Planned Parenthood will cheerfully enable young women and men to pursue their “authentic” selves through cross-sex hormones. All that’s needed is a few bucks and signing a form that the risks have been disclosed and understood.
That is the route my daughter took at the tender age of twenty, bypassing her psychiatrist altogether.
My husband wrote to Planned Parenthood, explaining her mental-health history and providing her doctor’s name and telephone number. Planned Parenthood’s lawyer wrote back curtly that they presume anyone over eighteen is capable of giving informed consent.
No matter what anyone thinks of Planned Parenthood’s other services, the fact that they will instantly prescribe powerful hormones with many unknown long-term effects—especially to people with underlying mental-health issues—should shock one’s conscience. People need to know that this is Planned Parenthood’s new line of business.
~ ~ ~
At the age of seventeen, after immersion on Tumblr and after two of her oldest and closest friends in high school declared themselves transgender, our daughter told us that she is “really a guy.” Her therapist diagnosed her as high-functioning on the autism spectrum. The therapist was also quite clear that we would “lose all control over the medicalization” once our daughter turned eighteen.
As a federal employee, I could not find health insurance that does not cover hormones for self-declared gender dysphoria.
My daughter is now twenty, has been on testosterone for a year, and has made an appointment for a consult about a double mastectomy—all this, even though she can’t legally buy an alcoholic drink. I can’t get any answers from doctors in response to my questions and concerns about the risks of these “treatments.” I get no answers from mental health professionals about what makes this treatment appropriate . . . or what makes my daughter different from those young women who are “no longer trans” and have de-transitioned, sometimes after being on hormones for years. Having to watch these adults enable my daughter to do this with no medical science to back it up is a scenario that I never dreamed any parent would have to face, at least not in the United States. But this is our reality now—a reality that the mainstream media won’t touch.

DoctorDoom #fundie libertydwells.com

[The instant someone actually disproves evolution with solid proof, scientists will abandon it.]

Bullshit. Evolutionism isn't a science. It's a cultic, naturalistic religion that is zealously and mindlessly adhered to by people who are utterly terrified by the implications of the only alternative. They cannot disavow it because that would be an admission that they were wrong, and they will seek to destroy any "infidel" who strays from the fold of the pseudoscientific religion of Darwinism.

Ask any scientist about the dire professional and social consequences of daring to express doubt about the doctrines of the cult of evolutionism.

Evolutionism's "science" consists of drawing the curve and then plotting the points. It starts with the desired outcome and bends, warps, twists, tears and shreds the evidence to make it conform to their religion's dogmata. They ignore, suppress and censor any evidence that is not in lockstep with their cultic doctrines. They enforce exclusivity in academia by the power of the legislatures and the courts.

One would think that if the jackasses are so confident of their braying, they would relish the opportunity to confront creationists in a neutral venue so that they can once and for all dispense with those "Bible thumpers". Howeveer, they resolutely oppose any public debates with competent, informed creationists. Why? A: because each and every time they have tried it, they have lost the debate, usually decisively. ETBs are accustomed to controlling the setting, and when faced with a worthy opponent who is not cowed by their bullying tactics, they fold.

professor #fundie atheistforums.org

Well, this has truly evolved (the kind of evolution I can believe in).

I was asked about "Kinds", the word and concept predates the culture of evolution by several hundred years.
Lately, the naturalists are confused by what it means.

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

Neither do they become one or the other over millions of years.
If you have a dog, you might be asked what KIND of dog you have?
Pretty simple isn't it.
The genetic code is what? Silly putty?

Terry Hurlbut #fundie creationsciencehalloffame.org

Creationists are getting more scientifical . . .

A twist on circular reasoning

Any student of formal logic soon learns about the fallacy of circular reasoning. If one starts by assuming a fact of nature, one cannot try to prove that fact later. Any scientist knows this. For that reason, scientists always start with fundamental properties of nature that none can explain. Geometers start by assuming certain relationships (like the constant ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles) they cannot prove, but still know. Some things deserve to have someone assume them. Hence their name:axioms, from the Greek word axios meaning something deserving or deserved.
In circular reasoning, someone tries to prove an axiom. Formal logic does not work that way. And origins scientists often fall into a twist on this trap: “Your theory does not work under my theory (or the theory everyone accepts). So your theory must not hold.” Glen Kuban falls into this trap.
Observe how Glen Kuban takes issue with Walt Brown’s starting point: a subcrustal ocean, some fifty miles underground, and sealed for about 1600 years (at least) until the crust breaks and lets it out.
This precludes any significant earthquakes, meteorite impacts, or fissures in the crust anywhere on entire earth, even though such phenomena are well evidenced throughout the geologic record.
The trap: Kuban assumes age for the earth, and gradual, sequential settling of layer on layer of rock and soil. But suppose one event laid down all those layers in one year? And suppose the meteoroids that fell back as meteors (and meteorites) came from that same event?
The Hydroplate Theory also tells us that every earthquake in the historical record is an aftershock of the earthquakes that attended the breakout of the subcrustal ocean. Of course no earthquakes occurred before the Global Flood. The Flood event provoked the first such earthquakes! These made the Japan Earthquake feel like somebody dropping a bowling ball in the lane next to you. They easily reached Richter magnitudes of ten to twelve. That made them more than powerful enough, by the way, to produce the radioactive materials Glen Kuban’s sources rely on to “date” the earth.

Creation Week

Kuban does give a nod to Brown’s theory of the Creation Week itself. Here Brown scrupulously follows the Bible. Specifically he follows Genesis chapter 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. (He follows the original Greek verse. That verse speaks of the earth “standing together out of the water.”) Kuban thinks he found a weakness in Brown’s theory: whether the earth’s crust, if hot enough to deform, could have cooled off rapidly enough to avoid killing the life God placed on the earth later. The way Kuban expresses himself, makes one suspect he thought the life came before the buckling of the crust, the sealing of the waters under the earth, and the forming of the pillars. Of course, the Bible says different.
Walt Brown might seem to break one of his own rules, if only this once. “Brown’s Razor” says one must not invoke miracles to which the Bible does not specifically attest. But the Bible does attest to Creation Week and the events of it. The first matter formed in space, literally out of nothing. That alone qualifies as miracle enough. After that, life itself could only come by miraculous means. (Neither Glen Kuban nor anyone else has ever advanced a convincing model for abiogenesis or chemical evolution. Life does not come from non-life.) The exquisite sequence of the molding of the earth’s crust surely qualifies also.

How the Global Flood started

Glen Kuban seems to say Brown specifically said that God set the Flood off by direct Divine action. Brown never says that. He says the Flood was an accident waiting to happen after Man “fell” and turned his back on God. The Bible repeatedly says “all creation groans” under the effect of sin.
Furthermore, for all we do or can know, some person or company or corps of engineers set off a charge of high explosive (not nuclear or thermonuclear) in the wrong place, and opened a crack that compromised one of the pillars. Whoever did this, neither Adam nor Noah nor his sons ever recorded his name or the details of his act. The Flood did not begin with a miracle. But the Bible does attest to one: God gave Noah 120 years’ advance warning. He also gave Noah the design for a vessel that would withstand a rather violent launch and even more violent buffeting. (The favorable winds that blew the great life-ship into the “eddy cut off from the main flow” where it “rested” until the waters went down, likely came from the rise of the great mountain chains as the hydroplates settled to the floor of the old subcrustal chamber and literally wrinkled.)

A factitious heat problem

Glen Kuban talks at length about The Heat Problem. Brown himself calculates the energy release from the breakout at more than a trillion thermonuclear bombs. But when one releases a supercritical fluid from confinement, one relieves at once the “critical pressure” that kept it in that state. (Supercritical fluids consist of mutually miscible liquid and vapor.) The fluid expands, then cools. Rapidly. Refrigerators work that way.
Furthermore, much of that energy “cold-packed” itself as the earthquakes, acting on buried quartz, helped form the radioactive materials in the crust today. Everyone knows radioactive materials release lots of energy when they decay and especially when they split.
Last, and possibly most important: the energy that converts to the kinetic energy of the comets, asteroids, meteoroids, and trans-Neptunian objects (including Pluto), cannot remain as heat.


The starlight and time problem

Brown does try to make his work comprehensive. So sometimes he treats subjects that bear less on the Flood and more on how the earth can be young while the universe is so vast (13.7 billion light years in radium), yet we can see every object in it. Glen Kuban thinks he has done his job by pointing to the weaknesses in Brown’s specific sources on that point. But he never once considered another source (John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics). Hartnett explains the seemingly inexplicable this way: when you stretch space, you stretch time. Hartnett can concede that 13.7 billion years’ worth of changes have taken place–at the edge of the universe. At the center of the universe, only seven thousand years need have passed. (And Glen Kuban fails to show, with his brief citations, that redshift is not quantized.)

Dr. Peter Jones #homophobia #conspiracy #fundie truthxchange.com

Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal

Introduction
Like the ancient pagan Sodomites pounding on the door of Lot’s house millennia ago, the modern gay movement is gathering at the doors of our churches, our academies and our once traditionally “Christian” culture, demanding entrance and full recognition. Notable scholar, David A. J. Clines, professor of Old Testament at Sheffield University, for one, appears ready to lay down the welcome mat. He wrote in 1998:

…[though] queer theory has yet to show its face at the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature], gayness is challenging…all that we hold dear. When we begin to redraw the alterity map, the boundaries between same and different…we find ourselves having to think through everything, and not just sexuality, from scratch.

Clines, who not long ago was known for his conservative theological position, illustrates how far acceptance of the gay movement has come in recent years, even among those from strongly biblical backgrounds.

This movement has come a long way fast. It will not go away soon, I believe, because it is so intimately tied to deep changes in modern society, in particular, those associated with philosophical Postmodernism. Because in the Postmodern hermeneutic all meaning is socially generated, queer commentary has little methodological difficulty finding a place in the contemporary religious and theological debate. In cooperation with feminist biblical interpretation, which has “destabilized normative heterosexuality” by alleging “sexist” bias, queer readings merely seek to take one more step in the hermeneutics of suspicion and expose the “heterosexist bias” of the Bible and Bible interpreters. Identifying exegesis as an exercise in social power, queer theorists reject the oppressive narrowness of the Bible’s male/female binary vision, and boldly generate textual meaning on the basis of the “inner erotic power” of the gay interpreter. What could be more Postmodern? Employing such a widely accepted methodology, and with “straight” Bible scholars now ready “to redraw the alterity map,” gay theology appears to have a bright future everywhere.
[...]
The thesis of this paper is that to understand the contemporary sexual revolution, we need to see the “new sexuality,” [particularly in this paper in its homosexual expression], as an integral expression of age-old religious paganism. In our response, we cannot follow Lot, who would have sacrificed his daughters to placate the aggressors. Nor can we claim personal moral superiority. We must always hear, in the clamor for acceptance and recognition, the cry of divine image-bearers, however marred and broken. However, we must not shrink back from seeking to do justice to the whole Christian, biblical dimension of the problem. In a time of moral confusion and politically correct intimidating “tolerance,” we owe such clarity to our culture, to our sons and daughters, and to God, Creator and Redeemer, for whom all things exist.

OCMARK #conspiracy s15.invisionfree.com

I think the focus should be on the fact that there is/was NO PLANES at Pentagon and Shanksville.....

I mean there is no cockpit, no tail, no fusalodge, no wings, no lugage, no engines, no seats, no black boxes, no bodies,....nothing zero. When you ask people to FIND THE PLANE it is impossible....because there is/was none... That way when I share with people the WHOLE ATTACK I ask them to find the planes......the burden of proof is on them to Find the planes...... not me.....

No disrpect to WTC 1-2-7.... but there is to many WHAT IF'S....and HOW COME'S.....big "PUZZLE" there, lots of peices, too much thinking......

***** For the record I think remote control planes and massive military grade explosives brought these buildings down........bush&CO.....planned/carried out/covered it up/blamed it on arab "TERRORIST".......********.

Nathan Ketsdever, lifelong theological questioner, writer, & arm chair philosopher #fundie quora.com

(In response to the question: "How can you believe in a god who is supernatural when there is a 90% chance that he doesn’t exist?")

Your numbers numbers are grounded in nothing. But I’ll point to numbers and ground them in some kind of reality.

I would say its 99% to near 100% that Jesus lived. Bart Ehrman would probably come close to agreeing with me on that one. Ehrman says the alternative theories are conspiracy theory rather than a fair and balanced approach to academic and informed history. (not to mention the extra-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence)

I would say its 99% to near !00% that a spiritual being or Designer/Creator God created the world. Even atheists admit that the Big Bang, the creation of organic, Evolution, and the human mind all are miraculous or near miraculous events.

(You might remember the quote about someone “monkeying” with reality to get it right, but there are a number of similar quotes from agnostic and atheistic scientists, not to mention dozens of Christian and otherwise religious scientists)

The overlap of those two truths is the nexus of reality.

I could go on…..

If there are no spiritual beings and no divinity and we aren’t spiritual beings there is zero naturalistic basis for freedom, rationality, truth, human dignity, meaning, purpose, or ethics. Also, mind, conscience, and consciousness tend to loose their grounding, not to mention identity and personality lose their grounding as well.

Everything in a world of “we’re just colliding chemistry and physics” means jack squat. Its a philosophy of absolute nothingness that ends in nihilism and dehumanization. Its a philosophical dead end. You cant’ get something akin to the US Constitution from such a philosophy. Only by looking at the ideas of natural law and the Imagio Dei (made in the Image of God).

That means naturalism is a dead end for a philosophical, value, and ethical basis of our political and personal values. It can’t find the underlying value of humans. When you say “ we’re all just atoms” without acknowledging the larger realities of human personality and identity which naturalism fundamentally denies, silences, or erases you stack the deck in favor of a dehumanized and utterly stripped down view of man and women (bare bones).

No wonder survival and sex—rather than a robust understanding of human desire and emotion is the end result.

Or lets look at how the values of Jesus Christ could pretty much end every conflict on the planet and the very roots of those conflicts in less than 2 seconds. (envy, pride, ego, are all idols that Christ as a person calls into question, and are the root cause of conflict and the vast majority of the problems of the world). But people are too interested in ego to step back and see the healing transformation that would instantly occur if we actually gave those values a try.

For more on why naturalism is a poor basis for rights and ethics, I suggest reading this post which details some of the history of this philosophy in ethics: Nathan Ketsdever's answer to What are some philosophers who have argued in favor of morality being tied to religion, and some who have argued against that?

This is the next logical read after that, as it demonstrates the contrast between the two viewpoints: If the Bible was used to control people by the government, what would it be doing to the people?

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

seeHimsoon #fundie rr-bb.com

Just my personal assessment, but I think the "save the earth" heavy environmentalism mantra is basically a religion, as is "evolution". These are alternate gods to worship: "anything but the LORD, the CREATOR of the earth!! It is part of the New Age movement (New Spirituality/religion of Oprah) where all is one, the earth is a spiritual entity (Gaia) and you are part of the cosmos spiritually, etc. It is simply, IDOLATRY, the breaking of the first and second commandments, and fulfilling Romans 1.


It is also my understanding that the original meaning of the symbol of the "peace sign" is/was actually an occultic symbol of the broken, upside down cross of Christ, representing the defeat (they wish) of Jesus Christ.

But He will defeat all who hate him and His sheep! (us).
Praise Jesus, the creator of the earth, the creator of all things, our salvation!
Thank you Lord, for the cross. Praise Jesus!!

[in the very next post:]

You asked- is there a driving force behind this--- yeah, satan, the god of this world.

Stephen A. Coston, Sr #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

"Royalty, Rumors and Racists"

BY STEPHEN A. COSTON, SR.

AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK:

KING JAMES
The VI Of Scotland & I Of England
Unjustly Accused?

The character assassination of His Majesty King James VI & I is an ongoing evolving process that has matured in this present day to a sort of "open season" of differing opinions variously setting forth different theories and hypotheses on the whys, hows, and ifs of the alleged "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Part of the reason for so many differing opinions is that many historians and would-be historians have forsaken fact for fictional accounts on the life of King James VI & I. Without facts to restrain the imagination the investigative process turns into a rumor mill and as such is an aberration of the historical process. Often these highly speculative accounts, contemporary or modern, are based not on the actual life and words of King James VI & I but on what these individuals THINK what King James VI & I said and did meant. Honest professional historians are beginning to admit this and this is most welcome; however, King James VI & I still has his ardent critics.

More often than not even when actual facts of King James VI & I are presented they are subjected to interpretive twists designed to give the reader the impression that the words and deeds of King James VI & I support the allegations commonly leveled against him. Case in point, it is a known fact King James VI & I was handicapped from birth with weak limbs and injured himself many times. This caused him to have an unsteady gait. To compensate for this King James VI & I often leaned on his most trusted councilors and friends which also happened to be members of his personal staff, individuals critics freely term "favorites." It is often stated that "James was fond of leaning all over his beautiful young favorites" giving the reader the impression King James VI & I did so not because of a physical handicap but because of sexual attraction to same. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Further, it is also freely alleged that King James VI & I "passionately kissed" his "favorites" in public.

Critics of King James VI & I are fond of inferring from the above that King James VI & I engaged in the "French kissing" of his "favorites." They then use this assumption as yet another "proof" to support their contention that King James VI & I was indeed truly a "homosexual."

What the detractors of King James VI & I utterly fail to realize; however, (to their detriment) is the fact that the accounts responsible for popularizing this characterization were penned by individuals who hated not only King James VI & I as a Scot, but the whole country of Scotland as well. They were some of the most militant racists of the time of the most vicious type. Some of their contemporaries knew this and railed against them and defended King James VI & I and it is quite the mystery why modern critics seem not to know this.

Another point that critics of King James VI & I fail to recognize relative to this issue of kissing is that King James VI & I "slobbered" when he ate his food, consumed his drink, or even when he "kissed" someone's hand or cheek. Are we to infer then that King James VI & I passionately kissed inanimate objects, foods and drinks and bodily extremities? What about the widely accepted practice of a monarch's kiss at court to show the King's favor upon an individual? Besides that what of the British acceptance of public kissing for all kinds of events and circumstances. Are we then to infer that the whole island of Great Britain was a hot bed of homosexuality?

It is also inferred that because some individuals rejoiced to have King James VI & I's "legs soon in their arms" upon their return to court that this is somehow indicative of a reference to a sexual position. However, there exist many woodcuts depicting just this position of many noble and common men in with King James VI & I at court. It was customary to prostrate oneself at the feet of the monarch when allowed so close to His Majesty's person to receive a welcome, greeting or honor. King James VI & I's own son, the future King Charles I, himself was in just this position at the feet of his father when he returned from Spain. It is amazing that such shallow reasoning can be allowed to be pawned off as legitimate historical analysis.

Finally, much is made of King James VI & I articulating in his writing that he "loved" someone of the same gender giving the reader the mistaken belief that "love" stood for a sexual attraction and thus yet another "proof" of the "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Also, it is alleged that King James VI & I "justified homosexuality many times" in his writings.

The most common offered "proof" of this mistaken assertion is a quotation from King James VI & I's speech to Parliament which is violently ripped from its intended meaning and context. For an in- depth refutation of this form of argument the diligent reader is referred to my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused.

The Reverend Barrie Williams sums up the desperation of this reasoning:

"... there must be many besides myself for whom nine short words of the King are sufficient: 'Jesus had His John, and I have my George.' King James was in every estimate a devout protestant, and anyone who can believe that he would cast aspersions on the moral integrity of Our Saviour would have no difficulty in believing that the world is flat."

The sheer etymological ignorance of this type of argument is astounding! In my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused I examine the widespread and commonly accepted practice of men and women writing to each other in loving terms and expressing their "love" for one another. Such Jacobean stylistic expressions of this kind were in no way indicative of sexual attraction or homosexuality.

I believe Lucius Annaeus Seneca said it best when he wrote:

"... they refute their case by means of the very passages which lead them to infer it."

Certain revisionist historians would have you believe otherwise and advocate the use this method to prove Biblical characters were likewise "homosexuals" to include Jesus Christ, David and Jonathan. These types of evidences, if you can call them that, are the types of things that critics of King James VI & I use to validate their claims. When they can't force King James VI & I to say what they want they simply make him "mean" what they want. Or, in other words, what they can't find stated they simply infer is there and place between the lines even though it is not "in the lines." However, if King James VI & I did not mean what he wrote then who is anyone to tell us what he actually meant?

As far as "witnesses" go, critics can only cite a handful of contemporaries of King James VI & I and most of these were men fired from office (sour grapes), or were political or religious enemies of the King, or they were otherwise disgruntled courtiers with an ax to grind and none ever were eye witness to any overt sexual acts on the part of King James VI & I.

Not only this but I have not found one yet that ever formally accused King James VI & I of directly being a homosexual and brought his case before any legal or religious body not to mention attempting to obey the precepts of Scripture in making such outlandish claims. For an in- depth examination of the charges commonly leveled at King James VI & I the careful reader is referred to my book mentioned previously.

It is obvious that myriad are the claims leveled at James Charles Stuart's (King James VI & I) moral character or lack thereof. However, out of this great sea of negative opinion the tide is fortunately turning away from the shores of libel and gossip and heading towards the calm home port of objectivity and evidentiary concerns.

Historians like the rest of our society are not immune from the influences of modern faddish trends and regrettably King James VI & I has suffered more than his share of diatribes that are directly due to a falling away from classical objective interpretive methods that were long indicative of the traditional historical method. Recent trends have captivated modern historians and led them to experiment with eisegetical techniques and to put it colloquially "tabloid style journalism." Therefore, much that has been written regarding His Majesty King James VI & I has not been the result of a balanced exegetical method.

Further complicating the situation and making matters worse has been the regrettable over reliance by historians on certain scurrilous sources that were produced in an era when libels of the Stuarts and the Monarchy were at a premium in general and whose opinions were motivated by a distrust and outright hostility to the noble Scots as a nation and King James VI & I in particular. King James VI & I being the first Scot to sit on the English throne and the natural father of the last Stuart King to reign in England before the regicide of The Royal Martyr, King Charles I, King James VI & I was naturally a prime target for abuse.

Making an easy target for his pursuit of peace and his many physical handicaps, King James VI & I was and is ill treated by many who venture to put pen to paper with a view to ruminating on the character of this much misunderstood Monarch. Like all of us in the course of King James VI & I's life he made enemies, and as king he had more than his share. Not only this but King James VI & I had to deal and overcome outright racism against his home of birth, Scotland. It is a sad fact that most of King James VI & I's contemporary critics were either disgruntled courtiers who were removed from office by King James VI & I himself or otherwise suffered loss of political or peerage advancement under King James VI & I or were haters of the whole Scottish nation!

Much indeed has been written on King James VI & I and because of this plethora of information a few researchers when doing analysis on King James VI & I simply refer back to past popular and easily obtainable sources rather than expending time and effort in obtaining rare and difficult to find first hand accounts of either the critical or ameliorative sources. Most indeed who have written about King James VI & I have never actually sat down to read what he actually wrote. This environment has created a prime climate for the kind of slanders and libels King James VI & I has been subjected to.

In my years of research on the life and character of King James VI & I, I have found that there is a great reluctance on the part of some of the more militant and bellicose of modern day critics of King James VI & I who claim to have facts to prove (beyond what they assert in their books) King James VI & I was a homosexual.

They seem unwilling to stand up to investigative criticism of their conclusions. They speak of research but balk at detailing the fruits thereof. They are fond of citing whole volumes of books and articles which they claim validate their assertions but refuse to justify any conclusions or data found therein. Some of the more extreme "Christian" critics of King James VI & I are extremely reticent about applying Biblical injunctions against gossip and rumor to their sources or even allow King James VI & I the protection of Scripture as found in Deut. 19:15 or I Tim. 5:19. Further, some are found to deny King James VI & I even professed to be a Christian! I find this extremely curious that such individuals who claim to be "Christians" would ignore Biblical injunctions on falsely accusing a brother and the evidentiary requirements to sustain charges of the type they advocate.

Thankfully, modern secular critical opinion on King James VI & I is reevaluating the negative assertions of his moral character and moderate critics of King James VI & I are now admitting that these charges are basically OPINION not historical facts! As noted above, only a few extremist and militant and the most ardent of King James VI & I's critics are espousing some of the most vociferous and invectively rancorous libels of King James VI & I.

I have also found in the course of my research a most curious phenomenon, that there is almost a total vacuum of consideration of what King James VI & I actually wrote or what he believed outside of a few brief excerpts of his writings which are more often than not stripped from their context or misinterpreted almost beyond recognition. Great weight almost to the point of complete dependence is attached to the writings of a few disgruntled courtiers, racists and bigots (Sir Anthony Weldon, Francis Osborne and Sir Edward Peyton and a few others).

The writings of Peter Heylyn, Sir William Sanderson, Bishop Godfrey Goodman and Anthony A. Wood and others (not to mention King James VI & I himself) are almost totally forsaken thus creating an unbalanced view of King James VI & I as viewed from contemporary accounts. Similarly, most modern works which discount the critical view of King James VI & I are also almost completely ignored by those who wish to paint King James VI & I as a homosexual.

When authors are unduly influenced by the scandal value of such poor sources they tend to rely on them in extreme and thus forsake detailed historical research and ignore the principles of evidentiary preponderance of evidence and thus sacrifice this for the propensity of our frail human nature in its attraction for dirt and scandal. Contradictory applications of principles and imbalanced research techniques can only result from a defective research method. Unfortunately this type of phenomenon has run rampant and caused many such evaluations to run amuck of the facts concerning King James VI & I.

I have not found any persons yet who libel King James VI & I as being a homosexual who are willing to allow themselves to be judged based on the same lines of evidence and principles upon which they unjustly convict King James VI & I .

All these factors coupled with the cultural and etymological ignorance prevailing in our day and the outright historical bias of some against King James VI & I have produced a situation where King James VI & I's accusers have played free with the actual historical facts and in some cases invented more ingenious eisegetical interpretations than any stretching of the imagination could ever produce. Thus the facts of history have been traded for the inventions of the imagination and regrettably there has of yet been no limitation to the unbridled attacks on the ever blessed memory and reputation of His Majesty, King James VI & I. When such pseudo-history is accepted for the real thing and we refuse to be bound to actual historical facts and opinions are masqueraded in place of reality then no valid conclusions can ever be reached.

In my attempts to request evidence that is commonly purported to exist by the sternest critics of King James VI & I sadly I have found that this evidence is often elusive and at best highly speculative. Instead what I have been offered in place of hard data from King James VI & I's militant and extremist critics is sarcasm, evasion, ridicule, rudeness and outright refusal to provide the requested information.

From King James VI & I's more mild critics they are at least recognizing the fact that their opinions have led to incorrect assumptions that accusations of homosexuality leveled at King James VI & I are factual, which they are not, and are based on speculation and opinion. Many are even willing to entertain the belief that King James VI & I might not have been homosexual at all. This is something that King James VI & I's hard line critics have yet to do and seem dead set against.

The personal slanders and racially motivated innuendoes and epithets were indicative more of the declarant's anti-Scottish bias and resultant dislike of King James VI & I than they were etiologically the result of actual facts. Thus, the scandalous artifacts which have been so carefully exhumed setting forth the "dirt" of the matter are in need not of study but of burial. These slurs are only allegorically and vaguely implying misdeeds on the part of King James VI & I in the most indirect manner and should be highly suspect. Often by their own account imagination played a key role in their assertions and this was based on their own particular interpretation (not provable facts) of the actions of King James VI & I. It is highly coincidental that the promoters of the charges were those who either bore no good will to the Scots or otherwise had a grudge to bear against their King. So, like irreverent grave robbers having no respect for the dead they attempt to steal that which does not belong to them and not content with desecrating the memory and honor of King James VI & I they also trample under foot his blessed memory. This ought not be so!

There seems to be a divergence of opinion amongst King James VI & I's critics. This is indicative of the fact that modern attitudes on King James VI & I are changing and the hard liners are refusing to budge. So far factual rebuttals of the hard line opponents of King James VI & I have had little effect as the pugnacious critics are refusing to yield to the actual evidence and are holding on to the rumors of the past. Such is the decline and decay of our society when we will allow the least of us, those who cannot defend themselves, to be thrown to the wolves if you will and be unjustly accused. In our passive acceptance of this injustice I see the fate of us all in that one day we may all find ourselves the target of false accusers. Where have moral and historical ethics gone!

The sheer bankruptcy of the critical case should be evident to any sincere lover of history. To those who will convict King James VI & I on the scantiest of evidence it must be seen that these individuals will thus embody the demise of all true history. The plethora of moral indictments and claims against King James VI & I's character are not historical facts but rather in all actuality primarily unjust criticisms which are commonly mistaken for facts.

Serious dialogue seems to have been relegated to the museum of ancient history and fallen into disuse. However, the criticisms of King James VI & I actually reveal more about our society's preoccupation with scandal and dirt than they do about the life and character of King James VI & I . We can no longer allow lopsided research to overpower the facts of history.

The best advise and observation on this sad situation ironically comes from King James VI & I himself. As His Majesty King James VI & I noted almost prophetically long ago:

"And principally exercise true wisdom in discerning wisely between true and false reports. First concerning the nature of the person reporter; next, what effect he can have in the well or evil of him whom of he maketh the report; thirdly, the likelihood of the purpose itself, and the last the nature and past life of the delated person ... "

And:

"They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."

His Majesty King James VI & I,

Basilicon Doron

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

I will tell you some secrets for no other reason than to jade my family. I am of the bloodlines.

I am also a member of this site but I am not going to log in or tell you who I am because I will only get harassed constantly about the things the families do and from people wanting secrets.
Also I am on VPN of course.

Now on to the fun part.

Did you know the products you buy all have spells put on them in the warehouse before they hit store shelves? There are people who are paid just to do this. Everything you see at Walmart has been charmed or hexed accordingly. Everything. Big rituals done regularly to every shipment of goods.

Walmarts and Walgreens have catwalks for snipers and sections of building that are removable to accommodate machine gun nests.

FEMA camps are for whatever we need them for. They were built just in case. They are even designed to protect families and employees of the upper echelon if need be. Think of it like a kennel to protect their favorite pets until they can pick them up. They are purposed for over a dozen completely pre-planned out initiatives. Yes some of those purposes are killing people.

Oreos have nicotine in them.

Free energy is real and largely solar. It is the easiest to implement world wide but there are other methods of free energy as well. The trick to making solar efficient and powerful is very simple. It will come out eventually. We all use it.

Illegal psychology, sociology,pharmacology, occult magic and technology are the instruments used to make the music being played to control you. All in concert. A layered affect is the means to its usefulness. It creates a cacophony that people can not identify. They lack the scope of logic to understand what is happening to them.

The future of technology is largely magnetic and vibrational as well as specifically audio vibrational. Vibratio can be used to tell spiders what shape to build a Web in for instance. Vibration is nature's language. The universes language actually. Other planets speak to us using vibrations. The planet itself I mean. Aliens talk to us with lazers that have messages encoded in the light.

All top celebrities and politicians involved in the occult have eaten human flesh as a form of initiation to them and a means of blackmail for us. They are cannabils. We do not partake in this. We simply let them believe we do.

If I am not banned or deleted I will return.

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

Humanism is EVIL!

by David J. Stewart

“The pagan in Africa gets a piece of wood and builds him a god; the intellectual in the university gets his mind and builds himself a god.”
—Dr. Jack Hyles, from the sermon titled, How We Got Here

There is an evil under the sun lurking amongst mankind known as humanism..."An insane form of thinking that invades the human mind convincing it of it's superiority over God and His Word." I will repeat that definition of humanism again...

An insane form of thinking that invades the human mind convincing it of it's superiority over God and His Word.

Humanism is a direct enemy of Christianity and therefore Christ Himself. God hates humanism, but He surely loves the humanist. One must not confuse hatred against humanism with the love of God. As Christians, we are to love all people of all races of all nations. However, we are to hate the damnable heresies and evils that destroy the same people.

The Bible is God's Word. The King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible, preserved, eternal Word of God. Whether the heathen want to accept the Bible as God's Word or not is irrelevant...The Bible is God's Word.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." -1st Peter 1:23

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12

To those who reject God's gift of eternal life by spitting on the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Bible says...

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" -2nd Thessalonians 1:8

Hell will be hot my friend. God doesn't want ANYONE to burn in hell, but the Bible is clear that ONLY those who go through Jesus Christ will make it to heaven...

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -John 14:6

This is the major problem with HUMANISM...it does not recognize God at all. I was doing some research online about Humanism and ran across the Council for Secular Humanism website. The particular article I read was 10 Myths About Secular Humanism by Matt Cherry and Molleen Matsumura taken from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 1. I would like to comment on a few of their statements.

Article quote: "Yes, it's true that secular humanists don't believe in a God or an afterlife...Secular humanists plead guilty as charged to these and many other claims that show the genuine and radical differences between humanism and revealed religion. In fact, we are proud of these differences, and want to see them publicized and debated."
My response: Anyone who has faith in God should run as far away from secular humanism as they can. Frankenstein would be welcome in my home before I'd let Secular Humanism in the front door. The humanists openly admit that they DON'T believe in God, heaven, or hell. This is to their own demise. It is such atheistic godless-minded thinkers who are controlling the curriculum of the public school system in America. I am unalterably opposed to the heathen public school system. Humanism is of the devil because it denies Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Article quote: "Humanists also emphasize the importance of self-determination - the right of individuals to control their own lives, so long as they do not harm others. Secular humanists, therefore, often promote causes where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice regarding sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia"

My response: The above quote is clear, the Humanists are working in direct opposition to the New Testament church. Humanists openly PROMOTE a "Do-Your-Own-Thing" type mentality. Do you know that is exactly what the Church of Satan believes? They believe that you can do anything you want, just as long as no one else gets hurt. However, that is NOT what the Bible teaches. We are commanded in the Bible to OBEY GOD rather than men (Acts 5:29). How can Humanists obey God when they deny that He even exists? Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

Furthermore, abortion is murder and destroys a little babies' life. Is this not hurting someone? The Humanists and Satanists speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Homosexual community doesn't want the public to know the truth (the statistics) about their "freedom of choice" regarding Sodomy. There is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality. New York just opened the countries first exclusively homosexual high school...talk about discrimination. If someone started an ONLY white kids school, the public would go nuts. I guess being homosexual gives them special rights which allows for discrimination. The days are growing evil friend. Are you right with God in your heart? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour? If not, please do so right now before it is too late. You have no guarantee of tomorrow (Proverb 27:1).

3. Article quote: "On the other hand, liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism."

My response: There is NO such animal as "liberal Christianity," just as there is no such thing as "Christian rock" music. Either it's Christian or it's heathen. It's sickening to hear professed "Christians" speak of "Theistic Evolution." The Bible teaches that God created the world as we know it in six days and then rested on the seventh. It is unbelief in God's Word to teach or believe anything else. Most people are woefully ignorant of what it means to be a Christian. Even false religions such as godless Catholicism call themselves "Christians." They are reprobates! I do not hate Catholics; on the contrary, I love them. I hate Catholicism because it is a damnable heresy totally out of line with the Bible. The Bible is God's Word, listen to the Bible NOT the dope in Rome.

4. Article quote: "But secular humanism is not a religion and humanists don't worship anything. We are far too realistic to worship humanity. While we recognize that all human beings have the potential to do good, we also realize that the potential exists for acts of great evil. Humanity's constant challenge is to understand itself and improve itself."

My response: Romans 1:25 says, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." It is a very dangerous thing to re-create God in our own image. Mankind was created in God's image and we must not CHANGE that truth into a lie. When I think of the humanists, I think of a Proverb in the Bible (Proverb 19:3) which says, "The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD. Secular humanism is utter foolishness and an abomination before the Lord God. The Bible teaches that God created mankind, which means that God has the master blueprints (the instructions). The Bible is God's instruction Book to mankind teaching us how to live and to treat each other. If we neglect God's truth, then we are like an idiot headed for a waterfall without a paddle because he deliberately threw the paddles overboard. Proverb 20:24 teaches, "Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?" Apart from God's Word, there is no understanding! Proverb 28:5 declares, "Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things."

5. Article quote: "Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview."

My response: I think I'll let God answer this one for Himself...

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." -1st Corinthians s 2:14-16

Humanism is horribly evil because it DENIES God. Humanism is evil because it seeks answers WITHOUT God. Humanism is evil because it does NOT recognize the Bible as God's Word. Humanism is wicked because it promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, witchcraft, abortion, assisted suicide, and every other evil act (as long as they think no one is being hurt). I got news for you Mr. and Ms. Humanist...babies get hurt when you suck their heads off, cut them into bit sizes pieces or burn them alive in acids. Someone is definitely getting hurt. To you it's just "freedom of choice" regarding reproduction. Freedom of choice? For who? The child certainly has no choice.

#1933741 #fundie fstdt.com

[Anon-e-moose
"One of the common claims is that Mary was probably only a little girl of 12-14 years old. The reason given for this is that it was "common custom" in those days to marry girls off that young. It is also suggested by some that Joseph must have been much older than she was because he appears to have died early. There is no mention of him after Jesus was 12 years old. This is an assumption and not necessarily based on the custom of the time.]

I don't think we can determine Joseph's age, but I think it is not likely that Mary was as young as some people represent her.

First of all, while I realize that Joseph and Mary were already espoused - but not officially married - I find it interesting that her parents don't even get an honorable mention here. We're not introduced to her as "Mary the daughter of _________". Added to that, Mary gets a lot more "press" than even Joseph does, especially in this passage. If Mary was just a little 12 to 14 year old girl betrothed to marry an older man, that seems a little bit odd. In such a case her parents would have still held a large place in her life because Joseph hadn't taken her yet, Matthew 1:18-20.

Some people might like to use this to show that a girl/woman belongs to her husband-to-be immediately upon betrothal/espousal, but that doesn't exactly make sense. When a young lady is promised in marriage, but not yet taken, and is still in her father's home, she must be in a situation of being answerable to both men for a time of transition. Assuming Mary was only 12-13 years old, she would surely have been living with parents or guardians still. One would expect that either Joseph or Mary's father would have been the main character being dealt with by God, and yet neither one is. That is a very interesting point and makes it hard for me to believe that she was that young. The fact that God deals directly with her and there is no mention of her father makes it seem likely that she was a good bit older than that, especially since in v. 39 she apparently travels by herself to see her cousin, Elisabeth.

Another reason I don't believe Mary was such a young girl is because in Mark chapter 5 we meet Jairus who came to Jesus pleading with Him to heal his daughter. In Mark 5:23 we read, And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. Jesus went to the house and raised the girl from the dead, and in vs. 41-42 the scripture says, And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. First, it is just my observation that a man who expected to marry his daughter off in a year or less just might not be calling her his "little daughter" at age 12. I realize that emotions could be blamed for his use of this expression, but somehow it just doesn't ring true. But, more than that, the word "Talitha" is thought to be a diminutive word meaning "little girl", as opposed to a young woman. We might infer from that that Jesus also did not consider her a young woman of marriageable age.

Which leads to another point which I think is even more important. Just because something is the "common custom" of a given era, it does not follow that all those who love God and follow His word will be doing that thing. Imagine if this earth went on another 2000 years and much of our present history was lost along the way. Some "scholar" who was supposedly "in the know" might portray us all as having tattoos because "it was the common custom" of that day. And, yet, would that be true? No! Certainly not. Some of us don't have tattoos for Biblical reasons, in fact. Mary and Joseph both were obviously people who loved the Lord and followed His commandments. It is more likely that Mary was raised by parents who loved God than otherwise. They would not follow the customs of the day just because that is what everyone else was doing - even if the "good, godly" folks at the synagogue thought it was fine. There were a lot of things the "good, godly" people of their day were doing that Jesus later rebuked!

Furthermore, we know that the early Christians in the Roman Empire did not typically practice early marriage for their young girls. In his book, The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi writes (p. 284), "Christians also expressed their respect for women by raising the age of marriage. Roman law established twelve as the minimum age at which girls could marry. But the law was nothing more than a recommendation...and was routinely ignored. The best available studies show that in the Roman Empire the pagans' daughters were three time more likely than Christians to marry before they were thirteen. By age eleven, 10 percent were wed. Nearly half (44 percent) of the pagan girls were married off by the time they were fourteen, compared to 20 percent of the Christians. In contrast, nearly half (48 percent) of the Christian females did not marry before they were eighteen."

My point is that the people Mary was associated with - Zacharias, Elisabeth and Joseph - were all godly people who loved the Lord. Mary herself was obviously a godly woman. It is possible that Joseph and Mary had been betrothed at an early age, but he had not taken her yet, and based on some of the other things I've already mentioned, it seems more than likely that she was older than the legendary 12-13 years at the time this account opens.

My last reason for not believing that Mary was a little 12-13 year old girl is that it is not physically safe for a girl that young to have children. If no one else was watching out for Mary's safety you can count on the fact that God was! My loving, kind heavenly Father would not impregnate a girl that young and physically immature. He just wouldn't do it. He is not that kind of God. That kind of behavior is found in gods in other religions, but not in God Almighty, the Faithful and True. Of Him it is said, He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Isaiah 40:11 If there is no other reason to know that Mary was not that young it is this. The God we know and trust simply wouldn't do that to one of His daughters. (Yes, men might do this; men who professed to fear God might do this; but remember that in this case God was the one calling the shots, fulfilling the prophecy, and ordering every event. He was fully in charge in a way we don't always see when He's dealing with sinful men.)....
http://www.homemakerscorner.com/bible-study-Luke-section2.html

Please stop calling mary a little girl. She was not a little girl. STOP ACCUSING GOD!

Higgscel & Various TERFs #sexist #transphobia incels.co

[LifeFuel] You made your bed, now sleep in it bitch.

Over.

I feel like the fight is over. Women have lost.

This morning I learned USA Swimming decided to follow IOC transgender policies for their junior divisions, Scottish government declaring men with penises in women's private areas are no different than women with different bodies like those who had mastectomy, and saw multiple threads of universities low-key changing all single-sex bathrooms into gender neutral bathrooms.

When Trump won the White House, the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was at its height of popularity. A girl friend of mine in Scotland was telling me that our western democratic societies can turn like this overnight. I didn't really agree with her at the time. Trump in the White House was alarming, but I also thought it was liberal fearmongering to think our entire social structure can be torn away and all of women's rights being taken away just like that. Surely this couldn't happen, right? Our systems are well-entrenched and women would rise up and raise hell if something like this ever happen.

3 years later and here we are. The only crazy thing is that it's not the radical conservative right that is bringing forth this dystopian world for women. It's the Woke Left--the very people who fearmongered women about how bad Trump and the Republicans would be for women. What a fking bait and switch! Here we are, I'm watching, flabbergasted, how women's rights are being taken away overnight just like that. Yes indeed, they can just do it. (For the record, this is not a pro-Trump post. But I can't hold it back anymore how utterly beyond shock I am that this vengeance against women is coming from the left. I'm at the point where I feel like the conservative right is actually benign, that's how shell-shocked I am.)

And not only are women not rising up and raising hell. Tons of them--all of them on Wokes--are now fking Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia, crucifying other women for mortal offenses like "misgendering" and gaslighting other women to strip them of their basic instinct to believe their guts when they're feeling vulnerable.

I feel so oppressed and helpless right now. It doesn't matter how loud we all scream to be heard. The powers that be really can just overnight take it all away. This is not a drill.

And they'll continue to oppress us, while scaring us with the same old rhetorics about how our right to choice will be taken away to threaten us to fold to their side. As long as we are blinded to keep our eyes only on the fight against the conservative right to think that's the only threat to us, women won't see what they're doing. Women won't see what's coming. And the younger generations of women will simply be groomed and conditioned to the New World Order.

I literally feel sick. I want off this train.

ETA: changed "single bathroom" to "single-sex bathrooms." And thanks for the silver.

And over.

Men wanting to be seen as cute young girls is infuriating

Signed, a 4"11 woman, hovering around 90lbs, who will never walk into a room and be respected. I'm in my mid-twenties, multiple times a day I get told I look like a child. I'm fetishized constantly, get dirty looks and disgusting comments whenever I'm out with my child, can't go to work without being asked if I'm old enough to serve alcohol. When I ask not to be called cute, or picked up and prodded, I'm told it's a fucking compliment. It's very depressing feeling like I won't be seen as a woman until I'm middle-aged.

At first, I really tried to understand the trans community. I don't feel comfortable in my body either, and in my head I'm 6 feet tall and built like a tank, but seeing grown ass men "child play" is the most disgusting and offensive thing I've ever had the displeasure of discovering.

And over again.

Painting your face and/or nails doesn't change your gender! Makeup is not a gender!

This won't be my most eloquent post here but I'm at my wits' end.

Sorry, I just feel like screaming right now. I work in a job where I could be fired for expressing even the slightest hint that I might be gender critical and it's non-binary day or some other nonsense. I keep seeing all these posters with bearded dudes in neon eyeshadow or young women with short hair and glitter and I just want to scream! Makeup! Isn't! A! Gender!

Where will this regressive nonsense end? I already had to back away from a friendship with a dude who came out as a they/them and immediately started spouting off on how cis women are oppressing him because he sometimes gets questioned by his parents about wearing eyeliner and someone hesitated before holding the door to the women's toilet open for him. A grown man!

I honestly think the nonbinary bullshit is more harmful and regressive than the trans stuff. I could sympathise with trans medicalists to a degree. This just reeks of "not like the other girls" and "I need some oppression points."

I work with people in poverty. I work with people with learning disorders and disabilities who've had their utilities cut off. I help recovering addicts go about getting enough food to live. I see young mums who were forced away from abortions by restrictive communities now struggling with actual starvation and violence at home. I help abused women find a shelter for their pets so their partners can't murder the animal when she tries to escape.

I see actual oppression every damn day. I've been on the breadline. I'm disabled. I know oppression.

You painting your nails and getting "Sir"-ed at the local grocery store isn't oppression. Grow up!

These women will complain about trannies. And no, not cherry picking, these posts are all "top" in their subreddit, in the last week.
Despite probably the same women who pushed for these tranny degeneracy and sexual openness, thanks to their PC nature.
Women invading male spaces? Empowering. Men in skirts invading your bathroom? In my opinion, "Deserving". Get ready for the 2020 Olympics ladies, men in skirts are after your world records.

Anywhoo, doesn't it feel good that both enemies are starting to have a go at one another? Get fucked both of you.

AllWomenAreLikeThat #fundie redpilltalk.com

Incels.me said PUA was legit, despite "redpill" status

Reading their FAQ and Terms page.

They claim that hooking up with girls is/was easier in the mid 90s and prior (before Internet and Facebook) meaning people had to meet-up in person.

Women still cherry-picked the Chads from the bunch based on male physical attractiveness, athleticism, height, face, good hair/line and proportions even in the 90s (I know cause i was there high school 1992-1997).

It is true that Facebook has lead to women being able to ignore, block and not having to interact with or include incels on the females social media accounts (and boy do you see the cherry picking with hives of Facebook friends all Stacies and the odd male Personal Trainer, Drug dealer, effeminate School/College/University pretty boy chad).

But trust me I was active, alive and very perceptive in the 90s (God I feel old) and it was no different then than it is now. Women still walked away, gave the cold shoulder or outwardly bullied and excluded incels backs then based on lack of physical prowess, inability to stand up for oneself or lack of aesthetic standards.

There was no room for inclusiveness,or empathy or meritocracy, evenin a pre-internet age.

As for PUA somehow "working" during the age of (pay as you go sim) NOKIA 3310 mobile phones 1997 until the supposed eliminator of incels Facebook,I-Phones, PlentyOfFish 2007 I can safely say.....bollocks.
Men were still walking home alone during this era. Hence why nightclubs have been steadily closing as this graph ascertains.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... nightclubs
You could say it was TINDER or Internet, but I'd say it was ugly men getting wiser, stop wasting their money and settling for a fat wife and a house.

Admin is a former, coping pick up autist.

MarcoosT93 & FlatCommunication3 #transphobia reddit.com

Re: The pseudobisexuality is strong with this one.

image

(MarcoosT93)

I know this is obviously gross but I can't help but feel a twang of sympathy for people like this. How awful is their life snd how deranged are they that this is what they settle on to improve it. I know it's not exactly their fault per se but the progressive left has some answering to do for promoting a lot of it's ideas without any kind of restraint or forethought of the consequences down the line. Like what's it going to be like 20 years from now when all these dumb confused teenagers are mutilated hormone addled disfunctional adults? Fuck I sound like pearl clutching conservative but this shit genuinely concerns me

Hard to feel sorry for them when they're yelling about sucking their girl dick and\or masturbating in the women's washrooms. Too much time in the trans forums. Maybe if they spent time away they can develop some empathy and sympathy for the women they are colonizing.

It is hard to feel sorry for them but I'm a compassionate person it's one of my core values. I just look and see a horribly broken human trying to find love and acceptance so desperately that this is the step they're taking. It genuinely breaks my heart

I agree somewhat too. I mean, look at the transsexuals, who have totally been steamrolled over by the agp fetishists and the trans trenders. Mostly though I feel the worst for the kids who have been told if they want to play with toys not typically associated with their gender they are trans and should be put on puberty blockers. I draw the line at feeling even remotely sorry for any of these men who take over women's spaces with such gleeful malice and spite.

Yeah thank you for giving me the term Transexual I was looking for a distinguishing name. Also that's been my pet peeve, so what if a kid plays with the opposite genders stuff? Nearly all kids do, I definitely borrowed my sister's barbies more than once I didn't need hormones. I also occasionally wore make up as a teenager or had my nails painted.... Because that shits fun, instead we're enforcing a somehow more rigid gender binary by saaying you can only be your birth gender and any deviancy means chemically altering and mutilating you

(FlatCommunication3)

I mean, look at the transsexuals, who have totally been steamrolled over by the agp fetishists and the trans trenders.

Autogynephilic transsexuals have steamrolled plenty of people but not themselves, that's for sure. As for HSTS (homosexual transsexuals) some of the biggest leading trans activists who have promoted self-ID + puberty blocker regimens are HSTS.

Look I know your friend is a transsexual but please stop repeating this old canard. It's simply not true.

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

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.

...

If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.

...

If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.

...

Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.

...

Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

Revbo™ #transphobia godlikeproductions.com

“If very few people are willing to date trans people, what does this mean for their health and well-being? If trans and non-binary people lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support, this could explain some of the existing health disparities within trans communities.”

According to your study, 12.5% of the population is just fine dating a crazy mutilated freak, doc. Considering the crazy mutilated freaks are less than a tenth of one per cent of the population, I'd say their dating options are well beyond anything they could possibly have ever hoped for, and they have assholes like you, who insist that the rest of us are "transphobic," whatever that means, to thank that the number is that high and most likely climbing as you indoctrinate a new generation of children, barely out of the womb, in to your degeneracy.

KABOOM THE MOONS #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The Sun Was Shown To Be An Oculus Gate/Window, A Moon And The Burning Bush From The Bible On Monday Night Raw April 9, 2018!

From this thread!
Thread: !!!!!!!***MEGA BREAKING*** ***SOUL TRAPS***!!!!!!! (Page 232)

HAHAHA THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG MAN!

LOOK WHO SHOWED UP AT WWE LAST NIGHT!

EMBER MOON=BURNING MOON=SUN MOON!
Thread: The Three Heads/Moons of Cerberus/Hades/Trinity God/Satan and the Underworld/Under the Dome we all live in.

AT 0:19 IT'S THE SUN AND IT IS AN OCULUS/SUN GATE EXACTLY LIKE I DECODED AND EXPOSED THE CRAP OUT OF IN THIS THREAD!
Thread: The Sun Is The Gate/Oculus Of Earth's Dome!

IF YOU PAUSE THE CLIP AT 0:22 THERE'S MORE SYMBOLISM OR SUBLIMINAL OF THAT YELLOW OCULUS GATE TO BE OUR VERY SUN!

And the wrestler that carries this name is painted red like the devil and a woman probably a tranny and wearing a hood/hiding her face, all attributes of the lunar boss/satan/shepherd jesus/burning bush yahweh/cyclops/ruler of underworld earth cave.

WOW AND JUST NOTICED THANKS TO THIS WWE CLIP, THE BURNING BUSH FROM THE BIBLE SYMBOLIZES OUR VERY SUN/BURNING MOON!

LOOK AT THE TREE BUSH HIDING AND POSITIONED CLEVERLY RIGHT AT THE OCULUS SUN GATE/EMBER MOON HAHAHAHA! SO BUSTED!
Looks to be moving like black goo too!

Christopher Haynes #fundie amazon.com

Creationists, our point is this:
By the standards of science, the "Law of Supernatural Abiogenisis" is the "established" science:

here is the law:
"In the absence of devince intervention, life cannot exist in a bounded and initally lifeless system."
We dont say this law has been proved.
Indeed, Scientific Laws cant be proved.
The Conservation of Energy. That cant be proved.

We only say this:
A law like the Conservation of Energy becomes established science, when all efforts to falsify it have failed.
Since Proof is imposible in Science, Failure to Disprove (Failure to falsify) is the standard used throughout science.
Its the standard that makes the Law of Conservation of Energy, which cant be proved, the established science.

Thus the Law of Supernatural Abiogenis is established science, by the standards of science.
It is in principle falsifiable.
To falsiy it, do this: Demonstrate Naturalisitic Abiogenisis.
Just what our Atheist friends assure us is possible.
They need to. For them its a mortal issue. If the Law of Naturalistic Abiogeneis is correct, Atheism itself must be false.

But too bad. All efforts to falsify it have failed.
An international effort, of 100 years, involving the worlds top gurus, including several Nobel Prize winners.

The Law of Conservation of Energy
Never falsified = Established Science

Law of Supernatural Abiogenisis
Never falsified = Established Science
Why not?

Templar 331 #fundie mmo-champion.com


After a man allegedly tried to inappropriately touch a 15-year-old girl on a bus in Queens, New York, Morancy stepped in, pinned the accused creeper against a seat and sent a simple message. He said,
"Don’t ever do that shit again."
Eventually the cops came to the scene to sort the situation out. When they arrived, Morancy told them there was a man touching a little girl. Morancy also told them he was defending her.


And what was a teenager doing on a bus by herself?


1) What does that have to do with anything? 2) How do you think teenagers get around in New York?


1. Pretty poor parenting to let a teenager who can't take care of herself go around New York alone. I know it's victim blaming but you see where her being alone got her, almost sexually assaulted. Imagine if this dude hadn't of been there.

2. Hopefully with their parents or in a group


1) You're right, it is victim blaming. How is being groped by a stranger on a public bus the fault of the parents or the girl? Or a demonstration that she can't take care of herself? Half the neckbearded, "independent", adult men commenting in this very thread are too cowardly to even confront this guy themselves, by their own admissions. Grown women get raped and molested by strangers too, should they be followed around by mommy and daddy every where they go? If a total stranger walked up behind you and punched you in the back of the had, are you going to claim it was your parent's fault for not picking you up after work?

I seem to have struck a nerve.

Here's a tip for life, if you can't take care of yourself don't be by yourself. This girl was clearly not able to take care of herself so she shouldn't have been by herself. By all means blame the groper, but when you jump into the fray you run the risk of getting hurt. And from your own observations here this girl was lucky the good guy was there to protect her because how many of us would jump in, right?

Nice to know my town is part of "fantasy land" instead of reality.

As for the rest of your tirade, you have failed to explain why the girl was on the bus by herself. Were her parents to busy to escort her? Did they not care for her enough? As you've explained, New York/L.A./etc. are pretty big cities. Why take the chance in letting a teenager who can't take care of herself ride the bus alone? When she's a grown woman who can take care of herself then the parents shouldn't have
anything to do with it.

If someone comes out of alley and you don't see them and hits you in the head with a bat, that's you screwed.

Then that's your ass for not paying attention to dark allies. The victim of something isn't off the hook because they are the victim. If someone fails to protect themselves from a possible event then it's still on them. Walking into a street with your eyes closed doesn't absolve you when you are hit by a car. Going into public alone when you are too young to protect yourself doesn't mean you or your guardians are in the right
I neither conveyed nor even inferred anything about what should or should not have happened. I simply said that she, like most people, was likely not expecting to be blatantly, gratuitously fondled on a crowed bus in the middle of the day.

So a woman doesn't expect to get groped on a crowded bus? I may not have much experience riding on public transit but I'm willing to bet this happens too often.


Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

creation.com #fundie creation.com

I was raised in a secular home, and surrounded by atheistic propaganda from an early age, whether it be from school or the media. Unsurprisingly, I became an atheist at the age of 12.

As the years passed and I truly tried to understand the world around me, I discovered a horrifying truth that had been hidden from me, hidden from everyone[...]

Atheists often say that they can truly live a happy, fulfilling life. Yet this is a lie, a deception which damns millions of souls to darkness.

While you revealed much in your articles, you have not destroyed the root.

Simply put, atheism destroys the possibility of personal identity, choice, and objective and subjective meaning.

Atheism inescapably leads to naturalism, and from naturalism follows atheism’s great skeleton which its followers try to keep hidden; determinism.

Determinism is inescapable if one is a naturalist, as all that exists is material and has come about by purely natural processes.

This means then, that the mind of man, our greatest treasure, is reducible to material bound by physical laws; namely, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are reducible to reactions of chemicals in the brain.

Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, those reactions are simply the by-products of prior reactions forming an unbreakable chain which leads to the very beginning of the universe.

This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isn’t possible.

All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.

There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist, the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim, the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard.

Both are totally the same in atheism.

George Moncayo #fundie facebook.com

"Borrowing from the Bible is couched in philosophical terminology like preconditions of intelligibility. In brief, it is when a worldview cannot account for something that is foundational."- World religions and cults vol 3 p. 24. An example, when atheists say "your God is evil", they have no basis in their worldview to say anything is evil. In a naturalistic darwinian worldview there is no ultimate standard to say something is evil because in a godless universe it's just one opinion over another. What one person says is evil another person thinks is good. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing with the holocaust. The holocaust was a terrible thing but only in the Biblical worldview can that be truly said that the holocaust was evil because all morality comes from God, Isaiah 45:19 God said "I, the Lord, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright." Only because God has spoken, thats the reason why we have moral absolutes. Atheists have to borrow from the Biblical worldview to attack it. This is just part of what is called the methodology of presuppositional apologetics.

"Dr" Rick Van Thiel #conspiracy crooksandliars.com


Before becoming an antigovernment “sovereign citizen,” Rick Van Thiel worked as a porn star, male escort and sex toy inventor in Las Vegas.

Now Van Thiel is in jail there, accused of practicing medicine without a license and claiming to have performed dozens of abortions, circumcisions, castrations, root canals, even cancer treatments.

Meanwhile, the FBI, the Southern Nevada Health District and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are attempting to locate more than 100 former “patients” of the sovereign citizen-physician who calls himself “Dr. Rick.”

His patients — treated in a ramshackle trailer described as a scene from a horror movie — likely were drawn in by his ads promoting holistic medicine and natural remedies and denouncing conventional medicine, vaccinations, the pharmaceutical industry, GMOs and government interference with health care...

He will be in court later this month in Las Vegas – acting as his own attorney, a frequent practice for sovereigns.

“We do NATURAL REMEDY RESEARCH for the purpose of increasing quality and span of life, one human being at a time,” Van Thiel claims on one of his websites. “Unlike the American medical industry's toxic drug-dealing doctors, we don't see you as your disease.”

Like other extremists, Van Thiel claims chemtrails are evidence the U.S. government is secretly poisoning its citizens.

Van Thiel claimed he performed abortions, removed sebaceous cysts, treated sexually transmitted and life-threatening diseases and provided ozone treatments at “unbeatable prices” in exchange for Bitcoins, gold and silver and firearms.

“I contract privately with people [and] do not contract with government employees of any kind,” he said in advertising his medical services.

“Prior to becoming a professional doctor, I was a sex machine inventor, swinger, BDSM master, porn actor and producer for 14 years, so I've seen it all,” Van Thiel wrote on his site. He claims the title “Dr. Rick” is a nickname, “not intended to infer state sanction or Rockefeller drug pushing training.”

“The purpose of this site is not to beg for FDA endorsement or to diagnose or treat disease, it is to help you make informed decisions necessary to take control of your own life and health, and now to care for it in the manor [sic] you decide is best for you,” a passage on the site reads...

Van Thiel contends prostitution and practicing medicine shouldn't be regulated by the government because they involve “only consenting individuals.” He claims to have studied health and anatomy for 28 years, telling the Las Vegas paper he “has treated hundreds of patients.”

“When I work with people, it's a deal between me and them, not a deal between me, them and the government," Van Thiel told Las Vegas station KVVU-TV.

Van Thiel claims on his website that he treats “morgellons,” a delusional symptom in which patients claim they are infested with disease-causing agents. “Dr. Rick” says the ailment “should be called Genetically Modified Organism Disease” that is a secret government “bio-weapon that has been unleashed on humanity via genetically modified food and Geo-engineering (chemtrails).”

Matt Mariott #conspiracy glory-of-the-olive.blogspot.com

Key Facts concerning the Destruction of Israel explained worldwide COMPLETELY FIRST and so far (September 2006) only by Matt Marriott, the Illuminati End Times Prophet:

1. The illuminati agenda "Destruction of Israel", now a top priority, code name "Glory of the Olive". Note: that is ALSO the illuminati code for completing the destruction of the catholic church.

2. Iranian leaders are illuminati agents, not true muslims.

3. Israeli leaders are illuminati agents. This means (see fact #1) that their goal is the destruction of Israel.

The same prophet who decoded the illuminati code for the "Panzer Kardinal" Natzinger, the day before they "elected" him. The first and so far only one to expose the FULL script of 9/11.

Bryce Lockwood #fundie returnofkings.com

A Guide To Weimerica

Bryce Lockwood is a straight white male who works at a university in a blue state and thus cannot use his real name. He writes, he lifts, he has skin in the game, and he lives at Ground Zero for Weimerica. He possess an ever-present sense of humor that would have seen him quip, “Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal!” had he been the SEAL that capped Bin Laden. He also has a masochistic streak that has expressed itself by climbing Mt. Tammany in the rain and reading the citation sections of various history books. He recently had to buy a new wardrobe as his waist shrunk from his workout and he just passed day 60 of the NF challenge. Friendly to stray dogs, hostile to stray thots.

“Weimerica,” an amalgam of Germany’s pre-Nazi era Weimar Republic, is a term you’ve probably heard in the past year if you’ve been active in the ongoing political maelstrom that is social media. Some alternatively call it “Clown World.” I prefer “Weimerica” as it more specific to what the United States has become recently and hints at a cataclysm yet to be.

This “guide” to Weimerica was written on the fly in-between back-to-back New England snowstorms, originally for an audience of one person. The genesis of this guide was the impending first-time visit to the US of a friend of mine from Lebanon. I wrote it not to show how bad things are, but instead to show how ugly things are. Not to frighten, but to inform on the many unpleasant realities that are all too quickly (and conveniently) forgotten about on a day-to-day basis. How indifference is the order of day despite the ever-tightening noose around the necks of most people.

So what is Weimerica, you ask? Read on and find out.

What is Weimerica?

Weimerica is….

…homicides being up 20% from 2014 (equivalent in raw numbers to more than the September 11th attacks).

…the 17,250 confirmed homicides of 2016 being more than any other year since 1997 (when there were 18,208).

…66,324 drug overdose deaths in a 12-month period (the Vietnam War saw 47,434 hostile deaths over 15+ years).

…44,193 suicides in 2015, with suicides being at 30-year highs in 2016, and suicide being one of the top ten causes of death in Weimerica.

…23,000,000,000 views on Pornhub in 2016 (729 per second every single day non-stop for the whole year) with there being only 7,466,964,000 people on Earth.

…70% of Weimerica being on prescription medication with 20% being on more than five medications at once (and life expectancy still dropping).

…real income showing little to no gains for decades on end.

…being worse off financially than your parents.

…a decrease in the average household income in New Jersey from 2005 to 2015.

…everything being fleetingly temporary, you won’t have that long lasting job, house, car, marriage, etc., like your parents and grandparents did.

…nearly half of all pregnancies being unintended.

…Weimerica is a colossal, dystopian shopping mall filled with 325 million atomized, rootless individuals with no common culture, cause, language, religion or background, united only by their shared consumerism (“Did you see the Giants game last night?” “Oh my Gawd, Stranger Thingssss!”).

The Motto for Weimerica: “NO LIVES MATTER”

A seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee fatally shoots an innocent passerby in the back with a stolen 40-caliber Glock handgun on a public pier? Acquitted.

A crying father begging for his life shot to death crawling on his hands and knees towards a SWAT team aiming AR-15s and screaming at him? Acquitted.

A bride-to-be gunned down in front of her house in her pajamas when a police officer sitting in his squad car suddenly draws and fires pointblank into her face? No charges.

22,000 attend a country music festival surrounded by high walls and patrolled by security guards and police officers in the most heavily surveilled city in the Western hemisphere? Gunned down by the score with total impunity in the biggest mass shooting of all time.

926,190 abortions in 2014, with an estimated 98.3% being elective (meaning unrelated to rape/incest and medical complications).
Everything Is Fake

Zillow.com and other real estate websites photoshop clouds, grass, and trees around properties and present them in a way that makes them appear much larger and more modern than they actually are.

These two pictures are of the same person:
[pictures omited]

Wall Street rating agencies graded $400 billion worth of subprime mortgage bonds without knowing what was in them, giving many of them the highest “AAA” rating (effectively making them rating agencies in name only).

The 5-star Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas employed an unregistered, unlicensed illegal immigrant as a security guard.

Love To Hate

Everything being either “awesome,” “insanely good,” or “the best ______ ever,” or “shit,” “shitty,” or “the worst _______ ever,” with little to no middle ground and/or reasoned opinions. For example, the discrepancy in reviews for The Last Jedi and nearly every one of the 100+ reviews I read for the Ford Fusion being either “BEST CAR EVER” or “Should be recalled, WORST CAR EVER.”

Every piece of media being heavily and ridiculously scrutinized down to the last detail for any inane reason to hate it. For instance, one of the top comments on a YouTube video for “Shout” by the Isley Brothers accused the video’s author of not including enough black people dancing in his/her photo montage and further asserting that this lack of inclusion was deliberate.

Hating something because it is successful/popular just to go against the grain. For instance, actual “professional” reviews of Dunkirk being “Yeah, yeah, it was great, but why weren’t women the main characters?” and “Yeah, it’s good, but Christopher Nolan and his Nolaniods….”

The hate-watching of TV shows (Keeping up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc.) propelling them to ultimate success.

Insane Anti-Social Atrocities Are The New Norm

4 out of the 5 worst mass shootings in Weimerican history took place in the past five years.

The worst mass shooting in US history (600+ gunned down) disappears from the news and thus collective consciousness in the space of a week.

The Sutherland Springs massacre (which featured babies being executed at pointblank range by rifle fire) disappears from the headlines within a day or two. This shooting would have ranked as the worst in Weimerican history as recently as 2007.

The mass shooting body count record for Weimerica was broken in 2017 a mere 15 months after the now-second worst mass shooting in Weimerican history occurred.

The firearms technology used in recent mass shootings has been around for decades, and gun laws as a whole have never been stricter and mental health resources have never been more available (remember 70% of the population is on prescription medication), so why is this happening now?

War Is The Default State

After 16+ years in Afghanistan and 14+ years in Iraq (and 6,935 total US deaths), war is the default state of Weimerica and no longer afforded special or notable status (in contrast, the major combat phase of the generation-defining Vietnam War was seven years).

0.4% of the population is active-duty military, meaning ~95% of the population most likely is not emotionally invested and/or cares minimally about whatever combat is/was taking place (or will take place).

The Everyday Absurdisms Of Weimerica

Prescription medication used to combat anxiety, depression, and suicidal/homicidal thoughts and actions causes anxiety, depression, and suicidal/homicidal thoughts and actions as a side effect.

A Rutgers University professor lamenting the Sandy Hook massacre so much that he made a YouTube video about it, but still believing in infanticide up to one year of age.

New Jersey has the highest paid police officers in the nation with an average salary of $100,000/year, but also has three cities in the top ten for “worst homicide rate” and those officers still have the right to shoot you to death if you don’t follow their conflicting orders to the letter while having a gun pointed at your head.

Parents working and saving money for twenty years to send their kids to college only for them to return home after graduation hating them, their country, and themselves in addition to being tens of thousands in debt.

One-fourth of graduates leaving college with a four year degree in hand are no better off than if they did not go to college at all from a wage perspective.

The maintenance staff at a college making more than most of the graduates of that college because they are unionized.

Consensual sex (“fuck me in the butt!!!”) being redefined as “rape” with such concepts as “enthusiastic consent” (Yes.=Rape, YES!=not rape), “continuing consent” (“ask every ten minutes if it’s okay to keep going”), and “affirmative consent” (“Can I hold your hand? Stroke your thigh? Whisper into your ear?”).

The wife of “American Sniper” Chris Kyle saying she married him because “he was a nice guy.”

“I do not care, I am a millionaire, I do not give AF.”

Some Classic Weimerican Quotes

“I was naked underneath my clothes.” ~A woman explaining her #metoo moment.

“CRAWL TOWARDS ME! IF YOU FALL, YOU BETTER FALL ON YOUR FACE!” ~A police officer’s reasonable and coherent order that must be obeyed upon penalty of death.

“He was turning his life around!” ~The classic family/friend lament of a dead victim/perpetrator with a less than stellar background.

“He changed into something he wasn’t.” ~The pathetic attempt of a high school chum of a mass shooter to cover up for the fact that he somehow missed what a psycho his friend was.

“Russian interference!” ~A viable excuse for anything and everything.

“The hoes are laughin’? YEP!” ~An exchange between a confused TV doctor and a 14-year-old aspiring female rap artist.

“He was COMPED!” ~The humblebrag of the coked up brother of a mass shooter/pasty.

“Stay in the car.”~A plea to do nothing and ignore the situation, whatever it may be.

When Did America Become Weimerica?

No firm answer, I first noticed it in the spring of 2009 when there was a constant stream of family murder-suicides and mass shootings, some of them recession related. Afghanistan also escalated that year (with death tolls doubling for both Britain and the US from the year prior) under the election promise of “I’ll get us out of Afghanistan, take that to the bank!”

Things really picked up steam in 2012 when large public mass shootings began occurring with increasing regularity, labor force participation hit a three decade low (meaning there was no economic recovery), and drug overdose deaths had already jumped 211% (in the Northeast) in comparison with 2010.

johnheno #fundie fstdt.com


For many people, the issue of our time is not "is it science", but rather to what extent the scientific world lives in a surreal of of its own making, far removed from reality. A surreal worldview that largely functions on unproven "blind faith" metaphysical religious assumptions, beyond the verifiable limits of science and physics. Namely, the hard-core atheism of "philosophical" naturalism and raw materialism: Based on the unproven and unverifiable "blind faith" delusion that "all reality" can, and must, be explained solely by natural processes and causes alone. There is a name for this surreal "closed mind" metaphysical religious view. It's called "Scientism", masquerading as science. This illusion is based on the the grand delusion that "finite" humanity, with limited knowledge, insight and understanding can define the ultimate nature of ultimate reality. The insane quest for the godless "theory of everything" turns out to be the theory of nothing. Science still has no "verifiable" naturalistic scientific answer for anything in existence, including the origin of the universe, life, consciousness. and all else. The utter absurdity of finite humanity actually believing they can define the infinite. None-the-less, the scientific world tells us that all these "vastly improbable" events just occurred, even though there is still no "verifiable" scientific answer" for anything in existence, including the the universe itself.
We have a name for "vastly improbable" events for which "no known scientific answer" exists. They are called "miracles". The problem is that all these 'natural' miracles of mainstream supposedly happened without self-existing self creating cause or miracle worker anywhere to be found in the universe. In which case all theists and creationists would have to concede that this is "really miraculous".http://thegodreality.org/miraclesofscience.html
The mainstream science mindset becomes even more irrational and absurd. We have "effects" that are not only far greater than the cause, but "opposite" to the cause. We have life from non-life. mind from non-mind, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence, reason from non-reason, conscience from no conscience, and personal humans from "impersonal atoms and molecules in motion". The situation has become so bazaar that any mention of God or a creator produces an irrational mental meltdown by Science journal's such as PLOS ONE. Little wonder the future belongs to the creationist minded scientists. The vast majority of people instinctively know that an an "intelligent effect" such as universe ALWAYS demands and "intelligent cause". And that a finely tuned, precisely balanced cosmos and our life rich terrestrial planet cannot be explained by “undirected” or unguided chance events. Nor can the highly complex matrix of coordinated ecosystems and fully integrated interdependent and interconnected living and environmental systems.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.

“The Age of the Dinosaurs is Now”
A new exhibit, “Dinosaurs Among Us,” at the American Museum of Natural History showcases the idea that dinosaurs are still among us in the form of birds. Their website says,

The evolution of life on Earth is full of amazing episodes. But one story that really captures the imagination is the transition from the familiar, charismatic dinosaurs that dominated the planet for around 170 million years into a new, small, airborne form: birds.
The video below, posted on YouTube by the American Museum of Natural History, features the text “the age of dinosaurs is now.”


And in another of their videos we are told, “The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct 65 million years ago. We still have them around today. You can see them in your backyard; you can see them everywhere.”


To back up this claim that dinosaurs and birds are basically one and the same, the museum provides supposed behavioral and anatomical evidence. But rather than supporting their imagined link between dinos and birds, the so-called evidence they provide really highlights their interpretation of the evidence. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and then they view some observable facts through that lens while ignoring the massive differences between the two groups. As with anything in the creation/evolution controversy, the issue isn’t about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Shared Behavior = Shared Ancestry?
To back up their claim that birds are just dinosaurs, they point to similar behaviors, such as nesting and caring for young—something birds and crocodiles do and something some dinosaurs appear to have done. They say, “Shared behaviors like these are evidence of common ancestry.” They also point to similarities in bird and dinosaur eggs as another “link in the chain of evidence connecting them.” But as we’ve pointed out many times, this is an interpretation of the evidence that simply assumes evolution to be true. They assume we see similarities because of shared ancestry. But there’s certainly another option: such similarities are reflections of a shared Creator. This Creator made all life to live in the same world, eat the same food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air; so we shouldn’t be surprised to see similarities across the animal world. Similarities in no way “prove” evolution. The claim that they do is merely an interpretation of the evidence.

“Big, Bad, . . . and Feathered”
Of course no discussion of dino-birds would be complete without trotting out the feathered dinosaurs. And this exhibit is full of them. Every dinosaur featured in the photos boasts a fluffy, bird-like coat or at least a small clump of feathers. Feathers have become a standard feature on modern depictions of theropod dinosaurs and even occasionally on other dinosaurs; but the evidence is contentious. (And it’s not just creationists who aren’t convinced! Many evolutionists, such as Alan Feduccia, a leading bird evolution expert, deny feathered dinosaurs).

The website mentions that a cousin of T. rex “sported a shaggy coat of the filaments called ‘proto-feathers.’” But considering that these fossilized filaments do not exhibit any of the features of feather anatomy (such as hooks, barbs, or barbules), they could easily—and much more likely—be collagen fibers, a sort of connective tissue commonly found in skin as well as many other places. The supposed “feathers” on “feathered” dinosaurs aren’t feathers at all. They are filaments that, because of evolutionary presuppositions about the history of life, have been labeled as “proto-feathers” on the path to becoming true feathers.

Smart Dinosaurs with Super Lungs
Another part of the “Dinosaurs Among Us” exhibit claims that “kinship . . . goes much deeper” than just eggs and feathers. Computed tomography (CT) scans of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reveal some internal similarities. Indeed, a video on the website goes so far as to claim that certain dinosaurs “all have a brain that is identical to the earliest birds.” One page on their website goes into more detail about what they mean by “identical.”

Birds have large brains for their body size; much of this additional size is in the cerebrum, “the part of the brain responsible for learning,” as well as the optic lobe, which is responsible for sight. Reptiles of the equivalent size do not have this increased brain size.

THIS TEACHES US NOTHING ABOUT THEIR HAVING DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.
CT scans of fossilized dinosaur skulls show that “one group of theropods displays the trend toward inflation of the ‘thinking’ brain we see in living birds.” So by “identical” they mean that in some theropods there’s a trend toward having an enlarged cerebrum as birds do. This teaches us nothing about their having descended from a common ancestor. It just shows that, as they say, “Theropod dinosaurs were probably capable of advanced learned behavior.” (Read more about dinosaurs and birdbrains in “Were Birdbrains on the Dinosaur Pre-flight Checklist for Evolution?”)

They move on to show the “unbroken . . . link between birds and dinosaurs” in the “super lungs” of birds, dinosaurs, and birds’ “living relatives”—crocodiles and alligators. They claim that the supposed last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles “also had birdlike lungs.” But crocodile and alligator lungs are nothing like bird lungs!

Bird lungs are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Instead of sequentially breathing in and out to fill and empty lungs like we do, they have a unidirectional airflow that constantly supplies fully oxygenated air to the bird’s hard-working flight muscles and the rest of its body. Air sacs, scattered throughout a bird’s body, briefly store fully oxygenated air and then continue to supply this fresh air to the bird even while the bird exhales carbon dioxide. This remarkably complex and highly efficient design is without equal, even among some reptiles that share some of its features.

Crocodiles also have a unidirectional airflow, but that’s where the similarities stop. Crocodiles have a diaphragm, as we do, to pull air into their bodies. Birds don’t have or need this muscle. Crocodile lungs look like a bag with chambers; bird lungs look utterly different as they branch throughout the body. And this is just a very brief overview. You can learn more in Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s illustrated article “Lizard Breath Fails to Support Kinship with Birds.”

To claim that reptile lungs are bird-like is to ignore vast anatomical and functional differences and to concentrate on a few very minor similarities. Each design serves the animals quite well, but no observational evidence has shown any way that these systems could evolve from a common ancestor.

The Similarities Just Don’t Stop!
The above similarities between birds and dinosaurs have been rather underwhelming. But they claim there are more! Actually, they say, “Once you start seeing the resemblances between non-bird dinosaurs and living birds, you won’t be able to stop!” This claim is only true if you are an evolutionist looking for any similarity to connect the dots between the two groups.

The website highlights another section of the exhibit, “Dinosaur Bones, Beaks, and Claws.” Their list includes the discovery of what might be hollow bones in some dinosaurs, toothless beaks in some dinosaurs, and claws. Birds have hollow bones which, containing air sacs, are integral to their respiratory system and, as a bonus, are quite lightweight, allowing them to fly. Dinosaurs might have hollow bones, but our bones are not solid structures either. The “hollow” spaces in our bones are filled with marrow, as dinosaur bones likely were too, though marrow isn’t commonly fossilized. Birds, however, have pneumatic bones. These bones are filled with air and are an essential part of their unique respiratory system—a system dinosaurs did not share.

Another similarity that they note is the surprising presence of a wishbone, or furcula, in theropods. The furcula is formed from the fusion of the collarbones (clavicles). Many evolutionists consider this the “smoking gun” for the dino-to-bird evolution story because the furcula has only been found on birds and theropod dinosaurs.

In birds, the furcula shows great diversity in size and shape, depending on the bird’s method of flight (or lack thereof). The flight muscles are anchored to this bone. In some birds it acts as a spring, allowing the powerful flight muscles to flex without snapping the bone. There is evidence that birds also use this bone to augment air movement during breathing.

Clearly scientists could not know that theropod dinosaurs used their furculae for flight or avian respiration. Since all we have is fossil evidence, it is difficult to definitively determine the purpose of the theropod furcula, but some scientists have suggested it increased forelimb mobility. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia has noted that even though some theropods have furculae, their distinctly un-birdlike shoulder anatomy makes it “unlikely that any of these structures could have articulated or functioned in a manner similar to the bird furcula or the hypertrophied furcula of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.”1 Others, assuming an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs, suggest dinosaurs used them to aid breathing as they suspect birds do. Interestingly, one paper notes that “only the early ornithurines possess a furcula typical of extant avian clades.”2 In everyday language this means that only “early ornithurines”—birds in a biblical view—have wishbones typical of living birds. Of course, this is not surprising.

JUST BECAUSE BIRDS AND THEROPODS BOTH POSSESS FURCULAE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
Just because birds and theropods both possess furculae does not mean that they are related to one another. God simply used a similar design in two distinct groups of animals. Anatomical differences indicate that their furculae would have differed in not only structure but also function. Instead of searching for similarities between theropods and birds, scientists should study dinosaur furculae to determine what God designed this bone to do, because, whatever its function, it was perfectly designed to do what it was created for.

They go on to claim, “The similarities are especially striking when it comes to legs, feet, and claws.” But bird and dinosaur legs really aren’t that similar. Bipedal dinosaurs did walk on their toes, like birds do, so we expect some similarity in the structure of the foot and ankle. But the femur (thigh bone) and knee of a bird are inside its body and are essential to its breathing structure. The femur of the dinosaur (which is anatomically almost identical to a human, though this is not pointed out), as well as its knees, are outside the body and appear to have nothing to do with breathing.

It should be noted that dinosaurs are very different from other reptiles, particularly in the placement of their legs. Rather than spreading out to the sides, as they do in other reptiles, they were directly under the body. The obvious anatomical differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles should hint that there would be other differences in bone structure, organ placement, and other areas. This doesn’t mean that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds any more than saying that bats, very different from other mammals but with some similarities to birds, prove that bats evolved from birds— something no evolutionist would argue.

Similarity in anatomy does not mean shared ancestry.

God’s Word, Our Starting Point
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs comes directly from a naturalistic evolutionary interpretation of the fossils and of living birds. The idea does not come from the facts themselves but from an interpretation of the facts that assumes evolution to be true. Exhibits such as “Dinosaurs Among Us” are nothing more than propaganda pieces for this popular evolutionary idea. Sadly, many kids will tour through this exhibit without realizing that this is merely an interpretation and not observational science.

Though some Christians try to mesh evolution with a Creator, this idea completely contradicts God’s Word, which says that kinds will always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21, 25) and that birds were created on Day Five and land animals—which would include dinosaurs—were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:20–25). Instead of interpreting the world through the faulty lens of man’s ideas about the past, we need to turn to God’s perfect Word, given to us by the eyewitness Creator who never lies (Titus 1:2), to give us the true history of life and the universe.

mickey #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

We are free to worship and proselytize as we see fit per the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".

This has always been the rule of the land until the 60's when people like you began to interject your religious beliefs of atheism and evolutionism into our society. You have been successful in tricking people about the meaning of our laws and our history while penetrating and brainwashing people's minds with your brand of naturalistic religion and hatred of other's "supernaturalistic" religion.

The Bible and our Bible-based belief system has now been replaced with Origins of the Species and naturalism, both part of YOUR religion.

Michael Flannery #fundie evolutionnews.org

What the Piltdown Hoax Tells Us, 104 Years Later

A curious anniversary falls this weekend. On December 18, 1912, the infamous Piltdown hoax was unveiled to an astonished audience of the Geological Society of London by lawyer and amateur archeologist Charles Dawson (1864-1916) and Arthur Smith Woodward (1864-1944) of the British Museum. What they showed was nothing short of amazing: the apparent remains of a human-like skull attached to an ape-like jaw. Allegedly unearthed at the Piltdown gravel pit in East Sussex, England, it was hailed as the missing link -- a truly history-making discovery!

It would take nearly 41 years to expose the artifact as a fraud. On November 21, 1953, officials of the British Natural History Museum revealed the shocking truth: Piltdown man was a hoax, the combination of three species, a medieval human cranium, the jaw of a centuries-old young orangutan, and some fossilized chimpanzee teeth. Various culprits have been proposed, including famed Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) and physician/novelist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930). But most recent investigation suggests that the imposture was likely perpetrated by Dawson alone in an effort to gain recognition and election as a Fellow into the Royal Society (see "Piltdown hoax solved," Forbes, August 10, 2016).

Writing for Harper's on the second anniversary of the Piltdown exposure, paleontologist Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), not one to look at an event or a phenomenon superficially, asked, "Was Charles Darwin Wrong About the Human Brain?" Eiseley noted that Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), co-discoverer of the theory of natural selection, was unimpressed with the Piltdown "find" from the beginning. Writing to a friend in August 1913 (just three months before his death), Wallace exclaimed, "The Piltdown skull does not prove much, if anything!" Why, asked Eiseley, had Wallace, almost alone among the scientific community, so summarily dismissed this apparently stunning missing link? The answer was simple: "he did not believe in a skull which had a modern brain box attached to an apparently primitive face and given, in the original estimates, an antiquity of something over a million years." The archeological "discovery" would have confirmed Darwin's Descent of Man in dramatic fashion. Indeed Piltdown man was, from a Darwinian perspective, even something that would have been predicted.

But Wallace's "voice of lonely protest," observed Eiseley, underscored "the abyss which yawned between man and ape" that Darwinians at the time blissfully ignored. Having observed primitive cultures in South America and the Malay Archipelago for more than twelve years, Wallace concluded (quoting Eiseley) that humans' "mental powers were far in excess of what they really needed to carry on the simple food-gathering techniques by which they survived." Certainly no process of natural selection was adequate to produce such superior powers of art, reason, and morals. For Wallace, the human brain freed mankind from the tyranny of natural selection:

Here, then, we see the true grandeur and dignity of man. On this view of his special attributes, we may admit, that even those who claim for him a position as an order, or a sub-kingdom by himself, have some show of reason on their side. He is, indeed, a being apart, since he is not influenced by the great laws which irrestistibly modify all other organic beings (Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, 1870).

How, then, do we account for this impressive array of human attributes? Wallace thought that mankind might well have emerged comparatively recently, and that the rapid evolution of the modern human brain would confirm that "distinct and higher agencies" have been responsible for these mental attributes and attainments.

Eiseley confessed, "Since the exposure of the Piltdown hoax all of the evidence at our command -- and it is considerable -- points to man, in his present form, as being one of the youngest and newest of all earth's swarming inhabitants. . . . Today, with the solution of the Piltdown enigma, we must settle the question of the time involved in favor of Wallace, not Darwin." Although Eiseley thought some other wholly naturalistic explanation might account for the late and virtually saltationist expansion of the human intellect, he confessed that "science . . . has yet to explain how we have come so far so fast, nor has it any completely satisfactory answer to the question asked by Wallace long ago."

Today we still wait for an explanation, and it must be admitted that various speculations along the lines of blind chance and necessity or natural selection remain as unsatisfactory as when Eiseley was writing more than sixty years ago. A century after Wallace's dismissal of Piltdown man, science still confirms Eiseley's assessment and Wallace's vindication. The chart below shows the timeline for ascending brain size/body weight estimates for Sahelanthropus, Australopithecus afarensis, early Homo, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, H. heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and H. sapiens.

[chart omitted]

This chart shows relative brain size as cm3 per 50 kg of body weight. Adapted with modifications from Robert Jurmain, Lynn Kilgore, et al., Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 2013-2014 ed. (Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 357, and "Homo habilis," Encyclopedia Britannica, updated August 15, 2015.

Clearly brain size and capacity has not only increased, but increased at a very late and remarkably accelerated pace. Of course brain size is not the only measure of intellectual capacity, other factors may be involved. Some, for example, emphasize that Neanderthals, the closest historically to humans, possessed brains that were larger in absolute size to us. But as recent analysis has uncovered, the Neanderthal brain was quite different from its human counterpart. Being much more elongated than globular, the indications are that Neanderthals "reached large brain sizes along different evolutionary pathways." Their speculation that unique patterns of brain development in H. sapiens would have become "a target for positive selection" merely begs Wallace's original question (see Gunz et al., "Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans," Current Biology, Nov. 2010).

So the question remains: How did humans acquire such vast intellectual capacities so comparatively recently and so rapidly? Wallace called upon an "Overruling Intelligence" to explain human intelligence and many other features of complexity in biology and the cosmos. While Darwinians continue to search for some naturalistic cause, others, like British physician James Le Fanu, point out that the disappointments in high-tech solutions to the nature of the intellect and the human mind so touted by the human genome project and promised in the "Decade of the Brain" in the 1990s should force a reassessment of our species as truly unique (Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves, 2009).

Eiseley's long forgotten but intriguing article is fortunately now available as "The Real Secret of Piltdown" in a new 2-volume set of his collected essays. As we reflect on the 104th anniversary of arguably science's greatest fraud, Eiseley's conclusion rings is as pertinent today as when it was first written:

The true secret of Piltdown, though thought by the public to be merely the revelation of an unscrupulous forgery, lies in the fact that it has forced science to reexamine carefully the history of the most remarkable creation in the world -- the human brain.

If the Cambrian period of 530 million years ago poses serious challenges to Darwin's insistence upon slow, incremental change in the amazingly rapid proliferation of animals over a mere 5 to 6 million-year timespan (see Darwin's Doubt), then how much more should the transformational changes in the human brain over the past 100 to 200,000 years cause as serious reevaluation of the nature of human beings and the means by which they came to be. If the Cambrian "explosion" is just too much change over too little time to be explained by Darwinian processes, the human brain is way too much change over way too little time. Perhaps Wallace's view of the Piltdown hoax still holds an important lesson for us today. Maybe the most dramatic "explosion" of all is the one that rests within our crania.

Liptusg #sexist reddit.com

"We have nothing against virgins. Also, only a terrible person could end up a virgin."

"We don't hate virgins, some of my best beta orbiters friends are virgins! We just hate those pathetic misogynistic incels who are entitled and blame their problems on whamenz! Work on ur shitty personality"

"The reason I can get face-fucked by 10 Chads on Tinder in a rape-play session is due to my impeccable 'social skills', my vagina's functionality as a moral compass, and the fact that all it takes to get a partner is some basic human decency and hygiene! If you're unable to get a partner, that's because you are fundamentally inferior to me both psychologically and morally in every way possible, otherwise you'd have no problem finding someone"

Normie logic. At every opportunity, they claim to have nothing against the 'normal', PC, left-wing yet non-volcel virgins who do not identify as incels, how much more admirable they are than incels, and so forth, positing that incels are uniquely depraved for the crime of standing up to gynocentric gaslighting. As soon as they are confronted with the fact they are committing a chronological fallacy ( You can't develop "sour grapes" attitudes without experiencing shunning, ostracism and discrimination in the first place ), or whenever circle-jerking themselves about how laughable and absurd the situation of sexually excluded men is, they always inform you that even if you do not HATE WHAMENZ or participate in wrongthinking, and yet still fail to garner even the tiniest shred of sexual attention from women, then clearly the only possible factor you should be considering is that you are an unimpressive, unaccomplished, worthless shitty person who should assign all blame to his own undefined failings ( Women's attraction being the chief authority on these matters ) or else risk the wrath of the matriarchy for even daring to entertain notions like evolutionary biology, hypergamy, macro socioeconomics of sexuality, Sexual selection, published psychological research, and other problematic ideas.

Now, putting the mountain of braindead NPC bullshit and endless documentation ( Including according to women's description of their ex-sexual partners and rants on social media ) about women's incredibly machiavellian and perverse mating criteria which we all know and love, the Mean Girls and their male enablers have clearly backed themselves into the corner of shameful cognitive dissonance with their mindless antiques, given that their mindset extends to all of the supposed token, submissive virgins they profess to have nothing against.

If all you need to get laid or have a girlfriend is some of that muh basic human decency, social etiquette, showers and 'not whining', then what those women and men are saying is that every single male virgin they know of in their life who does want sexual or romantic intimacy must be an indecent, socially retarded, filthy, pathetic, value-less whiny piece of trash. What other reason could there be for them to get rejected for so long? Truly, any 'non-incel' virgin would be lucky to have such fine folk as his friends and family.

But hey, it's cool! Just because I think that the virgins I fraternize with are the scum of the earth and pitiful losers who are worse human beings than any man who's ever stuck his dick in a girl's hole doesn't mean I'm hateful or prejudiced against them! It's uhhh, not the same, you understand. To their credit though, it must be said that some of those 'ex-permavirgin' preacher types do follow up on their own premise - by attributing their past virginity to their own worthlessness and deficiencies as woman-approved humans, which may indeed be a valid observation in their case given how philosophically stunted they are, yet one which unfortunately they project on everyone else and insist on blind adherence to - you're either a self-flagellating virgin, or a world-blaming loser.

For this reason, you find women and normies stammering all over themselves in various subreddits during times of social expediency ( Most of the time though in AskWomen and the like, they'll just launch into a full tirade about how inferior and defective the poster must be, and how good it will be for him to accept that ) to mask the logical extension of their mindsets whenever some virgin man comes prostrating himself before them, prefacing his thread with countless apologies, before expressing his sorrow over not achieving their sexual transcendence. At which point, several damage control first responders might awkwardly come out with the following:

"Teehee, I'm sure there's a right person somewhere, it took me 10 years of College sex partying before I finally met the husband of my dreams! We are alike!"

"Uhhh, errr, durr, emm, w-w-what do you even need to think about sex and relationships for? Just focus on uh.. other things and just..wait...nervous glances

Poster: But I want to know exactly why is that -

"Shut up you piece of shit! You don't want to sound like an entitled whiny incel, do you? Just go participate in more hobby groups and patiently keep your head down until you're magically in a relationship. And don't ever ask any questions about women's decisions ever again."

Of course, none of the answers that any virgin will be getting are going to rationally explain why is it that for the majority of someone's life, no woman ever finds him to be 'her type', nor eager and welcoming to his advances as much as she will be to any crass 'creepy PM' from a Chad on Tinder, for as long as women and normies refuse to recognize the Halo Effect, Gender Dimorphic sexual selection, Dark Triad psychology and overall, the indisputable historical and scientific truth that the correlation between being a Just person, wisdom, and other profound concepts to sex appeal is completely null, and that only a weak correlation exists even for being an interesting conversationlist or 'muh confidence' in comparison to appearance, dominance and power.

And so their only choice is either deflect, deflect, deflect, or own up to the fact that they hold each and every single involuntary virgin they ever met in their life in contempt, as an inferior person and non-decent human being who must be patronized about their flawed and despicable existence as the reason of failing to gain traction with women's base instincts. ( But remember, they love diversity and hate othering of deviant and non-binary social groups ).

You can't have it both ways, friend-o's. You either accept the facts of sexual dynamics throughout human evolution and their amoral, reactionary nature, or you admit just how much toxicity, smug self-superiority and disdain you harbor toward every single virgin on the planet who is not abstinent by choice. Feel free to PM me with justifications too if you want, would love to hear it.

zekr #wingnut #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Serious] Society no longer serves its one and only role of equally distributing sex.

The sentiment for young males to want to drop out of society is completely justified and makes 100% sense. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. We are entitled to more than you think. We live in a society that only favors those that are neurotypical, genetically superior, and culturally hive-minded. It has created a perfect echo-chamber for those with these characteristics to live inside of a genetic bubble while anyone outside of these norms is barraged until death. We are in the midst of watching full on eugenics taking place without any foothold to stop such an activity from occurring. The call to nature is not a logical fallacy, anything that we can use to our advantage in terms of reproducing is right while anything else that inhibits it has zero innate value. Two lower status males killing an alpha male is not wrong but it is now illegal thanks to modern law. Infanticide is not wrong if it will allow a female to be available to reproduce more but it is now illegal thanks to modern law. Rape is not wrong but it is now illegal thanks to modern law. "Wrong" does not exist. It is completely justified for Lower status males to perform these tasks when sexual strain is placed upon them, and high status males also deserve the right to fuck as many women as they want too in a natural setting. Nature only cares about reproducing by any means, and anything that allows you to do this is right. The only difference is that now there are 0 blockades on the way in which high status males can achieve sex and reproductive success, while a tremendous amount of blockades are placed upon lower status males.

The original intent for societies to exist was in order to stop alpha chad males from having children with 14 women like it was 10,000 ago because group cooperation beyond Dunbar's number* is impossible. Monogamy was a successful social facade kept in place because without it, people knew that everything would fall apart if only a select few males were reaping the benefits of sustainable social order with sex while the rest were paying taxes to a system that did not benefit them in the slightest. Societies only exist to rear families in the form of monogamy and solidify a group identity because without this, every man is an individual just out there trying to desperately get pussy by any means, killing, raping, pillaging, etc. and living according to nature in order to spread your seed. You might be asking, "Wait, aren't men doing the same thing now just out there trying to desperately get pussy?" well yes, except the option to kill, rape, and take what you want is completely off the table (without losing your freedom). The social stigmas and taboos that kept women in check and ALSO kept high status males in check such as only having children with one partner have been slowly disintegrating for the last 100 years. Polyamory and having children with multiple partners should by definition fall into what is considered "wrong" by society but it is not anymore. A woman sleeping with 50 different partners should by definition fall into what is considered wrong "wrong" by society, but it is not anymore.

We are in a transition just as dramatic as those 10,000 year old high status caveman males keeping 14 women for themselves and acting baffled when you are telling them you can't fuck anyone you want anymore and have to settle for one woman. Imagine how insane this must have sounded back then.This transition is why ancient societies were much more violent than we are because it took hundreds of years to solidify. These hundreds of years in transitioning have been slowly reversed and now in this short 100 year time span have we reverting back to the caveman days but worse because the high status men are protected by the state while low status men are granted absolutely nothing. No, I am not in favor of the naturalistic era full of rape and murder OR this new dystopian genetic bubble era. The only solution is the reversion to social stigmas and enforced monogamy, THE INITIAL INTENT FOR SOCIETAL COOPERATION.

TLDR: Low status males are fucked.

*Dunbar's number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

New York Times: A Dinosaur With a Beak and Feathers Unearthed in China

By KENNETH CHANG

Today's rebuttal focuses on the Darwin's deluded dogma of "Evolution" TM -- specifically as it is said to relate to a new dinosaur unearthed in China. Before we begin to analyze a few select excerpts, let's us remind "youse guys" of what you probably learned in 8th grade, but may or may not have forgotten -- namely, the classic textbook definition of the "Scientific Method."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The key word is "the O Word" -- OBSERVATION. Darwin's deluded devotees can scream "SCIENCE!" in your face all they want; but if a theorized phenomenon - or iron-clad-after-the-fact forensic evidence of said phenomenon - are not OBSERVABLE, then it does not meet the standards of the Scientific Method. N.O. = N.S. (Not Observable = Not Science) Learn it. Love it. Live it.--- End of discussion. --- Got it? Good.

The "O Word" is more than just synonymous with science, it IS science; and no amount of fancy math equations, artistic renderings,computer models and academic bullying can ever substitute for it.

Now that 8th Grade Science class is complete, let's "observe" what Kenneth Chang's article is claiming.

Kenneth Chang: It had feathers and a beak.

Rebuttal: How do you know for certain that this creature had feathers? Only bone and beak fragments were discovered in the rock. A platypus has a beak but no feathers. The scientists are assuming feathers, not OBSERVING.

Kenneth Chang: It was the size of a donkey, and it did not fly. It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds.

Rebuttal: How do you know that this skeletal remnant this some odd-looking creature was "a close relative of birds?" Did anyone actually OBSERVE the transition of the alleged common ancestor into this feathered and beaked dinosaur on one branch; and birds on another branch? (Answer: No) To assume so merely on the basis of a few common characteristics amounts to reckless inference based upon wild conjecture.

Kenneth Chang: In a paper published on Thursday ... a team of scientists described a fossil of Tongtianlong Limosus, a new species in a strange group of dinosaurs that lived during the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct.

Rebuttal: How is it possible to chronicle events of "the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct" when there was no one around to OBSERVE and document the the life and times of Tongtianlong Limosus? (Answer: It is not possible) Do these "theoretical scientists" have some sort of magic time-machine that allows them to go back and forth through the ages?

Kenneth Chang: Oviraptorosaurs are not direct ancestors of birds, but share a common theropod dinosaur ancestor with the lineage that later evolved to birds.

Rebuttal: Again, we must ask: who OBSERVED this common-ancestor to bird & dinosaur progression? (Answer: nobody)

Kenneth Chang: The features, ... for display to potential mates... "They were like advertising billboards," Dr. (Stephen) Brusatte said.

Rebuttal: So, not only does the magic crystal ball of "theoretical science" tell us that the poor beaked bloke who got stuck in the mud had "feathers" -- but we may also recklessly infer that the feathers were used to attract bird chicks. But why should we infer such a thing when only peacocks (as far as we know) showoff their plumage to attract female? Eagles don't. Pigeons don't. Ostriches don't. How does this ass-clown "Dr. Brusatte" know that our muddy Chinese friend engaged in such aviary exhibitionism?

Kenneth Chang: Some features like the feathers come from the common ancestor, ...

Rebuttal: A classic logical fallacy that is often, no, always made by Darwin's deluded devotees is the prior assumption that "Evolution" TM is an established fact. All subsequent data is then interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the other way around. They therefore assume that if this creature has a characteristic that is very similar to that creature, the two species must have had a "common ancestor" TM. This is like saying that an Italian sports car and a school bus must have a "common ancestor" TM because both have wheels and a transmission.

Kenneth Chang: The common ancestor had teeth, though, not beaks.

Rebuttal: And exactly how the frickety-frack do you know that? So, not only are we to believe that these "scientists" have established the existence of a "common ancestor" TM without any OBSERVABLE evidence as such; but now they claim to be able to tell us what physical characteristics that said "common ancestor" TM has or didn't have. And, not only is the transition from the "common ancestor" TM not OBSERVABLE, the fossil of what is alleged to be the "common ancestor" TM is also not OBSERVABLE.

Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes could teach these academic egg-heads a lesson in logic and sound reasoning.

Kenneth Chang: For oviraptorosaurs, the beaks were “convergent evolution,” when similar features evolve independently among different groups of animals.

Rebuttal: "Convergent Evolution," eh? Sounds like some seriously heavy "science" there. (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- Again, not OBSERVABLE --- Just new bullshit to prop up the old.

Kenneth Chang: One of the unknowns is what Tongtianlong and other oviraptorosaurs were eating.

Rebuttal: Aw heck! Let's just say they ate Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches. Why not? Everything else is made up.

Kenneth Chang: The six oviraptorosaur species discovered so far are also very different from each other, and the scientists argue that this shows rapid evolution of these dinosaurs.

Rebuttal: No, it just shows that breeds of the same species (a gene pool) can vary greatly. Just look at the differences in size, shape, fur and temperament among French Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Pit Bulls, Great Danes, German Shepherds and Chihuahuas.

Kenneth Chang: That runs counter to the assertion of some paleontologists that dinosaurs were already in decline long before they became extinct 66 million years ago, most likely from the global devastation following a large asteroid impact.

Rebuttal: How do these eggheads come up with this number of "66 million years ago" as the precise date of dino-extinction? (nice little Satanic touch with the 6-6 there) Did anyone OBSERVE the passage of "66 million" years of time? (Answer: No) -- Did anyone OBSERVE the killer asteroid, or even the hole that it would have left behind? (Answer: No)

Kenneth Chang: “One of the interesting things about these specimens that are coming out of southern China is that they show this diversity of body forms.”

Rebuttal: Yeah. So what? Dogs, cats, humans etc. also vary in body forms. And has it occurred to you geniuses that at least part of the reason for the variance could just be due to the fact that some of the fossilized specimens may have been small cubs; others were medium-sized adolescents, and still others were full grown adults?

Kenneth Chang: She was less certain about whether the rate of evolution is as fast .... because the scientists lack precise dating of the layer of rock hundreds of yards thick where the fossils have been found. “You don’t know if it’s a million years or 10 million years,”

Rebuttal: This nonsense about measuring time by correlating it to rock thickness assumes a steady rate of silt/sediment accumulation. In reality, a catastrophic flood can deposit as much sediment in a few days as normal conditions can over the course of many centuries. This magical method of time-keeping -- a work-around to circumvent the Scientific Method -- is again totally unscientific because there is no way to go back in time and OBSERVE if the wet-sediment-to-rock-time formula is accurate.

Furthermore, the bones would have dried up, turned to dust and blown away long before centuries of sediment accumulation and hardening could completely encase and petrify them. Try dumping your Thanksgiving Day turkey bones in a nearby wooded area are see how long they last before nature's elements and insects cause them to disintegrate and disappear -- months or a few years at the most!

How's the old funeral ditty go? "Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust."

Intact bones found inside of rock layers are evidence of a catastrophic, fast-acting, silt-depositing event such as a flood, volcano, landslide, tsunami, suddenly rising sea level or something else. Might that be how our Chinese "feathered" friend suddenly got stuck in the mud -- a mud which later hardened as it was soon buried under additional layers of silt?

1- Dog breeds differ greatly among themselves too. It doesn't prove that poodles "evolved" into dalmatians!
2- The "science" of rock dating is deeply flawed to begin with. Dating fossils from the erroneously-aged rocks then leads to circular reasoning.
3- Darwin's scam is thoroughly and humorously exposed in "God vs Darwin" by M S King. (here)

This cooked-up commie crap would actually be funny, were it not for the fact that millions of young malleable minds are being corrupted by the "theoretical scientists." For that reason, these diploma-decorated dorks need to be driven out of Academia and into the lunatic asylums by the thousands.

Virginia D. Templeton #fundie fstdt.com

Evolution is not science—science must be TESTABLE and OBSERVABLE, and no one has ever been able to observe one species turning into another, over any period of time. Creation science IS true science because we have a living document, the Bible, whose existence can be proven (surely you've seen a Bible!) and whose veracity is corroborated by millenia worth of archaeological evidence.

Let me put it in terms you can understand. I'm not a fan of baseball, but my parents used to go to games all the time when my mother was pregnant with me. Beer is often served at baseball games—does this mean that beer is a sport? Likewise, evolution is often "served with" science, but that doesn't make it science.

Remove your naturalist blinders and take a gander at the facts.

KABOOM THE MOONS #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Alien Covenant - Earth Is Hidden From The Universe! Proof And Evidence Earth Is Krypton=Hades!!!

(UPDATE: FOR THE PROOF AND EVIDENCE SCROLL DOWN TO POST #12 AND #13!)

Similar thing was shown also in firefly serenity which i decoded here.
Thread: Firefly, Serenity, Space Pirate Moon Ship 2005 Decoded!

From covenant

-She appears to be
a main sequence star,
a lot like our own.
But old, very old.
...
-A hidden planet that turns
up out of nowhere...
and just happens
to be perfect for us.
It's too good to be true.
Too good to be true?
What do you mean by that?
We don't know
what the fuck's out there.

And here they show also identical script from rogue one i decoded recently, of earth being shielded/having a dome exosphere and the communications to have been cut off from the rest universe!
Thread: Star Wars Rogue One - That's No Sky , It's A Dome!

-Do you read me?
Tennessee?
Tennessee, Ricks, come in.
-I'm not sure they'll hear
you through the storm.
They can be quite severe...
shielding the whole planet.
(Identical storm clouds concealing our entire planet and cutting all communications and visual from the rest universe was shown in firefly serenity with the reaver planet/reptilian territory and in mad max fury where furiosa/satan escaped into).

Oh my goodness that AI was dressed identical to the lunar boss/puppet master from ghost in the shell and his double on the lunar borg cube mothership before arrival.

He was shown to also be a farmer(soul farmer) just like galen/creator of the deathstar moon/lunar boss from rogue one!

-This is wheat.
Believe me. I know wheat.
This is old,
but definitely cultivated.
What are the odds of finding
human vegetation...
this far from Earth?
Very unlikely.
Who planted it?
(And soon later david/devil/hades/lunar boss shows up as the only habitat of the planet).

At the end his king picolo/satan/earth's god from dbz reptilian birthing technique was shown spewing alien/reptilian eggs from his mouth

OH OH OH IN COVENANT WE HAVE ALSO IDENTICAL SCRIPT FROM STAR TREK SKIN OF EVIL EPISODE OF BLACK GOO HADES/SATAN/LUNAR BOSS TO HAVE BEEN MAROONED HERE AND LOOKING OR WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THIS PLANET FOR HIS NEXT VICTIM PLANET/SOLAR SYSTEM/GALAXY ETC!

And in star trek skin of evil he did succeed leaving the planet too through the enterprise guy that was immersed in his black goo/assimilating him agent smith style and then the enterprise starship picked him up at the end and left the planet.

Similar intel of the reptilian boss being marooned/anchored here we have in planet hulk anime with the big reptilian monster hulk/reptilian lunar boss where there he was worshiped and as a false savior/god.

In covenant was shown also his false god/savior strategy when he arrived on a planet where they welcomed him as a god or savior and then he killed them all with his black goo/programmable matter.

He reminded me also nemesis/lunar boss from saber rider and star sheriffs who is also a computer AI.
(Although i do suspect of a human bastard like professor x to be hidden behind that computer AI).

Earth being hidden from the rest universe it was shown also in avengers 2012!

[...]

And by the way Hades means hidden in greek. In case you havent got the memo yet this planet/cyclops island/cave is the underworld and we all died before we were born and just like the citizens of the underworld in mythology without our ancient memories we are just a shadow a mere image of our true self.

[...]

WHAT I JUST REMEMBERED MAN, PREPARE TO GET BLOWN AWAY!

IN MAN OF STEEL SUPERMAN'S/FALSE GOD'S/SATAN'S PLANET IS CALLED KRYPTON!

KRYPTON MEANS "HIDDEN" IN GREEK JUST LIKE "HADES!" FROM HIDE/HIDDEN!

AND IF YOU REMEMBER IN MAN OF STEEL THE FATHER OF KAL EL(MEANS SON OF GOD IN HEBREW) JOR EL(MEANS VOICE OF GOD IN HEBREW AND HE IS ALSO SID FROM VIRTUOCITY) SAID
"ON THIS PLANET KRYPTON=HADES EVERYONE IS ALREADY DEAD!!!!"

HOLY MOLY MAN HOLY MOLY WE ARE LEAVING IN HADES! DOES ANYONE CARES DOES ANYONE LEFT ON THIS PLANET THAT GIVES A DAMN!

STOP HAVING KIDS PEOPLE DAMN IT! STOP FEEDING SATAN THE SOULS OF YOUR KIDS!

Scrod #sexist #psycho mmo-champion.com

If the girl is conscious, in my opinion it's up to her to say no. Does it mean that if she doesn't say no, it's always ok? No... it's a grey area and might be a really dick move. But at the same time, think about the punishment for rape - it is basically that your life is over. I'd prefer to err on the side of not destroying lives than potentially destroying the life of someone who's innocent.

Was the girl who didn't say no "Asking for it?"... nah. I'm just more of the belief that stuff happens and to convict someone of an incredibly serious crime should require something obviously over the line.

Are you intentionally leveraging their inebriated state for sex? Because, if that's a yes, it's pretty much the same thing as drugging them for sex.

Major, major difference here - "drugging them for sex" usually means it is without their knowledge. Much different from them getting drunk themselves... if they consciously put themselves in a state where they make decisions they wouldn't make when they were sober (even if the guy is the one giving them the drinks) - yeah there's a good chance the guy is an asshole, but again I don't think it warrants ruining the guy's life.

So... If the girl you want to have sex with is wasted, but still vaguely coherent... If 'taking advantage of her' (aka get some when you know you'd have no chance normally) is OK, Is it also OK to take all the money out of her wallet? She normally wouldn't just you have $200, but hey... She didn't say not to.

That's a specious argument. Stealing is always bad. Violence is always bad.

With most crimes, the act itself is the problem - you steal, you commit violence. Sex is usually an enjoyable act, unlike getting punched in the face or having your money stolen. What makes sex complicated is its an act that often people enjoy sharing with each other but sometimes is a crime. You can't compare it to most other crimes because consent matters.

By the way - I'm specifically opposed to charging someone with rape in this instance. Remember - rape means years in jail. It means registering as a sex offender and being unable to live in many areas for the rest of your life. It means never being able to get a job because you have to admit to a felony. It means, basically, your life is utterly destroyed. Does it really make sense to do this to someone who was (probably drunk himself) and unable to infer whether the person was having sex just because she was drunk? I'm ok with sending them to counselling, or requiring they don't drink for a while, community service, whatever. I just think rape needs to be saved for more serious offenders.

unknown #fundie bylogos.blogspot.com


Problems with Page's Multiverse

What are we to make of Page's theistic multiverse? It suffers from a number of shortcomings.

1. First, it depends on a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are other interpretations--equally well satisfying the observational data--that do not involve world splits.

2. Second, it assumes that everything in the universe is entirely material and, further, that all material properties can be completely expressed in terms of quantum mechanics. Such reductive materialism has no place for a conscious mind, or a human soul. Nor is there any room for angels or demons. This restricted view of reality contradicts both common sense and Scripture.

3. Third, it entails multiple human incarnations of Jesus Christ. It is already difficult for us to conceive of Christ having two natures--human and divine. Yet Christ must now encompass numerous human natures, each having a separate consciousness.

Heaven is surely not ruled by quantum mechanics. Hence it should experience no quantum splits. We can thus expect that there is only one heaven, with only one great white throne (Rev.20), and only one Lamb. Yet, if there are multiple Christs, with multiple incarnations, resurrections and ascensions, then there should be numerous resurrected bodies of Christ in heaven. Which of these corresponds to the Lamb?

It seems clear from the Bible that Christ's Incarnation was unique, having cosmic significance. For example, "For in him the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Col.1:19-20).

4. The Bible relates that God did not create all possible worlds, nor even a restricted number of multiple worlds. Rather, God created one world according to one particular comprehensive plan: "a plan for the fulness of time...predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.." (Eph.1:10-11).

In sum, from a Christian perspective, I see little merit in Dr. Page's theistic MWI (Level 3) multiverse proposal.

Conclusions

What about the other levels of multiverses? As I noted above, the naturalist may find these convenient to explain the origin and apparent design of our universe. Christians, however, believe that God created this universe through supernatural means, following a specific design. We therefore have rather less incentive for believing in the existence of a multiverse.

Did God create multiple universes? The Bible tells us of only one universe that God made. Thus, if God did create parallel universes (other than heaven), He did not deem it necessary to reveal that to us. Since parallel universes--even if they were to exist--cannot physically interact with ours, the question is largely academic.

The most interesting theological question pertains to the possibility of intelligent beings in other universes, and their possible salvation. That raises concerns similar to the possibility of intelligent life in our own universe, which I discussed in my post Aliens and Christians. There I concluded that our earth has a special relation to heaven, and that Christ's sacrifice provided for the salvation only of believing humans--not aliens.

Graham Linehan #transphobia #sexist dailymail.co.uk

Today I am one of the most loathed figures on the internet. My speaking events have been cancelled. I have been sued. The police have visited my home and former friends have turned their backs on me.

Yet I’m the man who wrote the much-loved Father Ted! Why is it that I’ve become so suddenly unpopular? The thought crime for which I have been tried and found guilty is that I believe biological reality exists.

I believe women are females. I believe everyone should be able to present themselves as they wish but that women’s hard-won rights must not be compromised for the benefit of men suffering body dysphoria – which is to say men who feel they are stuck in the wrong body.

Most of all, I believe that gender ideology, in its currently fashionable form, is dangerous, incoherent nonsense.

I believe trans people –those unfortunate enough to suffer body dysphoria – are having their condition exploited and trivialised by abusive, controlling and authoritarian trans rights activists. And I think women and children are suffering because of it.

Worst of all, I say so, loudly. This makes me Public Enemy No 1.

I make my arguments forcefully because I’m concerned, sometimes with humour because I’m a comedy writer and often while cursing, because I’m Irish. It’s the humour they hate most. It’s kryptonite to these activists.

I’m 51 and I’ve never seen anything like the authoritarianism on display, the desperate desire to shut down the conversation. No genuine civil-rights movement advances in secret but this one has as one of its mantras ‘NO DEBATE’.

So, while we are in a world where male sexual offenders in bad wigs assault female prisoners, where rape crisis centres are defunded because they won’t admit men and where a bloke in a full beard tells schoolchildren that he’s a lesbian, we’re informed with venomous aggression that we may not talk about any of it.

No debate? Oh, there’s going to be a debate all right.

The popular opinion among my detractors is that I’m cherry-picking negative stories to mask a hatred of trans people. In fact, I first came to this debate because I saw women being bullied, losing their jobs and suffering the most intense online harassment I’d ever seen, and I wanted to stand beside them.

Also, as a writer, I couldn’t watch as one of the most important words in the English language, the word ‘woman’, was being changed against the will of those whom it defined.

Suddenly, everywhere you looked, women were being erased, insulted or endangered. Amnesty referring to pregnant women as ‘pregnant people’. Productions of The Vagina Monologues closing because they excluded ‘women who don’t have vaginas’. Women’s toilets disappearing from public life – even though they were introduced to ensure that women could have a public life.

Worst of all, I saw the lack of compassion or empathy for the vulnerable women who are often at the sharp end of the new Gender Theocracy.

The four women attacked in prison by a male sex offender in 2018 (who everyone had to call ‘Karen’ or they were committing a hate crime) are four women too many.

Women in prison often have a history of abuse at the hands of men. Whatever they’ve done, they are entitled to safety from the type of men who helped put them there.

Rational people – and that includes rational trans people – are dismayed by those who have now taken over trans activism.

Body dysphoria is no longer seen as central or even necessary for those who decide to adopt a so-called trans identity.

To see just how elastic and meaningless the word ‘trans’ has become, one only has to look at the definition adopted by the Stonewall lobby group: ‘Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.’

Neutrois, I discovered, literally just means ‘androgynous’. So androgynous people are trans. That’ll be news to Bake Off presenter Noel Fielding.

Under Stonewall’s definition, everyone is trans, and no one is. A cross-dresser such as banker Philip Bunce, who adopts the female persona ‘Pippa’ for only a few days every week, nevertheless receives the honour of being named by the Financial Times as one of its top 100 women in business.

This was seen as progress, a step forward for women. In fact, it is an insult to women and to those suffering from body dysphoria.

In order to maintain the fantasy that our sex is unconnected to our bodies, the truth must be bent and beaten in the fire of academic language. That is why trans activists talk about sex being ‘assigned at birth’ – an abuse of language, if ever I heard one.

Is the sex of a newborn ‘assigned’ by a capricious midwife? Of course not. Rather it is observed and recorded as a matter of fact.

‘Assigned’ is one of the more successful hijackings of English achieved by gender ideologues, yet you will hear it parroted across many organisations from the NHS to the BBC – the sort of institution where you really would expect people to know better.

Before I knew how toxic trans rights activism was, I wrote an episode of my Channel 4 sitcom The IT Crowd with a trans character. The response was more venomous than I was used to, but as bad as it was, at least I was allowed to write it. That was in 2013.

In 2020, such an episode would never air. And that is because the first generation who didn’t go out to play have grown up to become clones of Mary Whitehouse. The new puritans.

I am not new to outrage. There was fury on the part of some when we first released Father Ted but the executives we had were made of strong stuff and ignored the attacks. The same goes for The IT Crowd, Brass Eye, Black Books, and I guess a few comedies I haven’t worked on.

I’m worried we’re entering an era of pre-chewed, prissy art that offends no one. But it’s not comedy writers who are the victims of all this: it is women who are the real casualties.

Gender ideology is a disaster for women. They are expected to make room for men in their changing rooms and their safe spaces.

They are being robbed of the language to describe their reality by unintelligible academic ‘gender experts’, by teenagers encouraging each other online, by parents who are profoundly mistaken, and by well-meaning people who, confused by the ever-changing terminology, still believe they are defending what used to be called transsexuals.

All these forces working together are, whether they know it or not, providing a smokescreen for fetishists, conmen and misogynists to pursue their own agenda.

In years to come, we will look back at this scandal, at the ruined bodies, the confused crime statistics, the weakening of safeguarding and the rollback of women’s rights and wonder how it was left to go on for so long.

Lance Welton #racist vdare.com

[Note to mods: I'm filing this under RSTDT because that's the plurality of the quote, but there's enough misogyny and anti-LGBT content to contest this categorization]

The hysteria provoked by Donald Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court may well be unprecedented in US history. Never before has a president’s judicial nomination been met with such an overwhelmingly emotional reaction. And it’s not in the least bit surprising, either. Females (especially when rejected), minorities and homosexuals—the very people most infuriated by Kavanaugh’s elevation—are highly emotional. And there are sound evolutionary reasons why this is the case.

Back to Kavanaugh. Chef, from South Park once observed that, “There’s a time and place for everything, and it’s called college.” Anyone who’s ever been to university—or even to a co-ed high school—knows that students are callow, promiscuous and strongly sexually-driven. When I was at university, sexual behaviour between opposite-sex friends—sexual touching, lip-kissing and even making out—was perfectly normal, as were intense but brief sexual relationships (what Tom Wolfe called “Hooking Up”) and the consequent breaking of hearts. But, “What happens in college stays in college.”

Things can become difficult, however, when it is the female’s heart that is broken. Adult females are much higher than males in the personality characteristic Neuroticism—the essence of which is feeling negative emotions strongly. [Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65, By C. Soto et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011]. This is seemingly because, in the prehistoric environment, an optimum level of anxiety helped to ensure that the kids you were caring for didn’t get hurt. And worrying makes you more competitive to get your man and keep him, in a prehistoric context in which pregnant and nursing females needed males to support them. [Why Neurotics Haven't Died Out, By Rachel Rettner, Live Science, June 15, 2010]

And it really it is true that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Females are higher than males in all negative emotions. Though some men never fully get over a break up, women feel the emotional pain of a break up far more intensely. [Quantitative sex differences in response to the dissolution of a romantic relationship, By Craig Morris et al., Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2015].

...

Ramirez is also Hispanic. Hispanics being higher in mental instability than whites, probably because there was less intense selection against mental instability in ecologies where basic needs were more easily met, meaning that group cooperation is less important. [Mental Health Disparities: Hispanics and Latinos. American Psychiatric Association, 2017] Hispanics are also, on numerous measures, simply less honest than whites. [Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality, By Richard Lynn, Washington Summit, 2018, In Press]

A combination of Neuroticism and hysteria is likely to explain why Julie Swetnick went public, on 26th September, with her unfounded allegations that Kavanaugh attended parties where males would prey on young girls, spike their drinks, and rape them. [New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details local house parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped, By Dan Breuninger, CNBC, September 26, 2018]

Swetnick is also Jewish. Jews are much more likely than whites to suffer from schizophrenia [Scientists Discover Gene That Predisposes Ashkenazi Jews to Schizophrenia, By Ido Efrati, Haaretz, November 26, 2013]. The essence of schizophrenia is “hypermentalism”—being so acutely aware of the physical cues of mental states (such as facial expressions) that you read too much into them: a smile means he’s in love with me; a slight frown means he wants to kill me.

Schizophrenia also distorts your memories.Schizophrenia is at one extreme of a spectrum at the other end of which sits autism; the inability to infer emotion from physical cues. [Mentalism and Mechanism, By C. Badcock, in Human Nature and Social Values, 2003] If a group is subject to a harsh environment, such as the persecution which the Jews were historically subject to, it is more likely to survive if everyone in it cooperates together and gets along. This is more likely to happen if people are higher in “mentalism”—if they are better able to read the emotions of others. So, the average member of a highly cooperative group will be higher on the schizophrenia spectrum than the average member of a less cooperative group. But this means that a highly cooperative group will include a larger minority who are simply schizophrenic at the spectrum’s extreme end.

Kavanaugh was also strongly opposed by a group of senators that includes two African-Americans. African Americans, compared to whites, are high in psychopathic personality, meaning that they have poor control over their emotions, which can easily overwhelm their intelligence.(See Race and Psychopathic Personality, by Richard Lynn, Amren.com, July, 2002.) They also feel almost all negative emotions far more acutely that do white people, because in the easy ecology of Africa there was little selection for highly cooperative groups. The only exception: the trait psychologists call “social anxiety”. Blacks are so incredibly low in this—due to weak selection for cooperation—that, overall, it is found that they are lower in Neuroticism than are whites, despite their scoring higher on the other Neuroticism traits. [Race Differences in Anxiety Disorders, Worry and Social Anxiety, By Heitor Fernandes et al., Mankind Quarterly, Spring 2018]

Blacks are also higher in all psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, partly because, in a relaxed ecology, there is less selection against genes which cause antisocial behavior. Indeed, Darwinian selection, in general, is weak in such ecologies, leading to high genetic diversity. [Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis, By Robert Schwartz and David Blankenship, World Journal of Psychiatry, December 2014]

Kavanaugh has also found himself subject to sustained attack by the “LGBTQI+” community, simply because he has refused to express an opinion on gay marriage. According to “Human Rights” campaigner Chad Griffin, Kavanaugh’s refusal to do this is “alarming and completely unacceptable” . [What does Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh mean for LGBT rights? By Ella Braidwood, Pink News, September 28, 2018]

We should expect such strong emotions from this group. Homosexuals are more mentally unstable than heterosexuals. They have higher rates of anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, suicide and, fascinatingly, left-handedness, than heterosexuals. [Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, by Ray Blanchard, Laterality, 2008] As I showed recently, we are evolved to be right-handed, so left-handedness means something has gone wrong: it betokens “developmental instability”, either due to mutant genes, a sub-optimal fetal environment or both.

In line with this, younger sons are more likely to be homosexual, because the mother’s immune system regards male hormones emanating from the fetus as enemy agents. It duly overwhelms them with female hormones; the mother’s immune system getting stronger with each pregnancy. If her immune system is too strong, due to mutations, her male offspring will not only be homosexual but they may inherit these mutations, explaining why homosexuals and the left-handed are prone to allergies; where the immune system overreacts. (See Blanchard, above.)

Lesbians are masculinized females. [Genetic and Environmental Influences on 2D;4D Finger Length Ratios, by Kyle Gobrogge et al., Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008] They are often the product of mothers who produce too much testosterone [Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, By S. Resnick et al., Developmental Psychology, 1986] due to the mother’s mutation-caused conditions. And it is no surprise that transsexuals—suffering as they do from mind-body dysmorphia—tend to be mentally unstable.

The intensely emotional debate provoked by the judge’s nomination may seem beyond belief. But it makes sense if examined from viewpoint of evolution and genetics. “Hell Hath no Fury” not merely “like a woman scored” but also “like a minority” and “like a sexual deviant scorned.”

Moreover, the level of hysteria in American politics is going to get worse. As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow documented recently, the Democratic Party has “tipped”—in 2016, for the first time ever, a majority (53%) of its Presidential voters were non-white, homosexual or Jewish. (61% of the Democrat vote was female). Non-whites are increasingly claiming leadership roles (New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Florida) which means the kind of behaviour we saw from Kamala Harris and Cory Booker at Kavanaugh’s hearings (“I am Spartacus”, the “Jane Doe” letter) will become more common in Congress in the future.

...

In other words, there’s going to be a lot more screeching. My advice to the GOP (and America): Buy earplugs.

drmark #fundie ibelieve.com

Actually, it takes very little "qualification in the sciences" to totally refute naturalistic macro-evolution. The process has never once been observed to occur in recorded human history, it breaks numerous "laws" of nature, and it is essentially based on circular reasoning and irrational conclusions. Indeed, it requires more "faith" to believe in evolution than any other theory of origins! Why shouldn't evangelical apologists be qualified to argue against it?

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

electronicoffee #transphobia #wingnut #sexist #dunning-kruger reddit.com

Hey dumbshit. How am I sexist for addressing the biological reality that girls prefer to play with dolls and boys prefer to play with trucks? Sorry you hate science or that gendersex is a binary that largely dictates much of behavioral reality. I don't give a fuck about your anecdotal life evidence. No one does. You don't even know what a regressive means because you ARE a literal regressive. Pathetic. Gender and sex were synonymous for most of history until redefined by a feminist asshat professor in the late 60s. We're reclaiming it. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gendersex

Lightwave #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Oh, I do believe scientific facts. All of them.

I disagree with naturalistic interpretations of many facts.

But the facts are incontrovertible - any of us can observe and repeat
them in a lab.

Of course, evolution cannot be observed or repeated, but has been falsified many times

yet people still call it a 'fact' - which is very strange considering it doesn't even pass muster as a scientific theory.

There are lots of alternative explanations for the things we observe - naturalistic scientists simply pick the ones that agree with what they already believe.

Evoltion is a religion and the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

So I disagree with religion in the public schools - it's pretty simple

ROBERT JENSEN #fundie feministcurrent.com

The art of avoiding definitions: A review of ‘Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability’

“Let me define the terms, and I’ll win any debate,” a friend told me years ago, an insight I’ve seen confirmed many times in intellectual and political arenas.

But after reading Jack Halberstam’s new book, Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, I would amend that observation: Debates also can be won by making sure a term is never clearly defined. The transgender movement has yet to offer coherent explanations of the concepts on which its policy proposals are based, yet support is nearly universal in left/liberal circles. Whether or not it was the author’s intention, Trans* feels like an attempt at an outline of such explanation, but I’m sorry to report that the book offers neither clarity nor coherence.

I say sorry, because I came to the book hoping to gain greater understanding of the claims of the transgender movement, which I have not found elsewhere. Halberstam — a professor in Department of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Columbia University — has been writing about this subject for more than two decades and is one of the most prominent U.S. trans* intellectuals. The table of contents looked promising, but the book only deepened my belief that a radical feminist and ecological critique of the transgender movement’s ideology is necessary.

Rather than be defensive about the ambiguity of the transgender argument, Halberstam celebrates the lack of definition as a strength of the movement, an indication that trans* offers deep insights for everyone. If we shift our focus from “the housing of the body” and embrace “perpetual transition” then “we can commit to a horizon of possibility where the future is not male or female but transgender,” he writes. Instead of “male-ish” and “female-ish” bodies we can realize “the body is always under construction” and “consider whether the foundational binary of male-female may possibly have run its course.”

The very act of naming and categorizing imposes limits that constrain the imagination, according to Halberstam, hence the use of the asterisk:

“I have selected the term ‘trans*’ for this book precisely to open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance. As we will see, the asterisk modifies the meaning of transitivity by refusing to situate transition in relation to a destination, a final form, a specific shape, or an established configuration of desire and identity. The asterisk holds off the certainty of diagnosis; it keeps at bay any sense of knowing in advance what the meaning of this or that gender variant form may be, and perhaps most importantly, it makes trans* people the authors of their own categorizations. As this book will show, trans* can be a name for expansive forms of difference, haptic [relating to the sense of touch] relations to knowing, uncertain modes of being, and the disaggregation of identity politics predicated upon the separating out of many kinds of experience that actually blend together, intersect, and mix. This terminology, trans*, stands at odds with the history of gender variance, which has been collapsed into concise definitions, sure medical pronouncements, and fierce exclusions.”

I quote at length to demonstrate that in using shorter excerpts from the book I am not cherry-picking a few particularly abstruse phrases to poke fun at a certain form of postmodern academic writing. My concern is not stylistic but about the arguments being presented. After reading that passage a couple of times, I think I can figure out what Halberstam’s trying to say. The problem is that it doesn’t say anything very helpful.

To be fair, Halberstam is correct in pointing out that the instinct to categorize all the world’s life, human and otherwise — “the mania for the godlike function of naming” — went hand in hand with colonialism, part of the overreach of a certain mix of politics and science in attempting to control the world. But like it or not, humans make sense of the world by naming, which need not go forward with claims of imperial domination or divine insight. We define the terms we use in trying to explain the world so that we can meaningfully communicate about that world; when a term means nothing specific, or means everything, or means nothing and everything at the same time, it is of no value unless one wants to obfuscate.

But, if Halberstam is to be believed, this criticism is irrelevant, because transgenderism “has never been simply a new identity among many others competing for space under the rainbow umbrella. Rather, it constitutes radically new knowledge about the experience of being in a body and can be the basis for very different ways of seeing the world.” So, if I don’t get it, the problem apparently is the limits of my imagination — I don’t grasp the radically new knowledge — not because the explanation is lacking.

After reading the book, I continue to believe that the intellectual project of the transgender movement isn’t so much wrong as it is incoherent, and the political project is not liberatory but regressive. What this book “keeps at bay” is a reasonable, honest request: What does any of this mean?

In other writing — here in 2014 and again in 2016, along with a chapter in my 2017 book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men — I’ve asked how we should understand transgenderism if the movement’s claim is that a male human can actually be female (or vice versa) in biological terms. If transgender signals a dissatisfaction with the culturally constructed gender norms of patriarchy — which are rigid, repressive, and reactionary — I’ve suggested it would be more effective to embrace the longstanding radical feminist critique of patriarchy.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, I want to try another approach, stating simply that I have good reason to believe I’m real, that the human species of which I am a member is real, and that the ecosphere of which we are a part is real. That is, there is a material reality to the world within which I, and all other carbon-based life forms, operate. I cannot know everything there is to know about that material world, of course, but I can trust that it is real.

The cultural/political/economic systems that shape human societies make living in the real world complex and confusing, and the ways those systems distribute wealth and power are often morally unacceptable. But to challenge that injustice, it’s necessary to understand that real world and communicate my understanding to others in clear fashion.

In left/liberal circles, especially on college campuses, “trans*” increasingly is where the action is for those concerned with social justice. It offers — for everyone, whether transgender-identified or not — the appearance of serious intellectual work and progressive politics. Endorsing the transgender project is a way to signal one is on the cutting edge, and work like Halberstam’s is embraced in these circles, where support for the transgender movement is required to be truly intersectional.

My challenge to those whose goal is liberation is simple: How does this help us understand the real world we are trying to change? How does it help us understand patriarchy, the system of institutionalized male dominance out of which so much injustice emerges?

Halberstam likely would put me in the category of “transphobic feminism” for “refusing to seriously engage” with transfeminism, but I am not transphobic (if, by that term, we mean one who is afraid of, or hateful toward, people who identify as transgender). Nor do I refuse to seriously engage other views (unless we describe a critique of another intellectual position as de facto evidence of a lack of serious engagement). I am rooted in radical feminism, one of those “versions of feminism that still insist on the centrality of female-bodied women,” according to Halberstam.

On that point, Halberstam is accurate: radical feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and sexuality. Radical feminists distinguish between sex (male XY and female XX, a matter of biology) and gender (masculinity and femininity, a matter of culture and power), which means that there is no way to understand the rigid gender norms of patriarchy without recognizing the relevance of the category of “female-bodied women.” It’s hard to imagine how the binary of male-female could “run its course” given the reality of sexual reproduction.

This is where an ecological perspective, alongside and consistent with a radical feminist critique, reminds us that the world is real and we are living beings, not machines. In discussing his own top surgery (the removal of breasts), Halberstam speaks of working with the doctor:

“Together we were building something in flesh, changing the architecture of my body forever. The procedure was not about building maleness into my body; it was about editing some part of the femaleness that currently defined me. I did not think I would awake as a new self, only that some of my bodily contours would shift in ways that gave me a different bodily abode.”

We all have a right to understand ourselves as we please, and so here’s my response: My body is not a house that was constructed by an architect but rather — like all other life on the planet — is a product of evolution. I resist the suggestion I can “build” myself and recognize that a sustainable human presence on the planet is more likely if we accept that we are part of a larger living world, which has been profoundly damaged when humans treat it as our property to dominate and control.

This is the irony of Halberstam’s book and the transgender project more generally. After labeling the project of categorizing/defining as imperialist and critiquing the “mania for the godlike function of naming,” he has no problem endorsing the “godlike function” of reshaping bodies as if they were construction materials. There’s a deepening ecological sensibility in progressive politics, an awareness of what happens when humans convince ourselves that we can remake the world and ignore the biophysical limits of the ecosphere. While compassionately recognizing the reasons people who identify as transgender may seek surgery and hormone/drug treatments, we shouldn’t suppress concerns about the movement’s embrace of extreme high-tech intervention into the body, including the surgical destruction of healthy tissue and long-term health issues due to cross-sex hormones and hormone-like drugs.

I have long tried to observe what in rhetoric is sometimes called “the principle of charity,” a commitment in debate to formulating an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible version so that one’s critique is on firm footing. I have tried to do that in this review, though I concede that I’m not always sure what Halberstam is arguing, and so I may not be doing his arguments justice. But that is one of my central points: When I read this book — and many other arguments from transgender people and their allies — I routinely find myself confused, unable to understand just what is being proposed. So, again, I’ll quote at length in the hopes of being fair in my assessment, this time the book’s closing paragraph:

“Trans* bodies, in their fragmented, unfinished, broken-beyond-repair forms, remind all of us that the body is always under construction. Whether trans* bodies are policed in bathrooms or seen as killers and loners, as thwarted, lonely, violent, or tormented, they are also a site for invention, imagination, fabulous projection. Trans* bodies represent the art of becoming, the necessity of imagining, and the fleshy insistence of transitivity.”

Once again, after reading that passage a couple of times, I think I understand, sort of, the point. But, once again, I don’t see how it advances our understanding of sex and gender, of patriarchy and power. I am not alone in this assessment; people I know, including some who are sympathetic to the transgender movement’s political project, have shared similar concerns, though they often mute themselves in public to avoid being labeled transphobic.

I’m not asking of the transgender movement some grand theory to explain all the complexity of sex and gender. I just need a clear and coherent place to start. Asking questions is not transphobic, nor is observing that such clarity and coherence are lacking.

Peter Vajda #fundie creation.com

Peter Vajda, Ph.D. is a research scientist with the Division of Geophysics at the Earth Science Institute, at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, Slovakia. He studied geophysics at the Comenius University, Bratislava, specializing in paleomagnetism, and obtained his doctorate at University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, researching the earth’s gravity.

These days, people think scientists do not believe in God or the Bible, but Peter is one of many researchers who shatter those ideas. He is a successful scientist who believes the Bible completely.

Dr Vajda (a Hungarian name pronounced VIE-da) is the internationally acclaimed head of the Department of Gravimetry and Geodynamics at the Earth Science Institute. With more than 60 papers to his name, he has presented at conferences all over the world including in South Africa, Canada, Fiji, USA (including Hawaii), and in several European countries.

His research interest is primarily geophysics, with a focus on the earth’s gravitational field, its observation and interpretation. One important application of his research is studying magma deep inside volcanoes by carefully measuring the strength of the gravity in the surrounding area. It helps scientists understand how dormant volcanoes re-awaken, and the threat of impending eruptions. This helps keep people safe from volcanic explosions.

Peter grew up in Slovakia (formerly part of Czechoslovakia) in an orderly, happy home. His father lectured in physics at the university, and his mother taught at college. Peter recalls that his parents loved him, and the family enjoyed outdoor activities together, including hiking, swimming, skiing, snowboarding, and mountain climbing.

It was his passion for the outdoor life and the beauty of nature that prompted Peter to study mathematics and physics. “My idea was that I would do lots of field work and expeditions.” Peter recalls, “I was a satisfied atheist. I firmly believed that the world and life came into existence through evolution, although I knew nothing about it. And I thought of myself as a good person who never hurt anyone.”

Things started changing during his time in Canada. A friend introduced him to the Bible, which he began reading in the evenings. Within a few days he was ‘hooked’. As he read, he realized he was selfish, used people, and hurt them. That made him think there was something wrong with his heart, which started him reflecting on life.

“I began reading the Bible in Genesis,” Peter explained, “and the amazing thing is that, although I was an atheist and evolutionist, I did not dismiss it. As I read, the truth came through that the heart of man is corrupted. This matched my own experience. It left me wondering, ‘Why didn’t my parents tell me this? Why didn’t they teach me this at school’?”

When he read about animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, he felt he needed to get a flawless lamb to sacrifice somewhere to make him clean. “Eventually I reached the New Testament and discovered the solution—Jesus Christ died on the Cross 2,000 years ago as my sacrifice.”

Peter explained, “I knew the Bible was right about the corruption of man’s heart so I concluded it would be right about the cure.” Eventually, he got on his knees and asked God to save him. Peter recalls, “And God did. With time, I realized there were new things at work in me. I had new values in life. I had new desires. I discovered that God is alive and personal.”

Surprisingly, Peter’s evolutionary beliefs were no obstacle to him reading the Bible. At that time, the origin and history of universe were not at the forefront of his thinking. Rather, he was consumed by the issue of righteousness and justification. Evolution did pop up about two years afterwards. The context concerned the origin of death. According to evolution, death is a natural part of life on Earth, and has been around for hundreds of millions of years. But, according to the Bible, there was no death originally. It came into the world through the disobedience of the first two people, Adam and Eve.

Peter explains, “Then and there it hit me. I realized it was either/or. I immediately accepted the biblical account for the origin of death, based purely on the authority of the Word of God. For me the Bible stands infinitely higher than human speculation. My attitude was that the ultimate truth is the Word of God. He has all wisdom; He was the only ‘eye witness’ of the history; He reveals the truth to us.”

That decision began a quest to understand where and how the evolutionary explanation was wrong. “I was especially motivated because I work professionally in research in academia, and the majority of the people I knew considered it fact. I wanted to know every possible detail about the errors with evolutionary thinking.”

He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. In this regard, Peter remembered his research work for his Master’s degree1 in Bratislava. He was studying paleomagnetism, the past magnetism of the earth, allegedly reaching back over millions of years. He recalls how, even as an atheist, he was deeply concerned about all the unknowns in trying to recover information about the deep past. He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. He recalls thinking, “How can we know? How can we be certain?”

Peter quipped, “I eventually escaped from paleomagnetism to work in physical geodesy and geophysics, specifically gravimetry. I was very happy. Now I could research things that were verifiable by empirical science based on facts—on actual observations.”

The past is in accessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role. Recalling this confirmed for Peter that we cannot discover the origin and history of the earth using ‘science’. “The past is inaccessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role.”

He said, “God had already explained this in Job 38:4, that the only genuine knowledge about origins is His Word. He was there, and He has revealed this knowledge to us. Not only does He know the history of the earth because He witnessed it; He actually did it—Himself.”

One topic Peter initially found tricky to resolve was radioactive dating and the age of the earth. This, too, became clear when he recognized the difference between empirical knowledge and speculation. “The empirical knowledge, what is actually measured, is the ratio of isotopes. The age is a questionable interpretation based on untestable assumptions. Further, the value actually selected is chosen to match their naturalistic philosophy. Although they don’t want to say it, the ages they quote are taken on faith.”

In his quest on evolution he was greatly helped by the abundant creationist literature that addresses these ‘scientific’ issues. “I was thrilled as I discovered that when we begin with biblical assumptions the outcomes beautifully harmonize with the true history of the world.”

Peter thinks that laypeople would benefit from understanding “the spatial (3D) inverse problem in earth sciences”. This refers to the problem of reconstructing the three dimensional (3D) structure and properties of the interior of the earth using just two dimensional (2D) observations from the earth’s surface.

Peter explained that it is not possible to reach a unique solution because many different 3D models can equally well fit the 2D surface data. “Consider how much more uncertainty we face when we add the time dimension and try to reconstruct the deep past of Earth’s history—essentially a 4D problem. The uncertainty and ambiguity is greater by more than one order of magnitude,” Peter said. “This intrinsic uncertainty means that the materialistic, atheistic evolutionary claims on origins and history are ultimately religion, and their acceptance a matter of belief.”

On the positive side, Peter refers to many scientific evidences that give insights into and confidence in the Bible. In geology these include the abundance and preservation of fossils, the horizontal and vertical extent of sedimentary layers, their deformation, and the interfaces between them. Even more compelling are the evidences from biology: the impossibility of chemical evolution, the insurmountable problems with biological evolution, and the overwhelming evidence of design.

Peter said, “I find the origin and history of the cosmos and life to be the most interesting and ultimate of questions in the human quest for knowledge. And I am convinced that the Bible reveals the true history of the universe, and can be depended upon absolutely.”

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

Unknown author #fundie creationworldview.org

Evolutionists do not want us to teach in our public schools the science that shows the validity of creation. They want us to teach only their (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling) "Just So Stories."

Personally, I believe that we should teach evolution side-by-side with creation giving equal scientific emphasis and have our students learn to think critically. Let us show them both and allow them to decide for themselves which one they will believe because origins is a faith position. Evolutionists reject this two model approach to teaching about origins because they inherently know that they will lose every time.

If they will not allow the teaching in our public schools of the science to support creation and adamantly defend the teaching of evolution only, that is fine with me - as long as we teach the students more about evolution than the evolutionists do. If we teach students ALL about evolution then they will realize that evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

The solution to evolution is education!

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about the implications of the Laws of Science, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how these Laws disprove evolution. Please allow us to teach the truth about the whole and complete nature of natural processes, like photosynthesis and metamorphosis, and how these could not possibly come into existence by random chance. Please allow us to teach the truth about what is really in the ground, like the out of order layers and polystrate fossils, as opposed to what evolutionists say is in the ground.

Please allow us to teach the truth about the hoaxes and frauds that have been authenticated and perpetuated by evolutionists then later had to be retracted. Please allow us to teach the truth about: Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, English Peppered Moths, the Horse Series, Pithecanthropus alalus, Galapagos Finch Beaks, embryonic recapitulation and the Monera.

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about how the acceptance of evolution is the foundational justification to promote: human racism, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, pornography, and all the other immoral and unethical activities within our society.

Yes, I am convinced! We need to teach more about evolution in our public schools, not less!

With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is wrong with evolution.

1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.

2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We discover new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)

3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)

4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.

5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from non-living material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.

6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the upward progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.

7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.

8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older" layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.

10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.

11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.

12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.

13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artists depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artists illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.

14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feats of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all ages of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.

15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.

16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.

17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.

18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.

19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.

20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.

21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.

22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.

24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.

25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).

26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communication system.

27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.

28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.

29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!

30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.

Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?

A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!

That is what is so important about it and why evolutionists cling to their faith position concerning it. Evolution is a religion of conveniences. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which people may mentally justify that there is no God. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which they may mentally justify that they may lead a sinless life with Jesus Christ. The Bible declares that this is manifest delusion.

MW #fundie puritanboard.com

What if it were shown that the Bible systematically adopts a geocentric perspective? Would that be something to care about? God created the heaven and the earth on day one. The sun was made on day four. There will be new heavens and a new earth, but there will be no need for the light of the sun. From beginning to end the Bible rejects the natural man's deification of the sun as the source of light and life. God sets the sun it in its place. God moves it in its course. God can stop it in its course when it serves His purpose. The Bible systematically presents the same picture of the sun in relation to the earth, and never suggests anything different.

History, prophecy, law, poetry, all provide the same uniform view of the matter. Even the poetic descriptions only make sense on the understanding that the sun moves. There is never a hint that this is merely phenomenological language. It is reality as God has revealed it. That being the case, whence arises the suggestion that it is something other than literal? The suggestion comes from naturalistic science. A changing science at that.

A science which self-consciously proclaims its findings in terms of hypothesis and probability. A science which already accepts that alternate models might be just as valid. A science which itself is geocentric, since all its preliminary findings are based on observations of and from the earth. What then? Are we seriously being asked to exchange the reliability of the consistent worldview of the Bible in order to conform to the unreliable and ever-changing probabilities of this so-called "science?"

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

Recently, atheist Richard Dawkins appeared in a short video titled “Mr. Deity and the Atheist.” In this very mocking video Dawkins speaks with a character playing God named “Mr. Deity,” and gives reasons why God doesn’t exist. “Mr. Deity” replies to his accusations, but his answers are even more mocking than Dawkins’ claims and are clearly attempts to make fun of God.

Dawkins tells Mr. Deity, who clearly is supposed to be representing the biblical God, “You know, it seems to me that if you really want to be useful you could do us all a favor and simply vanish.” Dawkins’ rationale for this is that, “The whole of your precious creation was made by evolution and you didn’t have to lift a finger to help it along. You’re completely redundant, not just lazy. Even if you weren’t lazy, there’d be nothing for you to do.” Dawkins claims that evolution has destroyed any need for God because we don’t need a Creator to get us here because everything can be explained naturalistically. Really, Dawkins has placed his faith in his religion of evolution and millions of years.

He adds, “And what’s more, we have science now, making you completely unnecessary.” By “science” he, of course, means evolution, which is historical science. This kind of science deals with the past and is therefore not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. Now, to prove his point that science has made God unnecessary he says, “Do you know that we just used science to do something truly amazing and quite difficult? We landed a probe on a comet.” Here he has done what so many secularists do. He’s used a bait-and-switch. He says that “science” (unobservable historical science) has made God redundant, but then he uses an example from “science” (observable, testable, repeatable operational science) to prove his point! But historical science and observational science are not the same thing!

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet. You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview. But there is a Creator, and He set the laws of nature in place at the beginning. And we can trust that these laws will work the same tomorrow as they did today because our unchanging God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3).

Dawkins’ comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years. They are opening the door to compromising with the rest of God’s Word. After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

[They are all reacting to the same poster]

Re: Nationalist 'leprosy' spreading in Europe, Macron says

(DiethylamideProphet)

In MY opinion we should strengthen the EU and have it become a federal organisation. We should have an official language (Even as a French i know that English would be the more logical and efficient choice) and some standards (for example for electrical norms).

Why should we destroy all the cultural and ethnic diversity and self-governance by melting every nation to a one rootless and superficial economical bloc?

This kind of union should happen everywhere in the world, with south america, parts of Asia, Africa, the middle east...

If the unions would be like EU is today, I would have no issue with them. The issues arise when these unions start having authority over different peoples and their self-governing nations.

To finally unite mankind under one flag, one language, one economical and social system. The next step or one of the steps used for this should also be a greater push for space exploration and the institution of colonies. Survival of the specie being the key.

I don't want a world where all the cultures and languages are wiped out by some utopian vision of a united mankind.

Ask yourself, if not constrained by fictional boundaries, scarcity or artificial differences, without the idea of nation states, without outdated notions of binary ideologies and the market as a motivational factor, what exactly is it that keeps us from achieving all that mankind dreams ? Nothing.

My dream is a culturally diverse planet where different peoples have the means to choose their own future with their own rules and customs. Not an artificial political entity with huge power but zero legitimacy in the eyes of these people, controlling us in ways that we don't even want.

(Spirit_Inc)

Well then you dreams has no chance of surviving, it will only end in conflict.

I would rather choose conflict now and peace later than believing in a fairy tail and getting hit in the head after.

Imagining that there would be no conflicts in "united mankind" is such a delusion and fairy tale you talk about.

What do you think will happen when there will be no national competition and conflicts? There will be racial, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts.

Nature hates vacuum.

Utopian ideologists are responsible for the most horrible atrocities in human history.

Still better than the stupid form of national institution we have right now.

Conflict can be solved if you have the will to do what need to be done also.

What is "better"? Do you know who religious and racist fanatics are? You will get that on global scale!

Same can be said about current way humans organize.

The idea of "humanity united under one flag" is more than obsolete. There will always be regions and cities, we are as close to the peaceful earth as it gets. Going further means global police state.

(denotative_designate)
Why should mankind be united under one flag?

That sounds like an entropic Christian hogwash to me.

(Zorthianator_V2)
Jesus dude, that's some fucked up naive, Star Trek, Sci-Fi bullshit that you just wrote.

Nah, I prefer to have my country, my culture and my language over some stitched up bullshit nation that usually ends with a shit ton of bloodshed.

Tribalism is human nature.

Michael Houdmann #fundie compellingtruth.org

How old is the Earth?
Mankind determining the age of the earth is a bit like the proverbial blind men inspecting an elephant in order to derive the development of its internal organs. In science, facts about the natural world are best discovered using the scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is tested until it can be proven or disproven. Events that are too small, too far away, or too long ago can only be surmised by analyzing the data at hand. A theory gains credibility when another clue is discovered which agrees, or when the theory predicts a consequential discovery which is later confirmed.

The age of the earth is a matter that is, of course, too long past for experimentation. If its development is related to the formation of other planets, stars, etc., distance is added to the mix, making analysis all but impossible.

But there is one more factor which completely derails any objective discovery—the character and social environment of those doing the discovering. It is nearly impossible to procure the resources and support required to study the issue unless the researcher agrees to begin with the assumption that the earth is billions and billions of years old. For one, the presumption is so deeply ingrained in the scientific community that it has reached the level of a moral imperative. In addition, the evidence available is too incomplete to lead to a concrete answer on its own. Data cannot be interpreted in a way that will lead to any kind of conclusion unless an underlying assumption is made first. If this sounds like circular reasoning, it's because it is.

There is a small group of scientists, largely marginalized or even mocked, who begin with the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is literal, and the earth is quite young. Because of the nature of scientific resource allocation, the bulk of their time is spent refuting the conclusions old-earth scientists make from the data at hand. Inasmuch as we can scientifically deduce long ago events, their findings are worth considering.

The three main fields regarding the age of the earth are astronomy, geology, and theology.

Astronomy may be one of the most difficult branches of science to study. The subjects are too far away to monitor directly, and much of the interest in the subject deals with events in the far past. Scientists have deduced that the universe began billions of years ago after a super explosion—the Big Bang. The gases coalesced into stars and then galaxies sometime later.

Besides the great amount of improvable conjecture involved in such a claim, there are two glaring problems. The first is in regards to the speed at which our galaxy rotates. At such a speed, had it been in existence for the billions of years claimed, the highly definable arms would have smeared into a disk. In fact, the stars would have spread out after only a few hundred million years. The shapes of the galaxies do not support billions of years of existence.

The second issue is the lack of supernovae. A supernova is a star that has exploded, leaving behind a cloud of particles. At the current rate of supernova explosions, a billion-year universe should be filled with the remains of dead stars. Instead, we can see only about 200—the amount expected to form in about 7000 years.

The discussion regarding the geological evidence of the age of the earth is broader and more puzzling. In an environment where improvable assumptions are essential for professional assistance and advancement, half-understood theories are touted as fact, obscuring a purer, objective analysis.

Many scientists believe they can accurately determine the age of rocks using a process called radiometric dating. Heavy elements, such as uranium, gradually degrade over time, losing protons, neutrons, and electrons until the atoms literally transform into a different element. By comparing how much of the heavier "mother" element a rock contains compared to the lighter "daughter" element, it's thought that the time since the rock has cooled from magma can be determined. Unfortunately, this process makes some erroneous assumptions. One is that the original magma contained absolutely no daughter elements. Another is that the rate of decay has stayed the same in the billions of years since the rock cooled. Both of these assumptions have been proven problematic. Samples from the same area in the Grand Canyon have given wildly different ages. And rock formed from lava which hardened mere decades ago in New Zealand and the crater of Mt. St. Helens have given results consistent with rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old.

Carbon-14 is an isotope of carbon that is used to measure the age of previously organic material in fossils up to 60,000 years old. Carbon-14 is made when cosmic radiation strikes a nitrogen atom, turning one of its protons into a neutron, and turning the nitrogen atom into carbon. This carbon atom latches onto oxygen atoms making carbon dioxide which is absorbed by plants and eaten by animals. Once the animal dies, thereby ending its procurement of any type of carbon, the C-14 atom decays. Carbon-14 has two extra neutrons in its nucleus, creating a chemically unstable situation. One of the neutrons will convert to a proton, changing the element back to nitrogen. It takes 5730 years for half of the C-14 to revert back to nitrogen. Thus, if the original amount of C-14 is known, the time the source died can be determined. This initial amount is deduced by the fairly stable ration of C-12 and C-14 currently present in our atmosphere, using the assumption that the planet is billions of years old and has had time to come to a C-12/C-14 equilibrium. If, however, the magnetic field around the earth has changed over the millennia, and if the Genesis Flood is true, today's C-12/C-14 ration cannot be considered a standard. The distinction is critical because at 40 million years old, fossils should have no C-14 left. And at 100,000 years old, coal beds shouldn't either. But they do. As do diamonds which are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.

The optimistic assumption that radioactive elements were pure, or at least knowable, in the formation of the parent rock is a noble thought, but presumptuous. A simpler answer is the earth has not maintained the steady state old-earth scientists believe. And the global Flood had a much larger impact than imagined. Both of these would indicate the age of the earth is much younger than previously thought.

Theological issues don't concern those old-earth proponents who choose to be atheists, but scientists who believe the earth is quite old—yet still the work of a Creator—find themselves up against a wall. In their attempt to maintain credibility with the secular society while keeping their standing in the church, they get a little creative with the text and the work of God in human history.

Language comes into play in two different ways in this argument. The first is the translation of the word "day" in the creation account of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationists claim the Hebrew word can mean an undefined span of time. Theologians who believe Genesis 1 is to be taken literally point out that the usage of a number with the Hebrew word (such as "second day") always means a literal day. In addition, in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, the writer uses the phrase "there was evening and there was morning…" No amount of semantical gymnastics could force this phrase to infer the earth is billions of years old.

Old earth creationists also use language to claim that Genesis 1-11—the creation and the Flood stories—are not historical accounts. They are poetry, meant to provide a lyrical summary of God's work to a scientifically unsophisticated people. Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D., completed a study to determine if this was the case. His statistical study of verb usage in Hebrew literature determined that the chance that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is historical narrative and not poetry is %99.9942. Meaning to say, the author of Genesis, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), meant to write a historically accurate account, not a symbolic metaphor.

The second theological issue regarding the age of the earth deals with the relationship between sin and death. God told Adam that if he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would die. Adam ate, and God not only promised him death in Genesis 3:19, He ensured Adam would die by guarding the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24). Romans 5:12 clearly says, "… sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin …" If this is the case, if death entered because of Adam's sin, if the world before Adam's sin was "very good," how can old-earth proponents justify billions of years of animal violence? Or cancer in the bones of dinosaurs? Or the story of sin in relation to the evolution of mankind? How could Adam have been descended from apes and Neanderthals long dead if he, himself, brought sin and death to mankind?

If the Bible is God's inspired Word, and not the recordings of a primitive people telling each other stories, then the age of the earth is present in its text, waiting for science to catch up. The genealogies say the earth is about 6000 years old. The Flood account gives more than ample explanation for many of the geological anomalies we find. And Genesis 1–3 clearly explain the theological relationship between first man's sin and all mankind's death. We choose what to believe. We can choose to follow a manmade theory (Romans 1:25) in order to gain man-given praise (Romans 2:29), or we can choose to believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that God is intimately involved in creation, and that manmade science just hasn't caught up yet (1 Corinthians 4:5). The age of the earth is not a salvation issue. There are many godly Christians who believe the earth is billions of years old. And yet the motivation for believing in an old earth may be a salvation issue if we crave the approval of men more than God (John 12:37-43).

Free Criticism #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

I am personally inclined to accept the transwoman over the homosexual, or more accurately, I am more inclined to accept the autogynephile over the homosexual. I think there is a reason the homosexual was integrated into imperialism first, and there seems to be a struggle in the ranks of the bourgeoisie over the integration of autogynephiles.

Even though I am inclined to accept autogynephiles over the homosexuals, I freely admit I think the radical feminists have pegged them pretty accurately. The autogynephile does have the mind of the rapist, or rather, the sexual fantasies of the autogynephile tend toward extreme submission of the female. There is an article where a feminist recounts her experience as a phone sex operator talking to men who we would know recognize as having autogynephilia, and she points out none of these men ever fantasized about becoming a woman and dominating other men with their new vaginas. Their sexual fantasies are always playing the submissive, and clearly “Stefonknee” is no different.

I would say the integration of the autogynephile is basically a confirmation of the rape-culture thesis. Basically the Oppressor Man and his Oppressor Woman force the Homo-Fascist (the white gay male in charge of the LGBTQ alphabet-soup in the West) to integrate the autogynephile because they get-off on autogynephilic sexual fantasies. Not all women, but a lot of them do have rape fantasies. The rape fantasies of women aren’t exactly like the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile. The rape fantasies of some straight women are usually more narcissistic; the man is raping me because he is overcome with lust for me and must possess me now. This fantasy is still focused on the hyper-exaggerated erotic mental state of the male rapist. The submission fantasies of the autogynephile are being in the act of submission itself, having really nothing to do with imagining the erotic mental states of their would-be sexual partners.

In that sense, the sexual thoughts of the autogynephile are closer to straight men than any woman. It is probably easiest for the straight man to sympathize with the autogynephile, especially any straight man who has every constructed an elaborately detailed feminine fantasy object for masturbation purposes. The difference seems to be one of identification with the feminine fantasy object, or in the case of the autogynephile, perhaps even a lack of imagination on the erotic mental states of actual women.

In any case, from my previous experience working with LGBTQ people in student activism, I am inclined to believe anti-transwoman sentiment is because the homosexual male doesn’t want to really integrate this identity into the LGBTQ alpha-bet soup they control. The male homosexual sees the autogynephile as a homosexual with a mental disorder. If this is true, I suspect the real difference between the male homosexual and the autogynephile relates to the onset of the sexual imagery. The homosexual male begins identifying with the feminine fantasy object earlier on, even before the onset of puberty, while the autogynephile is a post-puberty version of the same sort of internal fantasies. The continuity here is best evidenced by the androphilic transwoman, who in another context would develop into a ‘normal’ male homosexual. The male homoseuxal sees this an understands what he could have been forced to become, given another cultural context, and fears the integration of the transwomen because it could lead to the extinction of his identity, given a profound shift in political/cultural values.

Lastly, the androphilic transwomen actually desires straight men, seeing ‘normal’ homosexuals as too effeminate to desire sexual encounters with. While they are really homosexuals, they don’t actually desire other homosexuals. In some way, this leads to a divergence of how the two types of homosexual construct their sexuality. The androphillic (homosexual) transwomen desires straight men, while the homosexual can either desire masculine men or they can fetishize other homosexuals (this seems to be the most common). The most extreme form of the fetishizing other homosexuals can be seen in the bug-chasing fantasy. The homosexual with the bug-chasing fantasy fetishes the male homosexual with aids as the ultimate male-slut, and begins to resemble the straight male slut/virgin binary that is more commonly known about.

Myself, I believe Marxist-Leninists must return to an anti-homosexual view, a view that has been held by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, etc. If this means an alliance with the transwoman, autogynephile and/or androphilic, so be it. However, we should not be under any illusions about the nature of their identities. Ideally, in the imperialist oppressor nations, after a revolution, the LGTBQ pyramid will be restructed, with the male homosexuals at the very bottom. The queer-theorist autogynephiles will be near the top of the hierarchy, followed by the female bisexual, then the male bisexual. Some politically acceptable form of lesbianism will police it, but will be directly answerable to the party.

Hassam #conspiracy jeffpolachek.com

HAVE you ever thought about something you never shared with anyone, and have been horror-struck at the mere thought of someone coming to know about your little secret? If you have, then you probably have all the more reason to be paranoid now thanks to new and improved security systems being developed around the world to deal with terrorism that inadvertently end up impinging on one's privacy.
Some of the countries involved in such programmes include USA, UK, Spain, Germany and France. Recently, the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US has developed a very efficient method of controlling the human brain. This technology is called Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and is expected to revolutionise crime detection and investigation.
hand-on-brain
What is it?

RNM works remotely to control the brain in order to read and detect any criminal thought taking place inside the mind of a possible perpetrator. Research studies have shown that the human brain thinks at a rate of about 5000 bits per second and does not have the capacity to compete with supercomputers performing via satellites, implants and biotelemetry. The human brain has a distinctive set of bioelectric resonance system. For the RNM system, supercomputers are being used and, thus, with its help, supercomputers can send messages through an implanted person's nervous system in order to influence their performance in a desired way.
RNM has been developed after about 50 years of neuro-electromagnetic involuntary human experimentations. According to many scientists, within a few years it is expected that DNA microchips will be implanted in the human brain which would make it inherently controllable. With RNM, it will be possible to read and control a person's emotional thought processes along with the subconscious and dreams. At present, around the world, supercomputers are monitoring millions of people simultaneously with the speed of 20 billion bits per second especially in countries like USA, Japan, Israel and many European countries.RNM has a set of certain programs functioning at different levels, like the signals intelligence system which uses electromagnetic frequencies (EMF), to stimulate the brain for RNM and the electronic brain link (EBL). The EMF Brain Stimulation system has been designed as radiation intelligence which means receiving information from inadvertently originated electromagnetic waves in the environment. However, it is not related to radioactivity or nuclear detonation. The recording machines in the signals intelligence system have electronic equipment that investigate electrical activity in humans from a distance. This computer-generated brain mapping can constantly monitor all electrical activities in the brain. The recording aid system decodes individual brain maps for security purposes.
What does it do?

For purposes of electronic evaluation, electrical activity in the speech centre of the brain can be translated in to the subject's verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the auditory cortex of the brain directly bypassing the ear. This encoding helps in detecting audio communication. It can also perform electrical mapping of the brain's activity from the visual centre of the brain, which it does by bypassing the eyes and optic nerves, thus projecting images from the subject's brain onto a video monitor. With this visual and audio memory, both can be visualised and analysed. This system can, remotely and non-invasively, detect information by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in 30-50Hz, 5 millwatt electromagnetic emissions from the brain. The nerves produce a shifting electrical pattern with a shifting magnetic flux which then puts on a constant amount of electromagnetic waves. There are spikes and patterns which are called evoked potentials in the electromagnetic emission from the brain. The interesting part about this is that the entire exercise is carried out without any physical contact with the subject.

The EMF emissions from the brain can be decoded into current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject's brain. It sends complicated codes and electromagnetic pulse signals to activate evoked potentials inside the brain, thus generating sounds and visual images in the neural circuits. With its speech, auditory and visual communication systems, RNM allows for a complete audio-visual brain to brain link or a brain-to-computer link.

Of course, the mechanism needs to decode the resonance frequency of each specific site to modulate the insertion of information in that specific location of the brain. RNM can also detect hearing via electromagnetic microwaves, and it also features the transmission of specific commands into the subconscious, producing visual disturbances, visual hallucinations and injection of words and numbers in to the brain through electromagnetic radiation waves. Also, it manipulates emotions and thoughts and reads thoughts remotely, causes pain to any nerve of the body, allows for remote manipulation of behaviour, controls sleep patterns through which control over communication is made easy. This can be used for crime investigation and security management.
Concerns

With all the given benefits of RNM for tracking the illicit and treacherous activities, there are many concerns and risks being pointed out by human rights activists and other scientists. The agencies of human rights around the world have criticised RNM as a violation of basic human rights because it violates privacy and the dignity of thoughts and activities of life. Several countries have protested against it and refer to it as an attack on their human and civil rights. The scientists protesting against the use of RNM believe that people who have been implanted involuntarily become biological robots and guinea pigs for RNM activities in the guise of security. This is an important biological concern related to microchip implantation, which is a hidden technology using microwave radiations for the control of the mind.

Scientists believe that like leukemia and the cancerous risks posed by mobile phones which also emit microwaves, RNM can also pose similar threats to a subject's overall health as the heating effect of tissues with the speed of light is a known effect of high powered microwave and electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Thus, RNM remains a controversial technology which is being used in many countries for security maintenance and surveillance.

Anthony Zyrmpas #fundie orgyofthewill.net

Misogyny, from Greek misos (µ?s??, hatred) and gyne (????, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example.

Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist", a "misdogist", because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't? And the same goes for "homophobia" (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), "race hatred", and the like.

But of course the subhumans' inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply "But no, you are not superior, you are inferior", which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman ;)

Margie #fundie gendertrender.wordpress.com

(rad fem compares Elliot Rodger to trans people and trans rights activists)

When I saw the horrible story of Elliot Rodger, the fellow in California who killed 6 people as retribution for women not having sex with him, I sort of jokingly thought “This guy’s attitude about sex as an entitlement could qualify him as an honorary trans activist.” But if you view Rodger’s pre-massacre video, it is clear that, under the most widely accepted definition of transgender, he actually is a trans activist.

Rodger is a straight male, but his “gender expression” is unconventional, in at least a few respects (higher than normal voice, delicate facial features, unathletic). Although trans activists alter the meaning of “trans” to suit whatever agenda they are pushing at any given moment, the textbook definition includes anyone who identifies or behaves in any way contrary to “conventional gender norms.” The shooter qualifies, as far as i can tell. The only difference is that he failed to invent terminology to make his mental and emotional problems seem like a political demands – like “cotton ceiling” – and he failed to come up with a rallying cry like “Die, cis scum!”

If he would have done that, I would give 50/50 odds that he would be adopted by the trans movement as a martyr. Maybe they wouldn’t celebrate the murders, but they would turn him into a victim who was driven to his bloody fate by the gender binary and the cotton ceiling.

(Note: "Cotton ceiling" refers to cis lesbians supporting trans rights, but not considering sleeping with trans women or including trans lesbians as part of the lesbian community due to transphobia. Rad fems take this to mean that trans women should be able to rape lesbians or coerce them into sex and that cis lesbians who don't sleep with trans women will be labeled as bigots. Yep.)

supersport #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Atheists have successfully hoodwinked a large segment of society. This has been done under the guize of science. Evolutionary science's main goal in the past 100 years has not only been to divert people away from God, but to divert people away from their own common sense. This has been done for purely political reasons. This group of mental terrorists have no desire to uncover the truth. Their main goal has always been to justify their atheist existence and to mold and shape society as they see fit...(ie...soicalism, communism.)

But the problem is, their "science" goes against every drop of common sense...starting with something called the Law of Biogenesis. This law states two things: 1) that living things must come from other living things. 2) that living things can only produce other living things like themselves.

Thus, to get a cat, there must be a living thing giving birth to that cat. And not only that, but that living thing, by law, cannot be a chicken or a dog. It must be a cat. To get a starfish, there must first be a starfish (or two). To get a snail, there must first be snails. To get a human there must first be humans. And no one has proven otherwise. Yet evolutionists like to say that this is not case. In fact, to them, this law must have been broken millions of times over the course of history. Of course it's opinions like these which are the consequence of them permenantly living in fairytale land.

But it gets worse for the atheist. The first law states that only living things can come from other living things. This means the theory of atheistic evolution is false because at some point, life would have had to emerge from something non-living. But until someone can make life starting from scratch...(ie...no DNA, no proteins, no nucleotides, no RNA, etc)...nothing but the elements on the periodic table, then you guys have absolutely no authority to claim anything. You have no authority to claim that intelligence came from non-intelligence. You have no authority to claim that an intelligent code did not come from an intelligent sender. You have no authority to claim that the human mind was not the result of intelligent thought. And you certainly have no authority to claim that humans came from monkeys.

All evolutionist scientists/authors have got is the authority to crown themselves as the kings of mythological fiction-writing. And that's all the theory of evolution is: A big, fat, impossible myth based on a fraud premise that's not backed up by even one shred of evidence. The only real evidence they have going for them is the fact that most atheist scientists agree with -- and promote -- the giant atheist propaganda machine otherwise known as ToE.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator

Intolerance against Christians’ freedom to express their Christian worldview is increasing from a minority of secularists who are in positions of authority regarding education, research, and so on.

What happens when you briefly reference the Creator (without even specifically explaining who this Creator is) in a scientific paper for a secular publication? Well, watch out, for intolerant secularists will become incensed and get it censored.

Four scientists, three from China and one from Massachusetts, recently published an article entitled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living” in the journal PLOS ONE. In their article they mentioned that “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years” (emphasis mine). Near the end of the paper, the researchers added, “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” Now it’s even possible that the authors meant that nature (or evolution) was the Creator! Some people use such wording about nature/evolution.

When it became known that the word Creator was used, the outrage on the Internet and social media was swift and fierce. People bemoaned the “unacceptable,” “harmful disgrace,” “absolute joke,” and “sloppy job” of the editors and their journal for allowing this word to go through. Some secularists threatened to boycott the open-access journal, and some editors declared that they would resign if the article wasn’t retracted. The intolerance shown by the secularists over the use of the word Creator in the article was astonishing. The very idea that there could be an intelligence behind life was so unacceptable and was expressed with such anger that it only exposed how passionate they are in defending their secularist religion of humanism and naturalism.

The lead author of the paper, after he was contacted about the firestorm it was creating, reportedly said, “We are not native speakers of English, and entirely lost the connotations of some words such as ‘Creator.’ I am so sorry for that.” After discussion and thought, the journal decided to retract the article. We are not told what the authors were intending to communicate by their word choice of “Creator.”

It’s ironic that creationists are frequently accused of not being “real” scientists because they ”don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals” (of course by this common accusation they mean secular peer-reviewed journals), but this recent episode is a perfect example of why this often doesn’t happen! In their paper, these scientists made very brief mentions of a “Creator’s” design—in the same sentence mentioning evolution and millions of years—yet there was a very vocal demand that if this paper were not retracted, a boycott might be called. So it doesn’t matter how sound and well-researched your observational science is or how technical the paper might be, if it even dares to mention a word like Creator, it will be censored. There is such a massive intolerance in the scientific community today against anything that could possibly hint at life not arising by natural processes!

This is one reason that we need our Answers Research Journal, one of several technical, peer-reviewed journals where creationists can submit their articles to be possibly published. Many creationists are not allowed to publish in secular journals, regardless of the quality or soundness of their research and the author’s credentials, simply because what they write isn’t based on the religion of naturalism! It would immediately be declared “wrong”—regardless of the quality of the research—simply because it may be influenced by the Christian worldview instead of evolutionary naturalism.

Now this isn’t to say that creationists never publish in secular, peer-reviewed journals. Many of the scientists here at Answers in Genesis, such as Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Andrew Snelling, and Dr. Georgia Purdom, have all been published in secular journals because they do solid observational science. But in their articles they aren’t permitted to mention the Creator or that their starting point is God’s Word because their work would automatically be thrown out—regardless of the high quality observational science they present.

THE INTENSE PREJUDICE AND INTOLERANCE CONTINUALLY ON DISPLAY BY SECULARISTS IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE.
The intense prejudice and intolerance continually on display by secularists is almost unbelievable. And sadly it’s only increasing. They become up in arms about anything that mentions a creator and will immediately throw it out. And we see this attitude in our personal lives and the culture as a whole. Anyone who dares to think biblically about origins, the nature of marriage, or the sanctity of life is often treated with intolerance, anger, and prejudice, and faces ad hominin attacks—just for starting with God’s Word! And sadly, as our culture moves farther and farther from a biblical worldview, we can only expect this intolerance to continue.

We also saw a similar intolerance regarding the debate I had with Bill Nye “The Science Guy” in 2014. Many secularists openly admitted that they were against the debate because they didn’t want creationists to be able to present our teachings to the public. It’s the same reason atheist groups constantly attack the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter: they can’t tolerate Christians having such a public presence to present their message in a world where so many people have been brainwashed by the religion of naturalism. Secularists don’t want their monopoly on education and research being broken, and thus they resort to censorship.

Really, this outrage directed against PLOS ONE for printing this paper shows how utterly intolerant secularists are to anything even remotely Christian. They don’t want people to even hear any possibility of something that might support creation. They immediately have to be censors. Now, something is wrong with your worldview if you have to censor other views and not even let people hear the alternatives! Whatever happened to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Secularists ultimately don’t want freedom of religion; they want freedom from Christianity.

As I wrote earlier, evolution is a religion. It’s a religion of naturalism and atheism (both of which are totally unprovable from an observational scientific standpoint, yet are held to ardently within much of academia by blind faith). According to secular, evolutionary thinking, if anything even hints at a creator, it must be thrown out because obviously there’s something wrong with it. This attitude boils down to what their starting point is—they start with the assumption that there is no creator and that everything happened by naturalistic processes, so it doesn’t matter what the quality of the research is; if it in any way supports a Creator God (and it doesn’t even seem to matter which creator; it doesn’t even have to be the God of the Bible), they throw it out. It’s not surprising then that public school science textbooks often define science as only having to do with natural processes—no supernatural is allowed. In other words, the religion of naturalism (which is in essence atheism) is being imposed on generations of students in government-run schools.

If secularists were to be honest, they would fully acknowledge that from their perspective, when they die, that’s it—they’re dead. Then why do they even fight so vehemently against God? Why do they care if someone mentions a creator in a research paper? What is it that irks them so much about this? Well, the bottom line is that they know that if there is a God who created them, and if He is the God of the Bible, then He owns them, He sets the rules, and they are accountable to Him. It means, for example, that marriage is one man for one woman, that abortion is murder, and so on.

Because the human heart does not want to submit to Christ, secularists actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Romans 1 makes it clear that God is clearly seen through what He has made (Romans 1:20). But instead of submitting to Him, people reject that truth and do everything they can to ignore His witness in nature and through His Word. Ultimately, it comes down to a heart issue!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23)

Editor’s note: This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

QuestionY #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

He will rise again

Some quick thoughts but the main theme is trying to decode the imagery of Blackstar and themes apparent.

Who: David Bowie aka Osiris aka son and consort of the goddess Arianhod/Isis

The video to David Bowie's latest release Blackstar is full of occult and hidden messages.

Each image can have many meanings. But all roads lead to the wizard of oz.

The scarecrows represent the Druid and Celtic rituals, which are linked to the fire festival and harvest; the straw man. Think also Guy Fawkes.

The story of the straw man shows an entity which is summoned through use of the scarecrows, a sacrifice, which possesses man hence the video of the people dancing, jerking, acting possessed. The entity dances in the farm fields for harvest as it is summoned by the witches coven (again think Celtic and Druid mythology), enters DB who we see is controlling those who are possessed. DB blindfolded with the fake eyes - the spirit of David Jones was moved aside and David Bowie born. In the video We see the sunlight entering the room of the possessed signifying the rebirth of DB, the birth of Horus, God of the sun, consort to the moon goddess.

This entity dies then rises again. If you read up on Arianhod moon goddess, Lugh, noting the similarities to Isis, Osiris, Horus you will start to see how the video closely follows Druid and Celtic mythology and of course Egyptian. The image of the skeleton flavoring towards the dark star signifies the reclaiming of the dead by Arianhod.

What did Iman tweet: Rise. And his other video: Lazarus.

What we have seen is the ritual and publicized death of the antichrist represented by David Bowie which links back to Osiris, his descent into the underworld and later rebirth as Isis' consort and son.

We also see themes related to the dark side of the moon, light and darkness (the dancers and the lighting).

Carter Dalbey #fundie killscreen.com

I almost stopped reading soon after the part where you insinuated white supremacism was the reason for armed militias in the US.
It was completely ignorant of a wider scope of American history (including the Brown Beret, Black Panther, and Yellow Peril movements), and the fact that we have two fascists running for president right now (not to mention our current president), with groups like the New Panthers showing up in response to open genocide.
Also, recycling enemy equipment during warfare is a very old and commonly-practiced tactic used by militaries across the entire political spectrum. ISIS is an enemy of the US, but how many American military weapons and vehicles do they have? As far as "liberating" enemy drones, perhaps you should look to the Kurdish tradition of hunting with Golden Eagles, and how it's being used now to protect themselves from US drone strikes that are supposed to be hitting Daesh strongholds, yet are destroying Kurdish villages and even Doctors Without Borders-operated hospitals.
Also, correlation does not equate to causation, as you seem to have suffered that logical fallacy in your unsourced assumption that a growing number of armed militias during Barack Obama's presidency has anything to do with his ethnic majorities of militia populations.
Arnament, training, and coordination, does not mean nationalization, except perhaps in fiction. We already live in an overwhelmingly nationalist country.
I could write a long article, with the news being that we already live under the tyranny of a white supremacist, fascist nation analyzing socio-political events, trends, studies, and polls, using "The 14 Characteristics Of Fascism" as defined by Political Scientist, Dr. Lawrence W. Britt, in Free Inquiry Magazine in March, 2003 as a lens.
The real issue to be brought up is how this (noteably old) game being marketed to young men promotes xenophobia, violence, and false nationalism. America was never great.
Awaiting a response, or a request for to write the aforementioned article.

Headline - This Article Is Everything Wrong With America: It Can't Begin To Comprehend Everything Wrong With America

Mack Major #fundie #mammon facebook.com

How was everyone's 4th of July holiday? Hope you didn't eat too much! I've been busy working on and pounding out THREE brand new books.

People ask me why do I write so many ebooks? My answer is always the same: What if I died today - all of the books I could've written would die with me. I wouldn't want that to happen, so when the idea or mood to create a new book strikes, I submit to the urge and let the book come forth.

I refuse to die with my work left undone.

Right now I'm working on the ebooks Woke, Voodoo and The 5th Angel - The Statue of Liberty and Satan's Hidden Hand. These ebooks will all be out this month. And I believe they will be a massive blessing in your life.

However, we still don't have the Eden Decoded website up. Due to the fact it took so long to raise what was needed on time to get it back online, we lost ALL of our old files. The web hosting company deletes the files after a certain time period. Which basically means now we have to rebuild an entire website from scratch, which is a massive headache and unnecessary expense.

This has happened at least TEN TIMES over the past year! And it typically happens because people ignore my requests for help, thinking someone else will always give. Only problem with that way of thinking is that too many people think the same way! So very little ends up coming in to help at all.

Since people don't like to just give without expecting something in return, I've been offering the 5th Angel ebook as a special product this week only for those who bless our efforts with a twenty dollar (or more) contribution. Many have responded. However, we need much more.

Let's get the Eden site back up. The sooner I can get the site up the sooner I can get these new ebooks out and into your hands (as well as more impactful articles). I placed a link in the comment section below for you to use. Please take a second to stop what you're doing, make use of it right now and do the very best you can today. And remember: if YOU don't act, NO ONE probably will.

I pray you have a productive remaining work week. I also pray that God puts a fire beneath you that causes everyone reading this to become a giver today. There are blessings God has that can only come into your life through being a giver.

Tap into those special blessings today!

Kevin Barrett #conspiracy veteranstoday.com

A MASSIVE, ICONIC terror event (a couple of people hit by a car, a policeman stabbed, an alleged perp shot) shocked and galvanized the world today. STOP THE PRESSES!

But wait a minute. More than 270,000 pedestrians are killed by vehicles each year, while well over a million are injured. That means almost a thousand are killed, and perhaps three or four thousand injured, every day.

Of the thousands and thousands of vehicular casualties that happen every day all over the world, a tiny fraction just occurred near the Parliament building in London. The logical inference: Somebody spent a rather small sum of money to arrange a publicity stunt which did not even make a faint blip on the day’s (much less the year’s) accident statistics — but which reaped hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars worth of virtually free publicity for the perpetrators.

Now who would do a thing like that?

As in all criminal cases, we must answer that question with another: Cui bono? Who benefits?

More often than not, these things are blamed on “radical Muslims.” (The dead perp in the photo has the typical, iconically-“Muslim” salafi beard.) But it’s hard to see how actual radical Muslims, whose goal is to push Western imperialists and colonialists out of historically Muslim lands, gain anything from such deeds. On the contrary, attacks on Western civilians provide a huge PR boost to the imperialists and colonialists, and free up huge sums of money to be spent on military action against “radical Muslims.”

So whoever did this presumably wants to convince you to give up your hard-earned money, and perhaps your freedom as well, and support the hyper-militarization of the West — and an accelerated war against Muslims. Just like the previous London attack in July 2005! Watch terror consultant Peter Power confess that his company was running “terror drills” at the exact times and locations that the real bombs went off!

Another clue: The “vehicular attack” and “stabbing attack” motifs are Israeli. These are among the types of attacks that have characterized the latest Intifada, or Palestinian war of self-preservation against slow-motion Zionist genocide. (The real Palestinian attacks target Israeli soldiers and settlers, who are defined as Occupation forces and thus legitimate targets under international law; while any attacks targeting civilians should be assumed to be false flags.)

barwhack #fundie reddit.com

barwhack: Socialistic parasites have done their best to kill Christianity for over a hundred years: pretty much since Marx. Christianity'll survive. Don't worry. It survived Stalin AND Mao even... and it'll survive the ongoing self-destruction of the west. I know those facts will alleviate your obvious anxiety, because your motivation for speaking was manifest: your concern for Christ and His legacy - the gospel (which concern involved-not-at-all using Christ's name as your very own eco-warrior tool...) Rest assured: Christianity will survive -unhurt- versus intelligent Evangelicalism, and happy Lutheranism, and choosy Calvinism, and progressive Orthodoxy, and parochial Catholicism, and united denominations, and this deadly life. Thank God.

bullet-2-binary:
Whaaat. No idea what you're talking about.

Old_Army90Lutheran: but libruls

barwhack: Stupid has many names. Its recent incarnation as forced sharing for social good, is right now most vibrant in non-classical liberalism. You're right. If only there were a naturalistic replacement for religion that would promote forced sharing... something that would appeal to good-natured folks that Wanna Make A "Difference"... something that -all at once- stroked the the inner Knight In Shining Armor AND inflamed his self-righteous indignation. Something that already has a socially entrenched clergy, and was dressed as secularism...et voilå. Al Gore and Bill Nye would like a secular word with you. It concerns submarine Miami and ice cream orgies; for the Earth!

HolyMuffins: You know, there are proposed solutions to climate change that don't involve secular tree worship and fully automated gay space communism, or whatever you're on about.

barwhack: Like Paris global "carbon" redistribution magic orwellian economies? Yes, I'm aware. The absolute brilliance of shifting currencies around (out of the US) - in service of a glorious secular World Faith - whilst failing even to address the basic supposed complaint? by failing to sequester ANY carbon? did not escape me. If only Obama had constitutionally pushed his treaty through congress... instead of inventing new powers for Trump to exploit. Alas.

various commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Tfw you try to dunk on incels and end up just shitting on the working class

image

(der_nietzsche)
when equating love to game show wealth he's in this post saying love is earned by winning the genetic lottery and that ugly people don't deserve love

jfl at cucktears iq

(MMDT)
This idiot is actually AGREEING with us. Unless he thinks all poor people are that way because of their bad attitudes and laziness. What an absolute down syndrome

(satansbarbedcock)
I lean Republican and my general take isn't that being poor is just because of being lazy. Things can happen. Some people don't have right skills at the right place and time.

It just isn't that bad to be poor in the first world as long as you avoid REALLY terrible mistakes like having five kids or doimg meth.

Being ugly, though, that's become a lifelong struggle in the West

(waGeCel)
cope, statistics show you have more than 2/3 chance of staying in the same SES you were born into. tradcucks just like to espouse this shit cuz they got lucky, same with chads and stacies and justworldtheory

(Sniveling_Cur)
Everyone who upvoted that thread then went on to vote for higher minimum wage.

(Rammspieler)
When it comes to love and sex, Lefty's are even more Objectivist than Ayn Rand.

(Ub2-w)
it's because the left is not about equality anymore, no since the 60 after the Frankfurt school and especially after the collapse of the USSR, is about post-modernism in an western centric world.

Females are the principal victims of everything according to this doctrine and males the victimizer, to criticize how unjust and unequal a free sexual market is it's criticize femoid behaviour(since females are the gatekeepers of sex and they hold all the power in this situation)and correctly classify them as the eugenicist, hitlerian animals they are; That's intolerable because everyone know that males and the system that they founded are the core of all the inequality in the planet.

Who is hilarious since monogamy is literally the marxism of the sexual market.

(thepaj_)
He's saying that some people are born luckier and others but ad with money you can try and work your way to love.

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)

Be born in rural somalia Recieve barely any education, survive with foreign aid until you're an adult Go to Silicon Valley and become a rich programmer

Yeah I see no flaw in your reasining, we truly live in a fair world where everyone can get rich so long as they work hard.

Be born ugly with emotionally troubled parents Experience rejection and isolation during the critical years of socialization and development of self-esteem Bloom into a charming, beautiful person with people's skills and fulfilling relationships.

Yeah if I could everyone can I think

(unincelligent)
I love how their satire that's supposed to prove how insane and selfish we are is actually a really solid critique of our economic system. Of COURSE it's good that some people make 100 million dollars because they picked Door B and some people starve to death working 12 hour shifts! Stop being so entitled and try actually putting in some effort - money isn't everything you know, managing these investments is a real hassle

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)
That's why the blackpill resonated so well with a leftist like me despite the tainting with right-wing rethoric.

Both the blackpill and revolutionary theory have its roots in the fact that some humans will be born miserable and rejected while others will live shitting on everyone else. Be it the wealth or your parents or the facial symmetry that your genes encode both are angry reactions to cosmic injustice and to the cruelty of God.

(AyeThatsAGoodNagger)
Anybody got that meme of what happens when a liberal debates an incel? Bernie Sanders morphing into Ben Shapiro.

They’re such hypocrites. The chance to reproduce is way lower (meaning more basic and vital) on the heirarchy of needs than shit like the internet or a university education. But guess which liberals think people are entitled to.

(gufestus2)
Yeah boy. Everyone who's poor is because of his own volition. Being lucky has nothing to do with it. Just like dating. Whether you're born to a rich businessman from Switzerland or to a poor farmer in Somalia, it has no effect on how much wealth you're gonna get. Definitely not. Just be happy that you're poor and stop hating on rich people who force you to work 12 hours a day to barely feed yourself while they eat gourmet in Paris. If you didn't hate the rich so much you could actually learn how to do business like they do and maybe get rich too.

(Liptusg)
Funny how the liberal left in both the US and Europe supports socialism for exactly that reason. Are IncelTears going to support the redistribution of sexual access to the less fortunate? I thought they were against that kind of thing.

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)
I spent some time on inceltears trying to assess how leftist they are and they have john oliver-tier pseudoideology.

Those are absolute retards that will simultaneously support Macron, oppose middle-eastern interference, condemn US imperialism in latin america and shit on Fidel for whatever propaganda they're fed.

Probably on par with /r/neoliberal as one of the subs I can't physically tolerate.

Unknown FBI investigators #racist theguardian.com

Revealed: FBI investigated civil rights group as 'terrorism' threat and viewed KKK as victims

Bureau spied on California activists, citing potential ‘conspiracy’ against the ‘rights’ of neo-Nazis

The FBI opened a “domestic terrorism” investigation into a civil rights group in California, labeling the activists “extremists” after they protested against neo-Nazis in 2016, new documents reveal.

Federal authorities ran a surveillance operation on By Any Means Necessary (Bamn), spying on the leftist group’s movements in an inquiry that came after one of Bamn’s members was stabbed at the white supremacist rally, according to documents obtained by the Guardian. The FBI’s Bamn files reveal:

The FBI investigated Bamn for potential “conspiracy” against the “rights” of the “Ku Klux Klan” and white supremacists.

The FBI considered the KKK as victims and the leftist protesters as potential terror threats, and downplayed the threats of the Klan, writing: “The KKK consisted of members that some perceived to be supportive of a white supremacist agenda.”

The FBI’s monitoring included in-person surveillance, and the agency cited Bamn’s advocacy against “rape and sexual assault” and “police brutality” as evidence in the terrorism inquiry.

The FBI’s 46-page report on Bamn, obtained by the government transparency non-profit Property of the People through a records request, presented an “astonishing” description of the KKK, said Mike German, a former FBI agent and far-right expert who reviewed the documents for the Guardian.

The report ignored “100 years of Klan terrorism that has killed thousands of Americans and continues using violence right up to the present day”, German said. “This description of the KKK should be an embarrassment to FBI leadership.”

Shanta Driver, Bamn’s national chair, criticized the investigation in a statement to the Guardian, saying, “The FBI’s interest in BAMN is part of a long-standing policy ... Starting with their campaign to persecute and slander Dr. Martin Luther King, they have a racist history of targeting peaceful civil rights and anti-racist organizations, while doing nothing to prosecute the racists and fascists who attacked Dr. King and the movement he built.”

The FBI launched its terrorism investigation and surveillance of Bamn after white supremacists armed with knives faced off with hundreds of counter-protesters, including Bamn activists, at a June 2016 neo-Nazi rally in Sacramento. Although numerous neo-Nazis were suspected of stabbing at least seven anti-fascists in the melee, leaving some with life-threatening injuries, the FBI chose to launch a inquiry into the activities of the leftwing protesters.

The documents, though heavily redacted, did not include any conclusions from the FBI that Bamn violated laws or posed a continuing threat. Its members have not faced federal prosecution. The FBI declined to comment on Bamn.

“It’s clear the FBI dropped the investigation having no evidence of wrongdoing. It never should have been opened in the first place,” Driver said.

The 2016 rally was organized by two white supremacist groups: the Traditionalist Worker party (TWP) and an affiliated California entity, the Golden State Skinheads. California law enforcement subsequently worked with the neo-Nazis to identify counter-protesters, pursued charges against stabbing victims and other anti-fascists, and decided not to prosecute any men on the far-right for the stabbings.

The FBI appeared to have adopted a similar approach. In a redacted October 2016 document, the FBI labeled its Bamn investigation a “DT [domestic terrorism] – ANARCHIST EXTREMISM” case. The FBI’s San Francisco office wrote that it was investigating allegations that “members of Bamn attended a Ku Klux Klan rally and assaulted a Nazi supporter”. It summarized the Sacramento incident this way:

In 2016, law enforcement learned that the Ku Klux Klan would be holding a rally at the State Capitol Building … The KKK consisted of members that some perceived to be supportive of a white supremacist agenda. In response, a number of groups mobilized to protest the rally. Flyers were posted asking people to attend in order to shut down the rally.

The KKK and Traditionalist Worker party have similar ideologies but are distinct groups. It’s unclear why the FBI labeled the rally a KKK event.

The FBI’s report also appeared to obfuscate details about the political affiliations of stabbing perpetrators and victims, saying: “Several people were stabbed and hospitalized”. That’s despite the fact that California police investigators reported that neo-Nazis were seen on camera holding knives and fighting with counter-protesters (who suffered severe stab wounds).

The FBI file said its research into Bamn found that the group “lawfully exercised their First Amendment rights by engaging in peaceful protests”, but added that its “members engaged in other activity by refusing to disperse, trespassing in closed buildings, obstructing law enforcement, and shouting during and interrupting public meetings so that the meetings could not continue”.

Bamn has long advocated for racial justice and immigrants’ rights, frequently protesting at public events and organizing rallies.

The FBI report said it was “possible the actions of certain BAMN members may exceed the boundaries of protected activity and could constitute a violation of federal law”.

The “potential violations of federal law”, the FBI said, included “conspiracy against rights” and “riots”. The FBI cited Bamn’s website, which encouraged supporters to protest the KKK, featured slogans like “SMASH FASCISM!” and “NO ‘FREE SPEECH’ FOR FASCISTS!”, and celebrated the “mass, militant demonstration” that “shut down” the neo-Nazi rally. The FBI also included screenshots of Bamn pages that referenced a number of the group’s other advocacy issues, including campaigns against “rape and sexual assault” and “police brutality”.

The FBI files further included mentions of Yvette Felarca, a Bamn member who was stabbed at the rally, but is now facing state charges of assault and rioting. (Her lawyers have argued in court that the police investigators and prosecutors were biased against anti-fascists and worked to protect neo-Nazis).

Driver, who is also Felarca’s attorney, said the FBI should have mentioned that Felarca was “stabbed and bludgeoned by a fascist in Sacramento”. She added: “Instead of finding the person who assaulted anti-racist protesters, the FBI chose to target BAMN, which by their own admission holds demonstrations that are protected by the First Amendment.”

The bureau’s justifications of the investigation and surveillance were disturbing, said Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People. “The FBI discovered that these protesters once shouted at a meeting and somehow that evidence was mobilized to support a full-fledged terrorism investigation,” he noted.

In November 2016, the FBI engaged in surveillance of a protest outside the Berkeley school district, according to the Bamn files. Due to the redactions, it’s unclear whom the FBI was watching, though the report noted that the FBI observed “several children … sitting outside … with signs next to them”.

The FBI report said its investigation and surveillance were not “intended to associate the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law”. The report continued:

However, based on known intelligence and/or specific, historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individuals or groups, or the activity could be used as a means to target law enforcement. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and federal law dictates that no further record be made of the protected activity.

Property of the People’s records requests broadly sought FBI documents on anti-fascists. The FBI did not release additional Bamn records beyond 2016.

The FBI’s insinuation that Bamn’s actions could provoke violence was odd, said German, the former FBI agent, who is now a Brennan Center fellow. He noted that it was white supremacists “who have used this tactic for decades” and said the violent provocations of rightwing groups were well known when he worked on domestic terrorism for the FBI in the 1990s. The Bamn report, he said, gave the “appearance of favoritism toward one of the oldest and most active terrorist groups in history”.

He added that the report should have made clear that the “KKK consists of members who have a bloody history of racial and anti-Semitic violence and intimidation and is known for staging public spectacles for the specific purpose of inciting imminent violence”.

Asked whether the Bamn investigation was ongoing and whether the FBI had opened any equivalent inquiry into the neo-Nazis in California, an FBI spokesperson said the bureau does not confirm or deny the existence of specific investigations. “We cannot initiate an investigation based solely on an individual’s race, ethnicity, natural origin, religion, or the exercise of First Amendment rights,” the FBI said in a statement. “The FBI does not and will not police ideology.”

The bureau “investigates activity which may constitute a federal crime or pose a threat to national security”, the statement added.

The Bamn case follows numerous recent controversies surrounding the FBI’s targeting of leftist groups, including a terrorism investigation into Standing Rock activists, surveillance of black activists, and spying on peaceful climate change protesters.

The justice department inspector general previously criticized the FBI for using non-violent civil disobedience and speculation of future crimes to justify terrorism investigations against domestic advocacy groups, German noted, adding that the Bamn files suggest the FBI “seems to have learned nothing from these previous overreaches”.

Even knowing the FBI’s legacy of going after activists, the report was still shocking, said Shapiro.

“A bunch of anti-fascists showed up at a Nazi rally and were attacked by Nazis, and the response form the bureau was to launch a domestic terrorism investigation into the anti-fascists,” he said. “At its core, the FBI is, as it has always been, a political police force that primarily targets the left.”

Anonymous #fundie blogger.com

Pertaining to the question of meaning and purpose in life:
If you believe that there is no God then you must conclude that
a. You come from nowhere.
b. You come from no one.
c. When you die you are going nowhere.
d. When you die you are going to no one.
e. You have no objective reason to live.
According to the atheist, your whole existence is just matter in motion. Your thoughts, emotions, and actions are just chemical reactions determined by a set of naturalistic factors. The whole universe came about by chance. You were not intended and your entire being, all that you are, is a complete and total accident. Inevitably, the result is the same for all. We will all one day die and cease to exist. According to the atheist.

The Christian, however, believes he/she was created by a single preeminent and divine being. This being who knows everything and who has designed all things, exists eternally in perfect, loving relationship as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is the Triune Creator God. This being deeply loves his creatures and created human beings in order to share His wonderful, perfect life with them so that they could glorify Him in doing so. This is the Christian's purpose in life. The Christian has real, objective meaning for existence because God has reached out to all humanity in Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who bore the sins of the world and gave himself as a living sacrifice so that through faith in Jesus Christ humans could be saved from their sins and their selfish, Godless way of life and begin to be transformed by the Holy Spirit to the image and likeness of Christ, all for the glory of God.

The Christian believes this is why human beings were created and what human beings were intended for: right and loving relationship with God and others so that God could be glorified in them.
In essence, the Christian knows that:
a. They come from God.
b. God is perfect love.
c. God therefore loves them deeply and wants to bring them into his perfect life.
d. They exist to bring glory to God because from before time began, that's what God had purposed for them to do.
e. Bringing glory to God is the most fulfilling purpose for their life.
f. One day they will live in perfect relationship with Him and all of God's children in Heaven forever.

Without God there is no objective meaning or purpose for human existence.


The atheist believes he lives for no reason and no one.
More importantly, the Atheist lies to himself and says that he comes from no one and that no one loves him. Remember, emotions, intellect, actions, thoughts, whatever it is, it's all just chemicals fizzing for no clear or objective reason (according to the atheist). Therefore there is no such thing as love.

The Atheist fails to see that love is real and that it was love that brought him into existence.

"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

SashaBooBoo #conspiracy #crackpot #magick krashxpert.blogspot.com

Time travel lies in the ability to travel through your personal stratazones to alter the course of events.
The illuminati understand stratazones. The ability to travel time and shape the course of events for their own vainglorious agendas is the heart of all mysteries. The key to travel, the time machine itself, can be decoded through geometric symbols left throughout history to the enlightened, or the illuminated ones.

Time travel in its most simple sense is accomplished through several different portals. The center of travel is the pineal gland of the brain, through which DMT opens the portal. I do not mean through the simple consumption of DMT, although that is a vehicle as well. The portal is opened sonically through vibrations at certain frequencies. It is opened in a trancelike state. It is opened, innocuously enough, while daydreaming. It is opened, most powerfully, as it was intended to be opened, whilst asleep.

The Illuminati not only controls its present state, but perpetuates its success. Through time travel, method of induction notwithstanding, an older self advises and ministers to its younger form. Thus, on death the older form is assured of birth into wealth as opposed to an undetermined destiny.

What you have just read was revealed by a demon.

FreeSpirit #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

North Carolina double shark attack was completely staged

This report has illuminati symbolism all over it.

[link to abcnews.go.com]

The fish is a symbol of Christ and the Church.. the SHARK is a symbol of the Illuminati because it eats fish.. it’s the ultimate predator of the ocean.

Look at the video..

The girl supposedly lost part of her arm and leg with not a drop of blood on the beach.

Two almost identical shark attacks.. what does it mean when something is said twice ?

Refer to: Genesis 41:32

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass."

The number 4:40 is encoded in the video.

Refer to: 2 Kings 4:40

"So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof."

The poison stew is a reference to famine

And we get Fukushima radiation poisoning the ocean like a big stew.

And remember this report from 2012? Sharks literally raining from the sky in California:

[link to abcnews.go.com]

There is an engineered drought in california and now farmers have restrictions on water. It's a set up for a food shortage people.

They put the signs are everywhere for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

They are rubbing it in your face.. look:

2 sharks in the illuminati Katy Perry video:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

[link to buzzworthy.mtv.com]

I'm not even Christian and I can figure this out.. the so called Christians on this board are slacking

Issac #fundie yecheadquarters.org

Why do we have wisdom teeth? Wisdom teeth are a throw back from the giants that used to exist in Biblical times.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

These giants also had double row teeth. And is why some are still born with double row teeth.

Giants had bigger jaw bones, which means they held more teeth. We have smaller jaw bones which means these extra teeth have to come in as wisdom teeth. Also, this would explain why wisdom teeth come in, in later years. For even the giants jaw, as children, was not big enough yet to take them. So coming in the later years (teen to adult years) was encoded into the DNA instead of coming in when all the other teeth did. Which would have caused problems for children and many would have died from infections of the abscessed wisdom teeth in times when medical help was not available. The videos below are on giants.

Issac #fundie yecheadquarters.com

Why do we have wisdom teeth? Wisdom teeth are a throw back from the giants that used to exist in Biblical times.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

These giants also had double row teeth. And is why some are still born with double row teeth.

Giants had bigger jaw bones, which means they held more teeth. We have smaller jaw bones which means these extra teeth have to come in as wisdom teeth. Also, this would explain why wisdom teeth come in, in later years. For even the giants jaw, as children, was not big enough yet to take them. So coming in the later years (teen to adult years) was encoded into the DNA instead of coming in when all the other teeth did. Which would have caused problems for children and many would have died from infections of the abscessed wisdom teeth in times when medical help was not available.

itsnobody #fundie itsnobody.wordpress.com

What a great fool it is to be an atheist.

Now the fools (atheists) have come up with more lies/atheistic propaganda. They discourage criticism and scrutiny of their atheistic propaganda because they know that their propaganda is all wrong and false.

Why would an atheist allow people to question, criticize, and scrutinize their propaganda since they are staunch anti-science fanatics and strongly the oppose the concept of criticism and scrutiny (one of the main principles in science).

Atheists claim that “less religious or atheist nations are more peaceful” and point out the murder rates in like 3-5 supposedly atheist countries (Denmark, Sweden, and New Zealand).

Now it’s time for me to debunk this claim:
Counterexamples:
Religious countries in Northern/Western Europe with lower murder rates than New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden:
– Austria
– Switzerland
Austria is one of the most religious countries in Northern/Western Europe according to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll, and Austria’s murder rate is lower than all atheist countries in Europe and lower than every single US state as well.
Less Religious and atheistic countries with high murder rates:
– Estonia
– Latvia
– North Korea
Estonia is the country in Europe with the lowest percentage of believers in God (lower than all the other countries in Europe) according to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll and 2008 Gallup poll and Estonia’s murder rate is consistently one of the very highest in Northern Europe year after year.

So this claim has thoroughly been falsified by me with counterexamples to both (religious countries with low murder rates and atheistic countries with high murder rates).

I wonder why atheists conveniently leave out Estonia when mentioning how peaceful atheist countries are? It’s probably because they feel bad that multiple sources clearly show that Estonia is the least religious country in the world and that Estonia consistently has the highest or one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

What a shame Estonia is for atheists.

Correlation is not causation:
Distorting statistics to support propaganda is easy since correlation is not causation.

The countries atheists point out as being “peaceful” had low murder rates long before they were less religious or atheistic.

Since they had low murder rates long before they were less religious or atheistic this tells us there’s absolutely no causal link between religiosity and murder rates, meaning the reason these supposedly “atheist” countries have low murder rates is despite being atheistic.

Racism is peaceful?:
The countries atheists point out as being peaceful also happen to be the most racist countries in the world (according to all the studies done). Is a country with daily or weekly racism what atheists consider as peaceful?

But I forgot, atheists don’t consider racism to be immoral or not peaceful.

100% of all atheist countries are extremely racist, there is not even one atheist country in the entire world that is not extremely racist.

What a great fool it is to be an atheist, it’s no wonder they discourage criticism and scrutiny of basically all of their claims and any other claim that they personally agree with.

If a claim really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, which is why atheists strongly discourage criticism of any claim that they personally agree with (knowing that it’s all wrong and false).

If we are to be honest with ourselves we can see that truthfully atheists are among the worst of all human beings, always out to deceive others, and trick people in order to gain converts.

Atheists will try anything to gain converts. They are so desperate and lame.

The simple fact is, I always win, always.

Sources for Religiosity:
– 2005 Eurostat Eurobarometer poll (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf)
– 2008 Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx)

Sources for murder rates:
– UNODC crime statistics (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls)
– Eurostat crime statistics (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF)

Sharon Henderson #fundie livescience.com

Atheism is the least intellectual idea ever produced by a human, and requires a person to be in denial of a large percentage of the accrued knowledge of mankind.

Atheists believe the universe is the only exception to the fact that all things have a cause, that an explosion produced astonishing order ultimately producing rock soup which came alive resulting in Michaelangelo, Beethoven, and space probes. Logical, scientific stuff if I ever heard it! Those atheists are so smart!

Evolution is disproven by millions of facts, such as the fact that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation.

Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for true naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudamentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer technology. compression schemes. It possesses thousands of 3-dimensional information hierarchies directed to the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, much of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and vice versa. Genetic information when read by the cell's machinery in one direction produces different information than when it is read by the cell's machinery in the other direction. This feature of design alone is so far superior to man's computer software that it is not currently possible for us to conceive how this could have been done while making all of it's information relevant and critical to the organism. It's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences across the entire molecule. It's sequences across the entire 7 ft. long molecule are organized to conform to linguistics laws which go beyond Zipf's law of Linguistics. It contains codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other. A recent discovery is a code which lies upon codes for proteins, sharing it's base pairs, and regulates how to express those sequences for proteins. If we liken the mechanical funtions of the protein machines of the cell as it interacts with DNA, then the operations mirror the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, syntax, and grammar, and punctuation. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations which possess "if" and "when" statements, just like computer programs. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are all immaterial nature has no potential to produce them. They are products only producible by a mind. During the organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical light switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it. Science has disproven evolution and proven that life was created. If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Today's evolutionists are hold-outs, and will be written of by future historians as the dogmatic denialists they are.

Carolyn White #conspiracy activistpost.com

“We’ve collected samples from all over the world, and cataloged the genetic information encoded in their DNA,” Dr. Holmes, Phylos’s chief science officer and molecular and evolutionary biologist, in addition to being a co-founder of Phylos Bioscience, told the NY Times, relating the DNA sequencing to an actual bar code in terms of identification and evolutionary relationship relative to other samples.

The data could theoretically help protect the intellectual property rights of growers from potential big business interests, such as Monsanto, from gaining a patent foothold in the growing industry.

Due to the social media attention given to the subject, Monsanto has attempted to refute any interest in producing GMO cannabis, posting on their website that the companies reported interest in GMO marijuana is nothing more than “an Internet rumor.”

Additionally, on April 25, Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord told Willamette Week that the company will not be getting involved in the marijuana business.

“Monsanto has not, is not and has no plans for working on cultivating cannabis,” Lord told WW.

Contrary to the public statements by Lord, White says that he expects companies like Monsanto will attempt to eventually patent cannabis.

M. Johnson #fundie thinkingaboutcreation.blogspot.com

Museums devoted to displaying the Darwin story have carefully, and deliberately painted a false picture of the fossil record. I wonder how many people are aware of the deceptions involved in this supposedly educational enterprise.

Quotes and comments;

1. "Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.'' [1.]

- Here is plain proof that evolutionists are deliberately falsifying the fossil record so as to create a delusory myth in the minds of the public. How can anyone trust the people who do this kind of thing? Why would anyone expect people like this to be honest when talking about the origins debate? They clearly have no interest in the truth, but care only about propagating a myth.

- Here is clear evidence that refutes the great Darwinian myth, as these collections just should not happen according to textbook theory. Anyone who accepts cosmic evolution in the light of these findings does so despite the evidence not because of the evidence.

Many (most?) natural history museums have more to do with the muses than with science, and are shrines to materialism and cosmic evolution.

2. 'Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc." [1.]

- The Darwinian myth has been carefully manufactured, and bears little relationship to reality. The museums are temples devoted to cosmic evolution, as the scenarios they paint (and present) are fictional... and are very little different than Disneyland. One day they'll be seen as the amusement parks they really are.

This is a prime example of what's known as the engineering (or manufacturing) of consent. The success of Darwinism is almost entirely due to the false (iconic) pictures and images evolutionists have invented and painted for the public mind. Without the (false) images the words would mean nothing.

3. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons." [4.]

- Fossils are the sacred relics of Evolution, the sacred stones of naturalist religion, and the natural history museum is the modern Pantheon, where the inner sanctum always seems to feature that lumbering saint of Darwinism, the dinosaur.

These Darwinian displays are a good example of the Potemkin village, as they're utterly fake and bear little resemblance to reality. The fact you display a bone is meaningless in itself, as it's the context that makes all the difference. In most cases it's not the bones that are displayed that is important, it's the bones that are not displayed which is crucial. These displays could be compared to the sets Hollywood used to make and use, and they have as little educational value.

Summary;
Museum directors see themselves as guardians of cosmic evolution and as members of an elite who is going to cure the common folk of their delusions, since they're too incompetent to do it on their own. (Curators of museums now see themselves as curators of the soul.)

- M. Johnson

Society for Psychical Research #fundie spr.ac.uk

The early SPR researchers established the main methodological principles and areas of research. The study of mediumship continued, providing much information on aspects of human personality and altered states of consciousness, and helping to perfect investigative techniques. Field investigations were carried out, and further collections, analyses and surveys of spontaneous phenomena were published.

Following the general trend – seen also in psychology – towards an experimental, more biological approach, experimental methods continued to undergo refinements. Pioneering work on free-response and quantitative experiments was carried out in the 1920s and 1930s by George Tyrrell, a British mathematician and physicist; he explored methods for inducing altered states of consciousness, designing techniques to differentiate between telepathy and clairvoyance and attempting to automate the randomisation of targets.

However, the centre of this activity shifted to America, with the establishment of JB Rhine’s Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University in the 1930s. While SPR researchers continued to experiment, the organisation evolved during this period from an investigative to a mainly educational body. From its earliest days the Society began creating a specialist library and an archive of original documents, housed both at its offices in London and at Cambridge University Library. Its Journal and Proceedings, published since the 1880s, offer a wealth of material relating to investigations and experiments past and present, as well as theoretical studies and papers discussing the relationship between psychical research and fields such as psychology, philosophy, physics, medicine, evolutionary biology and social sciences.

Today, the SPR continues to promote and support the main areas of psychical research, carrying out field investigations, surveys and experimental work. It holds no corporate view about the true origin and meaning of psi – as telepathic and other psychical phenomena are now collectively termed - and debate among its members with regard to particular subjects is often vigorous. However, it’s fair to say that from the earliest times the consensus view of its members – and of the psi research community in general – has been that psi is real, and that while the phenomena should certainly be explained in scientific terms, such a science does not at present exist.

The Society’s work has inevitably brought it into conflict with sceptics who believe that purely naturalistic explanations of psi phenomena can and must be found, and who strive to re-interpret researchers’ findings in terms of fraud and misperception. In recent years, the field has faced a growing campaign by ideologically-motivated activists determined to discourage interest in these matters, in order to support scientific naturalism against a perceived threat of superstition. Their work is particularly in evidence in the free encyclopedia Wikipedia, where articles on psi topics are now uniformly ‘balanced’ with the negative opinions of sceptical authors and campaigners, to the point where they have become confusing and misleading.

The SPR continues to argue the value of objective research and dispassionate elucidation of facts, regardless of their metaphysical implications. It has an important educational role to play, disseminating accounts of its work, and of psi research generally, for the benefit of individuals and for writers, journalists and broadcasters whose work may at times touch on these subjects.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

One of the ironies of the crackpot theory of "Evolution" TM, is that the deceitful dogma itself is always "evolving." Since the 1860's inception of Darwinian doctrine, mad scientists have bickered endlessly about how "Evolution" TM actually played out, never questioning the basic foundational assumption that life spontaneously, with neither reason nor guidance, emerged from non-life in the first place.

From Darwin's Origin of the Specious Species to the present day, the case for "Evolution" TM must, by necessity, rely upon the classic logical fallacies that are so evident to philosophers; yet completely invisible to arrogant "theoretical scientists" emotionally attached to a dogma disguised as "science." This idiotic article by renown "science journalist" and author Nicholas Wade is no different.

Haz Mat suits and goggle on. Into the "Primordial Soup" (or is it "deep sea vents" now?) we "wade" (corny pun intended).

"Shhhh, Mr. Wade. You must never tell anyone about the Anti-New York Times."

Wade: A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.

Rebuttal: Notice how it is already assumed, without evidence, that "all living things" have a common ancestor. (fallacy of assumed truth)

Wade: This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, before you school us dumb plebes about Luca's birthplace, please prove to us that Luca even existed; and then prove how Luca "evolved" into other species; which in turned "evolved" and "evolved" millions of times into all current life forms. And by "proof," we mean observational evidence -- the very definition of the Scientific Method.

Wade: The new finding sharpens the debate between those who believe life began in some extreme environment, such as in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes, and others who favor more normal settings, such as the “warm little pond” proposed by Darwin.

Rebuttal: Whatever happened to the "Primordial Soup" TM theory?

You see, these erudite eggheads love to "debate" endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever demonstrating that there were actually any angels dancing on the pin, at all!

"Luca! We have you surrounded. Come out of that sea vent with your flagella up. And don't try any of that binary fission business"

They found little Luca in the deep sea, not the Primordial Soup as had once been theorized.

Wade: The nature of the earliest ancestor of all living things has long been uncertain because the three great domains of life (bacteria, plants, animals) seemed to have no common point of origin.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, has it ever occurred to you and your sci-fi cult that the reason why the various domains "seem to have no common point of origin" is because maybe, just maybe, they do not have a "common point of origin?"

Wade: Specialists have recently come to believe that the bacteria and archaea were the two earliest domains, with the eukaryotes emerging later. That opened the way for a group of evolutionary biologists, ... to try to discern the nature of the organism from which the domains emerged.

Translation: The high-priests of "Evolution" TM have just concocted a new theory to explain away the gaping holes in the previous theories.

Wade: Their starting point was the known protein-coding genes of bacteria and archaea. Some six million such genes have accumulated over the last 20 years in DNA databanks as scientists with the new decoding machines have deposited gene sequences from thousands of microbes.

Rebuttal: "DNA decoding machines" were used to sniff out little Luca --- (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)

Wade: Genes that do the same thing in a human and a mouse are generally related by common descent from an ancestral gene in the first mammal.

Rebuttal: The belief in the "common descent" between a human and a mouse is based on the fallacious prior assumption that we all came from Luca. It can just as easily be argued that DNA similarities between Mickey Mouse and Mickey Mantle are due to both of them having been designed by the same Creative Force which Tesla, Edison, Einstein (puke) all believed to exist. Hence, genetic similarities between the two Mickeys can be explained as cross-associations / basic templates of the same life-transmitting Creative Force which animates the universe.

Will the wonders of modern "science" ever cease?! The new Super Duper Decoding Machine not only links Mickey Mantle to the rodent family; it traced the birth of Luca to a deep sea vent!

Wade: By comparing their sequence of DNA letters, genes can be arranged in evolutionary family trees, a property that enabled Dr. Martin and his colleagues to assign the six million genes to a much smaller number of gene families.

Rebuttal: One can arrange and categorize the various "families" of automobiles (trucks, sports cars, SUV's, luxury cars, go-carts etcp) into a "tree" with many branches. Would their common component similarities therefore "prove" that Ferraris blindly "evolved" from school-buses?

Wade: Genes are adapted to an organism’s environment.

Rebuttal: Wrong again, Mr, Wade! The gene pool is not "adaptable." What happens sometimes is that environmental changes will favor one existing genetic trait over another. Hence, those specimens without the trait are at a disadvantage while those with it will prosper and produce offspring. This might explain why one group of finches has a beak like this while another group of finches has a beak like that. But it damn sure cannot explain how Marylyn Monroe and a putrid maggot have the same 1 millionth grandmother!

Wade: So Dr. Martin hoped that by pinpointing the genes likely to have been present in Luca, he would also get a glimpse of where and how Luca lived.

Rebuttal: "Likely to have been present in Luca" --- that's called conjecture, not science.

Wade: “I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” he said.

Rebuttal: We can't either.

Wade: The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor.

Rebuttal: Cheese and crackers! We can't even find lost civilizations from a few thousand years ago and this academic ass-clown found little Luca in a deep sea vent?

Wade: Deep sea vents are surrounded by exotic life-forms and, with their extreme chemistry, have long seemed places where life might have originated.

Rebuttal: "Seemed" -- "might have." Save the speculative words for Star Trek or Jurassic Park, not the Science Section of a newspaper that so many people actually place trust in.

1- Mr. Spock of Star Trek says: "Evolution is not logical."

2- Some evolutionists now believe that T-Rex "evolved" into a bird.

Wade: The 355 genes ascribable to Luca include some that metabolize hydrogen as a source of energy as well as a gene for an enzyme called reverse gyrase, found only in microbes that live at extremely high temperatures...

Rebuttal: So, some of the genes "ascribed to" (speculative) this ancestral organism called Luca (never proved to have existed), are found in microbes that live at high temperature. Therefore, Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse, Marilyn and the maggot do all have a common ancestor after all. Brilliant! (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)

Wade: The finding has “significantly advanced our understanding of what Luca did for a living,” James O. McInerney of the University of Manchester wrote in a commentary, and provides “a very intriguing insight into life four billion years ago.”

Rebuttal: How does one even begin to respond to this madness?

Wade: Dr. Martin... argues that Luca is very close to the origin of life itself. The organism is missing so many genes necessary for life that it must still have been relying on chemical components from its environment. Hence it was only “half alive,” he writes.

Rebuttal: In other words, the "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory has so many holes that it requires another band-aid theory to keep it viable --- the "half alive" theory.

Wade: The fact that Luca depended on hydrogen and metals favors a deep sea vent environment for the origin of life, Dr. Martin concludes, rather than the land environment posited in a leading rival theory proposed by the chemist John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge in England.

Rebuttal: Wade, with his "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory, is seeking to dethrone Sutherland and his "Luca-was-born-on-land" theory as the crackpot theorist of the year. This heated competition among psychos has always been a comical feature of "theoretical science."

Wade: Luca and the origin of life are “events separated by a vast distance of evolutionary innovation,” said Jack Szostak of Massachusetts General Hospital, who has studied how the first cell membranes might have evolved.

Rebuttal: This crackpot believes in cellular life before Luca --- which means that there was another great great great grandma Luca long before "sea vent" Luca was born.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland too gave little credence to the argument that Luca might lie in some gray transition zone between nonlife and life just because it depended on its environment for some essential components. “It’s like saying I’m half alive because I depend on my local supermarket.”

Rebuttal: The lunatic Sutherland is dismissing the lunatic Martin. Just another day at the asylum of modern academia. Let the "academic debate" begin!

Wade: Dr. Sutherland and others have no quarrel with Luca’s being traced back to deep sea vents. But that does not mean life originated there, they say. Life could have originated anywhere and later been confined to a deep sea environment because of some catastrophic event like the Late Heavy Bombardment, which occurred 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago.

Rebuttal: The Late Heavy Bombardment? What the heck was that?

Wade: This was a rain of meteorites that crashed into Earth with such force that the oceans were boiled off into an incandescent mist.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, can you cite for us the observational evidence for this "rain of meteorites" and the "boiling off" of the oceans?

Wade: Life is so complex it seems to need many millions of years to evolve.

Rebuttal: Circular logic! It goes like this:

"Life takes 'million of years' to 'evolve' --- We cannot observe this because it played out over 'millions of years.' "

Once upon a time, the meteors rained, the oceans boiled, and out popped little Luca -- with his millions of complex DNA codes, cell wall, cell membrane, cell plasma and flagella already intact.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland, working from basic principles of chemistry, has found that ultraviolet light from the sun is an essential energy source to get the right reactions underway, and therefore that land-based pools, not the ocean, are the most likely environment in which life began.

Translation:

Sutherland: "Luca came from a land pool, you idiot!"
Martin: "Nonsense, fool! Luca came from a deep sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Land pool!"
Martin: "Sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Your momma wears combat boots!"
Martin: "Your momma so ugly, the strip club paid her to keep her clothes on!"

Wade: "We didn’t set out with a preferred scenario; we deduced the scenario from the chemistry,” Sutherland said, chiding Dr. Martin for not having done any chemical simulations to support the deep sea vent scenario.

Rebuttal: You tell him, Dr. Sutherland! The absence of chemical simulations means that Dr. Martin's theory has no merit.

Say, Dr. Sutherland, can you tell us about your "chemical simulations" that prove that life came from non-life, formed in a land pool and then evolved and evolved and evolved? Just sayin'.

Wade: Dr. Martin’s portrait of Luca “is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the actual origin of life,” Dr. Sutherland said.

Rebuttal: So, Dr. Sutherland is saying that Dr. Martin is an even nuttier mad scientist than he is? --- OK. We'll accept that.

Paul Elam #fundie avoiceformen.com

Sady Doyle is a feminist blogger with a problem. She is concerned that for years she and her sisters in the struggle have been harassed, stalked, threatened, called names and otherwise made to feel uncomfortable. She’s written herself a little advice piece over at inthesetimes.com, called The Girls Guide to Staying Safe Online, in which she claims to have received a death threat, hate mail, rape threats and the like. She also claims that her photo inspired someone to pontificate about fucking her in the ass.

Doyle doesn’t mention precisely why she thinks all this is (allegedly) happening, except to say that apparently being a feminist blogger, or even having a female screen name, is enough. All these women have to do is screech online about men being pigs; lie about everything from phony wage gaps to domestic violence to an imaginary rape culture – while they glorify their own bigotry and sense of entitlement. And then for some inexplicable reason they end up getting an occasional bit of nastiness via email or in the comment sections of men’s websites.

Fuck sake, what has happened to the world that a grrl can’t even trash half the human race based on sex without someone getting all huffy about it?

Of course, Sady, I ask that question rhetorically because I know the answer. The reactions you have seen over the past several years are just the beginning of a boil over that was inevitable from the moment gender feminism raised its ugly head.

For the last fifty years, feminist ideologues like yourself have been given free reign to lie, distort, vilify and practice open hatred toward men and boys. You have been given pathological enabling by politicians, police, and a more than sizable portion of the well trained and obsequious male population. You have been given almost godlike power over families and sufficient hegemony over the lives of men that you can effectively destroy them with no more effort than it takes to point a finger. And you have not hesitated to support a culture that embraces the use and abuse of those powers, and writes them into law.

You have trumped over truth, reason and justice with an ersatz victim card, over and over again, and you even attempt to do so now, inferring that anyone who says things you don’t like, about your ass or otherwise, is some sort of threat that must be dealt with – socially and legally.

But no matter what you do, you are going to see a lot more of the things you don’t like in the future. I don’t mean that in the way of violent threats and continued fixation on your rectum, but in much more organized, high impact consequences for those of your ilk, courtesy of the men’s movement.

Simply put, we are coming for you. All of you.

And by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass.

The fact is, Sady, you are a corrupt, hate-spreading bigot. I would ask you to remember that when you whine about a little rough talk, but it is pointless to ask someone to remember something they can’t or won’t acknowledge in the first place.

It is your bigotry that is at the source of all your troubles, just as it is your bigotry that is spawning troubles that you cannot imagine, but that are nonetheless coming down the pike.

Misandry will find its way to the graveyard of failed ideas. It will die its quiet death alongside racism and other social pathogens. In that light, there is no “safety” for you and your kind. You will all be exposed, and publicly excoriated; forced into the shadows alongside other bigots.

Ask Pamela O’Shaughnessy. She is a Harvard educated attorney and a best-selling author that goes by the online name of Vliet Tiptree. By any definition she is a person of means and some influence. She is also a feminist advocating eugenic shaping and control of men.

We have exposed her publicly, which has outraged her. But she is powerless to do anything about it. She will take whatever we dish out and her only reaction will be to slink further into the darkness, hidden away in private forums where the disease of her thinking won’t see much sunlight, or be allowed to gain a growing audience.

She will take all this because she has to. And she has to because she is a bigot. Bigots only have two choices when it comes to public discourse. One is to retreat, which O’Shaughnessy has wisely done. Two is to stay and pretend not to be a bigot. That pretense becomes more difficult to maintain as an individual’s words fall under real scrutiny – and as more people stand up publicly to the hate.

There’s a lot more standing up going on these days.

The harshness you and your ilk have been subjected to is just the first signs of an approaching tipping point; the place where the misandry bubble is stretching toward the inevitable explosion. And yes, Doyle, that would be the explosion that will take you out; not with violence or rape, but with the illuminating light of truth.

Unfortunately, just because your moral superiors are organizing to take you down with truth and reason, it does not mean that the inklings of violence you are now seeing are going to stop. There is little you can do about that either. Hate begets hate.

You will just have to deal with increasing hostile reactions that will mirror the virulence you practice. Alongside the wholesale razing of civil rights under the feminist agenda, a little rough talk up the pooper just doesn’t amount to much.

t ceti h c radnarg #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

jesus was the ET visitor of giza and thats his face on the sphinx

i know , i have his ET genetics from the godman project and his memories so that means jesus has already gotten here like a thief in the night . i also look like him too based on the paintings . surprise this is your ET and spiritual disclosure and why katy sings ET and has jesus tattooed on her wrist . i also have the double rainbows she sings about as the two sets of dna and rna known as a quadruple helix which gives me double the esp and psi abilities as most folk , like a prophet . throw in a feather of maat as the stimoceiver of the judgement god and presto i am the father and the son walking on this planet again . the stimoceiver also patches into advanced electronics frequencies flowing from the moon above and the ground below and through everyones brains and bodies , not to mention the weather machines i control . the freemasons call me the great architect . the nsa calls me mr. computer . global secret societies , intelligence agencies , DC , hollywood , and nashville drinks from me for their paychecks like a last supper . dam vampires, but since the moon let me know about it , i may drive some stakes into some of their hearts .

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

[**MEGA TRUTH**] The Ongoing Story of You Know Who - Decoded and Extracted from Fake "News" and Media

This thread will be an ongoing compilation of the occult story being told by those in the know.

The Baton Rouge "Shooting"

What's in a name?

Gavin

Gavin is the late medieval form of the name Gawain, which in turn is believed to have originated from the Welsh name Gwalchgwyn, meaning "White Hawk." Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is an epic poem connected with King Arthur's Round Table.

The occult King Arthur connection:

When he was born, Arthur was taken by Merlin. He was cut from any family bonds. This symbolizes that in order to pursue the path of spirit, one should cut all worldly attachments. Merlin symbolizes his spiritual guide or teacher. He stayed with his spiritual teacher for a long time after he overcame his attachments.
...
He eventually overcame the first portion of his lower nature (false ego). This is symbolized by taking the two-edged sword of the truth -- Excalibur -- from the stone of the false ego (raising of the kundalini). By marrying Guinevere, he was unified with his soulmate and through marriage, he purified his sexual relationship.
...
He repented for his action and understood that by the misuse of his powers, he had broken a great Law of the spirit and he promised he would never do it again. That is why the Lady (Holy Ghost) of the Lake (consciousness) gave back his sword of truth (Excalibur). He did not have to take it out of the stone any longer. He had already awakened his kundalini. The powers were taken from him only as a test and lesson. When these lessons were learned, God gave him back what was his birthright.
...
It was then that the quest for the highest state of consciousness -- The Holy Grail -- or Pure Consciousness, started. The Knights and King Arthur, who were all aiming for the highest, understood that with all their achievements they still had not found the complete truth. After a great struggle they realized that highest state -- The Holy Grail -- is within themselves. To purify and conquer the impurities within was an even greater struggle than the establishment of the Round Table and his kingdom.

Eugene

English form of Eugenius, the Latin form of the Greek name &#917;&#965;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#962; (Eugenios) which was derived from the Greek word &#949;&#965;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#951;&#962; (eugenes) meaning "well born". This was the name of several saints and four popes.

Long

Originally a nickname for a person who had long legs or arms, or that was tall.

Once again (just like Micah Xavier Johnson) the last name has a phallic undertone. In this case, a long penis.

Summary

The Anomaly may have long legs/arms and is undergoing purification to detach from worldly things. Once he has achieved detachment, his power will be restored along with his birthright.