Similar posts

Steve Sailer #fundie theamericanconservative.com

In a world where it pays to belong to a designated victim tribe, a perhaps unsurprising phenomenon is the current rush by some whites, who can’t claim special status by ancestry, to have themselves elevated above criticism by the privileged status of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals have often formed pseudo-clans, perhaps the most famous being the Bloomsbury cabal to undermine Victorian virtues organized by biographer Lytton Strachey around John Maynard Keynes, E.M. Forster, and Virginia Woolf. When Harvard historian Niall Ferguson recently alluded unflatteringly to this immensely well-documented bit of history, he was denounced worldwide for his insensitivity to a powerless victim group. He’d never lecture in this town again!

Ferguson, a financial historian who knows which side his bread is buttered on, immediately apologized.

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

Gay Jews and Hollywood

Jewish rabbis and intellectuals are into homosexuality in a big way. James Klugman, British Communist Party leader; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer; wealthy socialist Victor Rothschild; and British economist John Maynard Keynes come to mind. The ADL, ACLU, and Southern Poverty Law Center are Jewish organizations noted both for their antichrist liberal views and the perverted sexual orientation of some of their leaders.

Jewish rabbis are frequently in the news, with charges of child molestation highlighted. Meanwhile, Jews virtually run the entire inter-national porn industry. Even Jerusalem World Report, a prominent Jewish publication, has admitted that the kingpins of the "ecstasy" drug trade are Jews based in Israel.

Michael Eisner, a Jew and head of Disney Corporation, is actively pushing the gay agenda, as are most other Hollywood moguls—almost all of whom are Jewish. Sodomite Tom Schumaker was chosen by Disney to be executive producer of the kids movie, The Lion King. Homosexual singer Elton John was chosen to do the music score for the movie. Schumaker brags that Disney is actively recruiting homosexuals and that already, "There are a lot of gay people at every level" in the company.

Hollywood has long been much more gay than traditional America has known. The Christ-hating Jews that run the movie industry have always gotten their kicks from secretly pushing homosexual actors and actresses into leading roles as "romantic" leads. Katherine Hepburn was a lesbian deceptively dressed up as a lover of men like Spencer Tracy. Lesbian actress Marlene Dietrich pranced about in male suits with pants and yet the movie audiences were led to believe she was "All Woman." Male stars like comedian Danny Kaye and British actor Laurence Olivier were lovers, and comedian Jack Benny was queer as a three-dollar bill.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Starting back in 2014, we began noticing more and more requests to post a "Bitcoin" button that would allow readers to donate to TomatoBubble.com with the hot new "crypto-currency" worldwide payment system. Bitcoin and other rapidly emerging cryptos are a form of "decentralized" digital currency, as the system works without a Central Bank or a single administrator.

The Bitcoin network is person-to-person, with transactions between users taking place directly through the use of cryptography only. Bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies, products, and services. The transactions are automatically verified and recorded in a publicly distributed ledger called a "blockchain."

At first, it seemed like a good way to work around PayPal and fly under the IRS radar, but we just never got around to getting involved because we figured the Feds would eventually catch up to such a "peoples' currency" and shut it down anyway. But now, lo and behold, Bitcoin mania is being heavily promoted by the great and the good of the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) -- so much so that a single $1 of Bitcoin purchased a few years ago is today worth about $65!

Hyped by the Piranha Press and blessed by the Rothschild Central Banks, digital crypto-currencies -- Bitcoin foremost among them at this time --are exploding in popularity and "value."

Suckers worldwide are now purchasing Bitcoin with credit cards and even home loans (just as in the allegorical story of "The Great Tomato Bubble" (here) for which this site is named). The fact that Wall Street Hedge funds have joined the Globalist media mania bubble of Bitcoin constitutes "prima facie" (a $10 Latin legal term for "first face") evidence that there is a sinister agenda behind these digital currencies. Should there be any lingering doubts over such a suspicion, these headlines ought to dispel them:

Coindesk: (December 17, 2017): 2018: The Year Central Banks Begin Buying Cryptocurrency (here)

CNBC: (December 18, 2017): Central Banks could hold bitcoin and ether for the first time in 2018 (here)

Quartz Index: (September 25, 2017): Central Banks considering launch of official cryptocurrencies (here)

The fix is in, boys and girls. What is the motive here, you ask?

Flashback time:

(February 24, 2016):

Getting Rid of Big Currency Notes Could Help Fight Crime

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL, er "THE EDITORIAL BOARD"

(some excerpts)

As part of his oh-so-high-minded effort to "fight crime", Andrew Rosenthal (cough cough), that shadowy little Wicked Weasel of Oz who styles himself as "The Editorial Board", has come out swinging in favor of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (cough cough) recent call to ban the $100 dollar bill. Gotta stop them drug-dealers, eh Andy? (rolling eyes, sarcastically).

This all-of-a-sudden push to ban big bills is a harbinger of the dark days ahead. It's significance is huge -- all the more so now that Rosenfilth of the New York Slimes is pushing it (just days after the Washington Compost came out in favor of the ban as well).

Rosenthal, er, "The Editorial Board":

"Few Europeans use the 500-euro note, and most Americans rarely encounter the $100 bill. Yet hundreds of millions of these notes are in circulation around the world... officials in Europe and elsewhere are proposing to end the printing of high-denomination bills.

Getting rid of big bills will make it harder for criminals to do business ...

The president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, recently said the bank is considering getting rid of the 500-euro note ($557)... though the central bank plans to keep the 200-euro and 100-euro bills.

Critics who oppose such changes say the big bills make it easier for people to keep their savings in cash, especially in countries with negative interest rates. But these are relatively minor burdens compared with the potential benefits of reducing criminal activity and tax evasion.

There are now so many ways to pay for things, and eliminating big bills should create few problems."

PayPal ran a TV commercial during the 2016 Stupor Bowl ---the images and slogans from which speak for themselves. The end game is to kill paper money.

End of flashback excerpt
*

The end-game behind the crypto craze is to usher in a GLOBAL digital currency which, in time, will be very much "centralized." In the meantime, this could also be part of a sophisticated CIA money-laundering or "pump & dump" operation.

In the long run, we do not think that the Globalists will be able to pull off such an ambitious leap toward one-world tyranny -- not with Messrs. Putin, Xi and Trump around. But the Central Banksters sure as hell are gonna try when they start issuing their own digital currency, as is expected in 2018. Amazing. Now who, say, 30 years ago, could possibly have envisioned the rise of digital global currency in 2018? Hmmm?

An prophetic excerpt from a 1988 Economist article (as quoted from a 2014 issue of Bitcoin Magazine):

"THIRTY years from now (i.e. 2018), Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let's say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favored by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today's national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.”

“An even more ambitious solution would be to move to a truly global currency, along the lines of Keynes’s “bancor”, that would circulate alongside countries’ own currencies and would offer a store of value truly disconnected from economic conditions and policies in any country.

To achieve this, one would need to set up a global monetary institution that would issue the global currency depending on global economic conditions, and that could act as a global lender of last resort. It would need to have an impeccable (“AAAA”) balance sheet, and governance arrangements that engender widespread credibility and acceptability.”

“As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still.”

“The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF.

This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. (here)

[...]

And by the way, the 2014 Bitcoin Magazine article quoting that 1998 Economist Magazine article, was not citing the old story about one-world currency as a warning. But rather, as a good idea, preferably with Bitcoin serving as the coming world currency, and not necessarily the Economist's "phoenix." The headline and a quote from the Bitcoin piece:

A World Currency – Not a New Idea (February 25, 2014)

"At this point we could be talking about Bitcoin or any new cryptocurrency out there today. Let’s continue as the article talks about what could lead to this “New World Currency”.
Next is a statement that will get the attention of the Bitcoin user. Remember, this was written in January 1988.

'As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still.'

Here we might still be talking about Bitcoin. ...This 1988 article was obviously ahead of its time. It shows that a new kind of world currency is not a new topic of conversation. And the mention of 2018 looks eerily realistic as we watch things unfold today.(2014) --- (here)


You see, the gift of "prophecy" comes easy when you are the one running the show! There is no doubt about this one, boys and girls. Bitcoin was never a "spontaneous" digital currency of "the people" that just "took off." It has been, from the start, a tool of the usual suspects and the play is only getting started. The year 2018 promises to be very interesting. Stay tuned.

1. Months before "The Good War" had even ended, the post-World War II monetary system was cooked up at Breton Woods by the US Communist Harry Dexter White (cough cough) and the UK Fabian Socialist and the known sodomite John Maynard Keynes. Keynes advocated a world currency, which he named "Bancor," but he realized that the idea was still too radical for those times. 2. Bitcoin Magazine with a "Guy Fawkes" anarchist on the cover? -- A sure sign of a CIA operation. 3. Slime Magazine cleverly hyping Bitcoin as if it were some sort of anti-government uprising of the people -- another sure sign of a CIA operation.
*

This just in:

Wall Street Journal: (December 22, 2017)

Bitcoin Plunges 25% in 24 Hours in a Cryptocurrency Market Rout

(here)

Bubble scam profit-taking by the usual suspects? Or maybe the nationalist "White Hats" are nipping the scam in the bud?

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that Bitcoin is taking the world by storm.

Boobus Americanus 2: I know. I just bought some.

Sugar: Boobuss, my idiot friend -- you'd buy a frickin' dog-sshit ssandwich if the Jew York Slimess declared it to be tasty and nutritiouss.

Editor: (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- All you Sugar groupies out there with your sycophantic fan e-mails are the reason why I can't control her anymore.

Matt Barber #fundie barbwire.com

The Magical Land of Progressitopia

There once was a land, a magical land, with a chicken in every pot. And in this land, which was called Progressitopia, there were two peoples. There were those who saw the world as it was, and there were those who saw the world as they oh-so-very-much wished it could be. The former were called the Trads, and the latter, the Progs. It was the Progs who held dominion over this great land, and so it was they who wrote, or re-wrote, her history.

Now, in this kingdom we must remember that Christianity, or “Christianism” as it would later be called (long since forbidden), along with similar such mythological and dogmatic phantasms, remained the foremost, if not the sole, thorn in the Progs’ collectivist butt. Any and all thought or practice that might, in any way, undermine full realization of, and strict adherence to, progressive thinking was, therefore, strictly verboten.

In fact, the Trads, the traditionalist remnant, had proven singularly responsible for the famines, Civil War II and Progressitopia’s endlessly spiraling state of affairs, both foreign and domestic – a state that, notwithstanding all predictions to the contrary, somehow became significantly and enigmatically worse subsequent to the onset of progressive governance.

There was, however, one exception to this rule: Islam. Shadowing the glorious dawn of progressive reign came, from o’er the sea, a mighty and fearsome caliphate. The Muslim faith spread like wildfire. Recruitment efforts were buoyed, and appreciably so, in that, while yet a loving and peaceful religion, any skeptic or “infidel” who failed to convert was either immediately raped and enslaved or summarily beheaded, stoned, shot or blown limb-from-limb.

Whereas Progressitopians, with their one-child-only abortion mandate, stopped reproducing altogether, adherents to the religion of peace rutted like rabbits. Every corner of the globe became thickly populated by devotees of the most praised Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him.

As global violence and jihad spiked, it seemed for a time that Progressitopia and the Islamic caliphate would be one another’s undoing.

And then something extraordinary happened.

The King of Progressitopia, a brave and handsome man most wise, with visor of gold and scepter of 3-iron in hand, bowed before the great caliph and presented a series of official mea culpas on behalf of his land. He prayed Allah’s forgiveness for incurring his wrath – just desserts for centuries of Progressitopian Imperialism.

And so these two seemingly incompatible kingdoms, with wholly polarized worldviews, agreed to forge an incongruous socio-political partnership – an “Islamo-Progressive Alliance.” The alliance was built upon the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The common enemy, of course, had formed its own unholy alliance: the “Zio-Christian Axis of Evil.”

And so it soon came to pass that independent Islamic settlements cropped-up throughout Progressitopia. The Michganistan Territory became, for all intents and purposes, Mecca to the Western Hemisphere.

Presently, the Islamo-Progressive Alliance found itself enjoying a comparatively peaceful seven-year truce. Apart from a weekly handful of suicide bombings, mass shootings and random beheadings, carried out chiefly against Progressitopia’s women and children, things were simply capital.

But then, trouble in paradise – economic turmoil. Toward the middle of the new millennium’s third decade, Progressitopia’s national debt ballooned to over 60 trillion. For many years, Trad economists and “debt alarmists” had warned that Progressitopia’s skyrocketing debt and deficits were unsustainable. These anti-progressive thinkers openly questioned the progressive strategy of taxing and spending one’s way to prosperity.

They felt, irrationally so, that such approach represented, as one provocative naysayer phrased it, “an epically stupid and patently impossible self-contradiction. No more can one spend his way out of debt than can he cheat his way out of adultery.”

Another fundamentalist cynic offered a less hurtful, yet no less sensationalist analogy: “When a bridge’s infrastructure becomes unsustainable,” he alleged, “it will ultimately collapse if its integrity is compromised to the degree that it can no longer support some burgeoning mass. So too it goes, apparently, as relates integrity to politicians, governments and national debt.”

Right-wing propaganda aside, Progressitopia’s economy did, nonetheless, unexpectedly collapse for reasons ultimately deemed inconclusive.

Now, as heretofore told, and as go the history books, Christianism had, from time immemorial, been the very bane of free-thinking humanity’s existence. This hateful mythology had been largely to blame, in concert with its sister-faith, Judaism, and its insufferable cousin, conservatism, an equally curious mental disorder, for all of the world’s wars, slavery, racism, sexism, disease, capitalism, global warming and, most onerously perhaps, gluten sensitivity.

Moreover, both Christianism and conservatism were ultimately determined to have been the catalyst for the systemic phobia outbreak that inexplicably began around the turn of the century. First there was homophobia, an irrational, chronic and debilitating fear of the square-hole-round-peg people, or, as this flamboyant troupe, so enamored with acronymic wordplay, preferred to be called: the “SHRP community.” Since SHRPs displayed impeccable fashion sense and a flair for the fabulous, Neanderthalic Trads were, most naturally, terrified by them.

Then came Islamophobia, the irrational fear of having one’s head lopped off, followed by transphobia, the fear of naked men in ladies’ locker rooms, polyphobia, the fear of communal rompathons, as well as an all-inclusive litany of other phobias relating to myriad sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions.

Next, there emerged the great progressiphobia pandemic of ’27. This involved an equally absurd, though no less universal, fear of progressive thought, practice or people. This, for a time, threatened to halt Progressitopia’s progressing progress altogether.

Finally, there occurred a worldwide outbreak of phobia-phobia. This was, of course, a condition delineated by the once again irrational denial that any of the aforementioned phobias had “any basis in reality whatsoever,” but, rather, were “simply ham-fisted pejoratives intended to marginalize one’s political opposition.”

But, alas, we must for now part ways. My gluten-free frittata grows cold.

Star Parker creators.com

I happened to listen the other day to then-Sen. John F. Kennedy's opening remarks in his debate with then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential election cycle.

Kennedy, the Democratic Party candidate, recalled that Abraham Lincoln, in the 1860 presidential election cycle, said the great question facing the nation was whether it could exist "half-slave and half-free."

In the 1960 election, said Kennedy, the issue was "whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free."

How things change. The Democrats' candidate in 1960 headlined freedom as the issue defining his campaign. Now, 60 years later, Democrats are moving down the road to nominating a socialist, pushing freedom as an American ideal out of the picture.

It is astounding that many Democrats are ready to cast aside the core value that has defined our nation, for which so many have fought and died.

One major part of the story is our youth.

Support for the two parties is divided by age.

In 2016, a majority of those under age 44 voted for Hillary Clinton. Fifty-five percent of those ages 18-29 voted for her, compared with 37% for Donald Trump. Trump received the majority of those 45 years and above.

It is our youth that is enamored with socialism and the socialist candidate.

In a recent Pew Research Center poll, 40% of Democrats ages 18-29 expressed preference for Sen. Bernie Sanders to be their party's candidate, compared with 25% of those 30-49, 13% of those 50-64 and 10% of those 65 and over.

In a Gallup poll, 51% of those ages 18-f39 expressed a positive view of capitalism and 49% a positive view of socialism. Among those 40-54, 61% were positive about capitalism compared with 39% for socialism. And those 55 and over, 68% were positive about capitalism compared with 32% for socialism.

What's driving these young Democrats to the far left?

Niall Ferguson of Stanford University's Hoover Institution and consultant Eyck Freymann suggest, in an article in The Atlantic, "The Coming Generation War," that the capitalist America that worked for earlier generations is not working for these youth.

"They face stagnant real wages" and carry a large burden of student debt, they say.


It's a generation "to whom little has been given, and of whom much is expected," they continue.

I think it is just the opposite. It is a generation to whom much has been given and from whom little is expected.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, America's youth still faced a military draft. In 1960, 72% of Americans over 18 were married, compared with 50% today.

According to Pew, 78% of those ages 18-29 say it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don't intend to get married.

Over the decade 2009-2019, there was a drop of 16% among those ages 23-39 who identify as Christian and an increase of 13% of those self-identifying as religiously unaffiliated.


And that age group doesn't vote. Since 1980, the percentage of eligible voters in their 20s who voted in presidential elections has averaged between 40% and 50%, compared with 65% to 75% of those over 45, Ferguson and Freymann report.

We have a generation of American youth today who have grown up in a culture of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, with little sense of responsibility to God and country.

Freedom is about personal responsibility, and these youth do not seem to be interested. They appear, rather, to be very open to the idea of turning their lives over to be run by a 78-year-old socialist.

Such values among our youth do not bode well for our future.

Meanwhile, the best near-term solution is keeping the nation under Republican control.


Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and author of the new book "Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This is Good News for America," available now at starparker.com

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

To put the word pride next to such dysfunctional lifestyles is sick and twisted....esp. because of the conditioning this does to children ....Makes kids associate homosexual acts with pride????????? Goebbels would be proud.

Why not have a Roehm Pride Day, then? Hess Pride Day? Hitler Pride Day? A Dahmers Pride Day, maybe? Why not....they are all homosexuals....
..since there is no right and wrong by your standard—all behaviors are moral?

Oh, I see—you’re using the atheism of Marx’s book. It certainly contradicts the Bible and the Constitution founded on Natural Law Theory.

Oh what’s that....we don’t pay attention to the Constitution anymore? Oh, I see.
You’re making up your own “right and wrong” not based on Universal Truth and reason and logic that we have followed for thousands of years—the basis of our Constitution.

Oh ya.....you know better...you and the “intellectual elites” that have been schooled in Marx and islam where little boys are routinely sodomized and your sodomite idol John Maynard Keynes used to pass little boys around at parties with his homosexual friends.....Yes, really healthy and moral....such fun is common in homosexual societies.

What is the purpose? To destroy sexual morality in a culture????? Freud even said that would be disastrous and destroy civil society. Or do you just want to make Christian and Jews bigots and be able to jail them for hate speech, if they quote the Holy Bible in public.

BTW, why do you, zero, put the word “holy” in front of the word koran all the time and never in front of the word “Bible”? Just asking...but I know why.

Bryan Fischer #fundie rightwingwatch.org

[John Maynard Keynes] was a narcissist, he was a hedonist and he was a homosexual...his view of history is very shortsighted, short-circuited, he cared about himself and his generation exclusively; so homosexuality in the end is going to be responsible for the collapse of the Western economy.

Chinese Academy of Social Science #fundie abovetopsecret.com

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, ‘Civilisation: The West and the Rest’, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.

He said: “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

“We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Exit Only #fundie npr.org

Seems many are more concerned with whatever financial loss Britain will suffer in exchange for it's sovereignty from the EU.

Sad, to see so many willing to sell their nationalist birthright for a mess of collectivist pottage doled out by elitist bureaucrats.

Freedom costs much, but pays off for generations to come.

Why would any sane population shackle themselves to a polyglot of nations with diverse cultures and liabilities? To have leaders who have no understanding in the local affairs or concerns of a people dictate and prescribe regulations on how to run their lives and economy? The American colonists suffered this same long distance ruling by King George, and it became so onerous that they revolted against him.

One could make the same argument how much they lost financially and economically from cutting themselves off the most prosperous and powerful empire of the world. But history proved America not only survived but thrived. And I am confident the British people can not only recover, but are capable of also prospering without the EU's red tape and bureaucrats telling it what to do from their desks in Brussels.
And most economists are full of baloney. if they were so smart, how come they are not billionaires betting on the market trends they foresee? Krugman and Greenspan's adherence to outdated Keynesian fiscal theory that advocates spending one's way to prosperity is fatal to the health of the US economy. Mises had it right.


So easy to say that, and then you leave us bereft of any facts from you.

But here's an fact based on both experience and history---Large groups of people thrown together by government edict and not by choice creates friction and resentment. People are the happiest when on their own volition can how to run decide when to join and leave associations. People also don't like being told by others who share no common blood, bond, or language telling them from long distance how to run their lives. The EU is not a democracy. It is social planning by unelected technocrats.

Ireland is an case example of EU dissatisfaction. The people held a referendum leave the EU decades back. They voted as a majority to leave. But their own government refused to honor their vote. That is not demcracy. But go ahead, tell me that is a fantasy story without a telling moral to why people don't like to be forced into unions.
I concede my error on the Irish referendum, but still hold to my other position that supports why the the majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, as well as understanding why several other nations are considering to also follow suit.
I don't understand what the fuss is about. A so-called "Free market" that the EU totes as a hallmark should mean any nation should be able to trade with other nations freely. Instead, I get this vibe that the EU requires a cover charge and membership subscription to do so, which amounts to nothing less that a legalized gangster protection racket where Brussels and their favorite corporations get a cut of the action to profit themselves for permitting said "Free Trade" to go on.

JAMES DELINGPOLE #fundie breitbart.com

Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum

If, like me, you love the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, here is a question I can guarantee you’ve never asked.

Never once — as you’ve circumnavigated the blue whale or gawped at those marvelous Teddy Roosevelt-style dioramas in the mammal halls or admired the T-Rex’s jagged 6-inch gnashers — have you paused in deep thought and mused to yourself: “Gee. I wonder if the guys who pay for all this stuff are Democrats or Republicans?”

The reason you’ve never had this thought is because you’re not stupid. Or at least, not that stupid.

You understand — because it’s so obvious that even one of the stuffed primates in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals could grasp this basic point — that the collections in the American Museum of Natural History have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They have to do with science, which is something completely different.

Science is about studying what is. Politics is about what ought to be or what might be. Science is about objectivity. Politics is about subjectivity.

They really don’t mix and when people try to make them mix it’s a disaster. To believe otherwise, you’d have to deny all the evidence of history, know nothing about the scientific method and be really, really thick.

Thicker than a pickled cuttlefish in a jar of surgical spirit; dumber than a lobotomized mollusk; more basic than an amoeba with severe learning difficulties.

o bearing all this mind, what should we feel towards the bunch of 182 self-proclaimed “scientists” who have written an open letter to the AMNH demanding that it cut its links with trustees and donors whose politics they find objectionable?

My suggestion would be: a mix of pity, embarrassment, and disgust.

Plus, maybe, a judicious soupçon of horror that such imbeciles could have been given tenure at any academic institution where the teaching of impressionable young adults is involved even at all, let alone where it’s financed by hard-working U.S. taxpayers.

So that means you, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University; and you, Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University; and you, Kerry Emmanuel, Cecil & Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and you, many of you others among the 182 signatories of this bizarre, outrageous, and embarrassing letter.

You have these ritzy sounding titles which seem to confer on you an aura of gravitas and scientific distinction. But by putting your names to this spectacularly dumb letter — of which more in a moment — you have relinquished all claim to be taken seriously as voices of scientific authority. You are all, basically, frauds.

Why? Because what you are engaging in here patently isn’t about science. Nor is it, as you profess, about the well-being and credibility of the American Museum of Natural History. No, this is about low-down, dirty political activism. It’s Antifa with a PhD.

Let’s examine in more detail what these fake-science terrorists are demanding in their letter.

Headed “Open Letter from Scientists to the American Museum of Natural History,” it begins with a paragraph wreathed in apparent high-mindedness and dispassionate concern.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) is a treasured and influential institution. Museums must be protected as sites that build understanding, help the public make meaning, and serve the common good. We are concerned that the vital role of science education institutions will be eroded by a loss of public trust if museums are associated with individuals and organizations known for rejecting climate science, opposing environmental regulation and clean energy initiatives, and blocking efforts to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Pretty soon, though, it shows its true colors:

Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation, political kingmakers and the financiers behind Breitbart News, are major funders of climate science denial projects such as the Heartland Institute, where they have donated nearly $6 million since 2008. The Mercer Family Foundation is also a top donor to the C02 Coalition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, institutions that assert that an increase in C02 emissions from fossil fuels will be a great benefit to plant and animal life on Earth.

Yup. Like I said this has nothing to do with science, let alone with concern for the integrity of the AMNH. This is a political hit job co-ordinated by a bunch of malicious, embittered second-raters. They’ve been losing the scientific argument on climate change for years, so instead they’re fighting back in the only way they know how: using dirty, underhand guerrilla tactics.

To give you an example of how desperately feeble their case is, here’s the Twitter thread that supposedly prompted the letter:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774167276220416/photo/1

This is so obviously a put up job it’s embarrassing. Read the label for yourself. In vain will you find anything “shocking” or “saddening.” It’s restrained, sensible, factually accurate: a model, in fact, of what the displays at the American Museum of Natural History should look like.

But Busch — an environmental economist, by the way, not a palaeoclimatologist or a geologist: so it’s not like he’s bringing any special expertise to the party — pretends to have been triggered by that stuff about warm cycles and ice ages.

Talk about nitpicking. Talk about chutzpah! Talk about cry-bullying! What is this guy’s problem?

First, we are indeed living in an “interglacial period” — it’s called the Holocene — which is what you call the warm bits between ice ages.

Second, these interglacials do indeed move in roughly 10,000 year cycles.

Third, given that we’re around 11,700 years into this particular interglacial, it is indeed quite possible that — as the label very sensibly concedes — we could be due for another ice age.

Yet even though all the stuff on the label is unexceptionable and factually accurate, Busch claims to be so appalled that he has been forced to throw his toys out of the pram on social media and demand a retraction.

On what basis?

Here — in his follow up tweet — is his attempt at a justification:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774372197330945/photo/1

Oh great. A single paper, published in Nature — an organ notorious for disseminating parti-pris studies pal-reviewed by climate alarmists on the scaremongering global warming gravy train. A paper, furthermore, which is dependent on the kind of computer models — “our simulations” — which have been repeatedly and comprehensively falsified by real world observations.

So, to recap: a climate activist on Twitter cooks up a #fakenews story in which he claims, on no evidence, that the American Museum of Natural History’s scientific integrity is being corrupted by right-wing donors; though the story is factually inaccurate in almost every conceivable way, this #fakenews incident is then used as the pretext for an open letter to the museum by 182 other climate activists demanding that it take action to deal with this non-problem.

Their letter claims:

Last week thousands of people shared a Twitter comment by environmental economist Jonah Busch, PhD, who pointed out misleading information on climate science in an Exxon-funded exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. To its credit, the AMNH’s response was swift: it committed to updating the outdated information to reflect the best available science. But the initial online public anger showed that trust in the museum is undermined by the museum’s association with climate science opponents.

It concludes by demanding:

We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees.

This is outrageous. Allow me to spell out why.

The signatories of that letter make a big deal of the fact that their primary concern is the museum’s credibility.

But what could be more damaging to a museum’s credibility than if it were to fire some of its most generous, committed trustees, to cut off part of its income stream, and to change the factually accurate labelling on its exhibits purely to accommodate the petulant demands of a shrill bully mob of left-leaning academics who have rejected science in favour of political activism?

As Homewood notes:

This attempt by a gang of self appointed, second rate scientists to exclude people from jobs with public bodies, or indeed any sort of association at all, simply because of their politics, is extremely dangerous.

It is the sort of behaviour one would normally associate with communist and fascist juntas, and needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Yes, indeed.

Ding Gang #fundie globaltimes.cn

[Note: Emphasis mine]

Lessons of Brazil not applicable to China

The New York Times has recently been bringing out a series of articles about China. The latest commentary by Bret Stephens has a striking headline - "The Real China Challenge: Managing Its Decline." This seemingly analytical article uses Brazil as a comparison to China, which exposes the writer's shocking ignorance about Chinese people's culture.

In the article, Stephens writes: In 2009, The Economist wrote about an up-and-coming global power: Brazil. Its economy, the magazine suggested, would soon overtake that of France or the UK as the world's fifth largest. However, the rocket never reached orbit. Brazil's economy is now limping its way out of the worst recession in its history. "The murder rate - 175 people per day in 2017 - is at a record high." The author then concludes that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first tout as countries of the future. And the rise of China will finally not materialize because of its similarity with Brazil.

The author appears to be triumphant in giving the description since he has found a perfect reference to comment on China's development. I stayed in Brazil for three years and well understand why the Brazilian economy has weakened and why China's would be different. To be honest, Brazil does not compare well with China and thus the argument in the article is feeble and poor.

Perhaps the Brazilians and the author believe in the same god, but that's definitely not the one that Chinese believe in. The god mentioned by Stephens is not functional for China because it doesn't even exist in the belief system of the Chinese people.

Indeed, Brazil never had a strong and sophisticated manufacturing industry. But the basic question is: Why has China achieved industrialization while Brazil has abandoned it and moved in the opposite direction? This is not entirely a matter of economy or institution, but one of culture.

I've been working in Europe, the US, Asia and South America for nearly 20 years. My experience says whether a country can achieve industrialization depends on many factors, culture being the most important. It includes how people view their work, family, children's education and wealth accumulation.

It may sound racist to differentiate development based on culture. But after living in Brazil for a while, you will find out the answer. Brazilians are not willing to be as diligent and hard working as the Chinese. Neither do they value savings for the next generation, like the Chinese do. Yet they demand the same welfare and benefits as those in developed countries.

The fundamental difference between Brazil and China lies in that the culture of Brazil makes the country unsuitable for manufacturing. Lack of manufacturing can't lead to industrialization and finally makes sustainable development impossible. As a result, the economy of Brazil only depends on export of raw materials and bulk commodities. In other words, abundant resources have limited the development of manufacturing in Brazil.

Whether the Brazilian economy can achieve sustainable development depends partly on institutions, but more importantly on the local cultural tradition. Stephens made a basic mistake: Since he doesn't analyze the prospects of development of a country based on full knowledge of its culture and tradition, his judgment is faulty.

China's development has problems and challenges. Since the reform and opening-up, it is Chinese cultural tradition that has held up against economic fluctuations. Eventually, the performance of Chinese economy has formed a rising curve, not a descending one because China can always find solutions amid fluctuations.

Chinese people have huge potential for pursuing family and personal happiness. Now the question before China is how to give a full play to such potential, not produce it. The reform and opening-up has been a process of releasing the potential of Chinese people. More importantly, the process is irreversible.

China is such a big country that it would be generalizing to cite one example to prove that its prospects are bleak. Likewise, it is also unfair when you equal the prospect of a developed region to that of entire China. If you want to learn about China's future, you must know how Chinese people learn, work and live. Any analysis of China's future should not be divorced from this.

Dinar Times #wingnut #conspiracy #racist #mammom dinartimes.com

What is GCR/Global Currency Reset?
Global Currency Reset will be a future financial system which is expected to launch in couple of months. Global Currency Reset is a financial system which will work independently without any influence of Cabal and Rothschild financial system. A financial future system which will increase the valuation of recessive currencies and will ultimately revalue the currencies including Iraqi Dinar (IQD), Zimbabwe Dollar (ZWD), Vietnamese Dong (VND) and numerous others. Global Currency Reset will eliminate the artificial Cabal based fluctuations which leads to the prevention of Currency crises and the pricing and valuation of the currencies will solely based on the country trade volume, reserve of precious metal assets & positive economic growth.
<...>
How to prepare for the Global Currency Reset?
The best way to prepare for Global Currency Reset is to accumulate valuable metals as much as you can and invest in these solid valuable metals because in future as the Global Currency Reset will be initiate it will revert all the major economies to it’s originate. The trade will be established on Gold standards relying on precious metals and will diminish the paper currency system especially US Dollar which is currently printed in infinite proportion without any mandatory Gold Backed security. I have encountered with many partisan Economists of Global Currency Reset and they are of the view that Global Currency Reset will increase the value of precious metals like Gold, Silver and Platinum as the economies will be backed by the Gold, Silver and Platinum. From the past few years if we analyze the Iraq constant accumulation of Gold, than it can easily be predicted that this Oil haven is expecting something great which is Global Currency Reset, so it can easily be predictable that we are going to have a Global Reset which will Revalue the Iraqi Dinar on the expectations which we are waiting for.

lone77star #fundie lone77star.hubpages.com

Carl Sagan was stupid. He jumped to so many conclusions on subjects for which he held disagreements, that I seriously consider him a prime candidate for my Silly-Willy-Nilly-Scientist award. I agree with you completely about a large God and large universe. Some Christians think the universe is only 6,000 years old, so they disrespect science big time and gain nothing. I have never believed in a small God, either. Sagan was good at talking in generalities and half-truths. My brother told me of one Sagan book critical on the works of others he labeled as "pseudo-scientific." One chapter of that book was later retracted because Sagan misunderstood the subject, largely because he had never read the man's work! Duh!

Sagan was good at creating rifts where there didn't need to be. He was good at the darker side of skepticism—self-indulgent ridicule. And, like a good little warrior, his friend, Ann Druyen, recently in the news, is reacting to the self-indulgent ridicule of so-called "Christian fundamentalists." All of that is non-neutral ego speaking, from both sides of the fence.

James, you said, "You describe Ussher as 'delusional,'" but I certainly did not. You got that one entirely wrong. Never said it. Never intended it. Ussher was a brilliant scholar. If you will re-read what I wrote, you will see that only modern adherents to Ussher's timeline are described as delusional in my discussion of Ussher and his work. Ussher did not know of the findings of modern science. If he had, he might never have published his most famous work. Even Sir Isaac Newton created his own version of a biblical timeline. Either of these great men might have arrived at a completely different timeline because of the "reality" described by modern science. To ignore science is to ignore reality. That is a description of delusion. Ussher never knew modern science, so he was not delusional in this regard.

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

"If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn't a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist's pursuit of sexual freedom doesn't (in most cases) result in anyone's death." Lawrence Lockman (R-ME)

Contrary to what you are trying to imply, that comment is not endorsing rape. Rather, it is pointing out that baby murderers are even sicker and more evil than rapists are, yet the same psychopath liberals who claim to be outraged by rapists also praise baby murderers, encourage the murdering of babies, and murder their own babies, and want those acts of murders to be legal so that they can get away with their crimes against humanity scott-free. The purpose of his example is solely to demonstrate the insanity of baby murderers who use words like "sexual freedom" to 'justify' murder.

That point is 100% valid. Shame on you for lumping it in with sick quotations that are not valid. Are you doing so as a way to try and defend the psychopathic barbaric murdering of babies in the 'abortion' holocaust? Shame, shame shame!

Nicole White and Pam Renouf #fundie cbc.ca

A same-sex couple from St. John's is upset after discovering the jewelry store that sold them their engagement rings has posted a sign that seems to oppose same-sex marriage — but one of the store's owners says he's allowed to post his religious beliefs.

When Nicole White and Pam Renouf went looking for engagement rings a few months ago, the pair couldn't find anything they liked. The couple was eventually referred to Today's Jewellers in the Mount Pearl area because the store offers custom-made rings.

White and Renouf visited the store and later gave specifications and a price range for potential rings.

"They were great to work with. They seemed to have no issues. They knew the two of us were a same-sex couple," White said.

"I referred some of my friends to them, just because I did get some good customer service and they had good prices."

That was before one friend went in to purchase a ring for his girlfriend — and instead found a distressing sign.

It reads: "The sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let's keep marriage between a man and a woman."

'It was really upsetting'

The friend took a picture of the poster, which made its way back to White.

"I had no idea about the sign up until that point," she said.

"It was really upsetting. Really sad, because we already had money down on [the rings], and they're displaying how much they are against gays, and how they think marriage should be between a man and a woman."

The couple went to the store the following day, and asked about the sign.

"They just said that that's their beliefs, and they think they can put up whatever they want. I just said it was very disrespectful, it's very unprofessional and I wanted a refund," White said.

"I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I don't think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business."

White and Renouf hope to get a refund when the man who sold them the rings returns to town next month — but it's not guaranteed.

White said the rings were meant to be a symbol of love, but now the bands seem tainted.

"I think every time I look at that ring, I'll probably think of what we just went through," White said.

Esau Jardon, the co-owner of Today's Jewellers, said he posts several signs in his store throughout the year.

"I have been posting different aspects of my religious beliefs the last 11 years, and I've never had one single problem with any of my customers," he said.

"It seems to be a Canadian right to post what you believe."

Jardon said the sign in question was posted for Mother's Day, because it had to do with families. They also have pamphlets and cards that they hand out at the store as well.

Jardon said he's an immigrant, and feels blessed to live in Canada.

"One of the reasons my family chose to come to Canada was the freedom of rights," he said, noting the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

"Nothing in that shop or in these posters is against the law... There's nothing there that means to discriminate or to hate anybody else."

Jardon said he won't apologize for his beliefs.

"I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, 'Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'" he said.

"When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada... and we accept the whole package... I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business."

Jardon said he's getting a big backlash from social media.

"I had to shut down the Facebook page because of so many hate emails and phone calls and just, really nasty stuff," he said.

When asked if he would offer a refund to the couple, Jardon said he won't be bullied into apologizing for his beliefs or to work for free.

He said the finished rings are ready to be picked up; White and Renouf just have to pay the balance.

keyne #racist realjewnews.com

The Jews were very instrumental in starting WW2, in a multitude of ways.

One facet that is NEVER taught in Jewmerica schools is the real HOLOCAUST that was caused by Ashkenazi-Zionist Jews in Russia, resulting in the deaths of over 80 million!

This fact is hard to ignore when trying to understand why the Nazis could hate so much (they were just evil, or on meth! etc.). In 1918 stories of the atrocities in Russia were reaching western Europe, as were the Bolsheviks themselves.

In 1919 they basically “invaded” Bavaria, installing the “Bolshevik state of Bavaria” under the murderous Jew thug Tolleffson. Over 10,000 were killed in the fighting. Only the German Friekorps could finally oust these Bolshevik murderers.

Do you know who lived in Bavaria and witnessed this Bolshevik barbarism 1st hand?? Goebbels, Joseph Streicher,and ADOLF HITLER. They knew, as did millions of Russian Christians, what these Bolshevik vermin were capable of.

Every Christian (and Torah Jew) Must read Solyztnishin’s “The Gulag Archipelago” volumes 1-4. Only when one understands what happened in Russia can one grasp the entirety of Pre-ww2 Europe.

Every American student knows the names of Hitler and Himmler etc..(and as a Christian, I can never condone their actions), but no American student has never even heard of Genrich Yagoda, Kaganovich etc., because they were Jews, and their quantity of murders made the Nazis look like choir boys.

OnlyTheGhosts #conspiracy deviantart.com

A terrible corona virus pandemic is destroying the world economy, stock markets crash, people are dying first in tiny numbers then the death toll explodes.

Today's news? No - Welcome to Event2O1 which was held in October 2019. In November, only the next month, just "coincidentally", according to genetic analysis, the original Wuhan Flu begins to spread.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=Vm1-DnxRiPM

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=QkGNvWflCNM

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rWRmlumcN_s

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=LBuP40H4Tko

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=0-_FAjNSd58


Nature seems to just by "coincidence" create exact, identical, genetic sequence inserts from HIV (cause of AIDS), in a corona virus that's totally unrelated to HIV. Those who pretend that completely different viruses - different species of viruses at that - from India, Kenya, and the USA flew to China to have sexy fun times with the SARS corona virus (which is not even the same species). This rather like claiming that 4 rabbits from countries thousands of kilometres away from each other decided to have an orgy with a buffalo in China.

https://sta.sh/0z6s8b51nq4

The above research paper from a team of Indian scientists was forced by political pressure to be retracted when President Trump visited India. (Not saying Trump was involved at all, by the way, but the timing implies that the Indian government didn't want such inconvenient data more widely known).

A very curious virus that's astonishingly unique, and whose "relatives" in bats were only "coincidentally" recently discovered.

https://sta.sh/01z24a82byoq

Which is more fascinating still because it was published in Nature (the world's oldest and most respected peer reviewed scientific journal) that a team of scientists deliberately engineered a SARS virus corona virus from bats - to be more infectious in humans. I AM NOT KIDDING!
https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?https://archive.fo/BbPzh

The Wuhan Flu is unstable, rapidly mutating, dividing into multiple strains already
https://sta.sh/01ncbo8p0ugk


That's a problem with viruses. Out in the wild, unlike those studied in a lab, out in the natural world viruses will mutate, they change, they become quickly uncontrolled and turn into something unintended and perhaps more frightening and dangerous and a lot more worrying.

DAK-Rommel #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

And let me enphasize the quotation marks with this:
http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-History-Channel-Dr-Evil.jpg

This so called "History" is nothing more than pseudo-scientifix non-sence. EVEN THE FRWAKING ANCEINT ALIENS GUYS SHOW MORE EVIDENCE THAN HOLOHOAX SURVIVORS! At least they TRY to make 'sence' out of the things they say by providing on-screen "facts".

But what do holocaust and Hitler documentaries do? Personally, i think that "Der Ewige Jude" was a 100 times better than "Hitler blood oath"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5y2inT_xnI).

How can people be so stupid? Why do they WANT to listen thsese things? Why doesnt any one question these "documentaries", EVER!?
I mean, i havent even heard ONE bloody History Channel documentary where you can at least watch what Hitler is saying with subtitles! And when you do actually get a god damn translation it is just a small piece from which you can never understand too much things! And while Hitler is at the highligh of his speech and his voice goes louder, they take that part, they dont subtitle it and then they say shit like "Was the NSDAP a consiracy to create a new religion?"
And what do the people assume? That this what what Hitler is saying! THATS WHAT THEY ASSUME!

I urge every one who is reading this to see the documentary to at least 3 minutes in. That is ofc of of course if you want to get even more angry...

THis is thus far the worse "documentary" i have ever seen. And i have never seen a documentary on that bloody clown channel. There isnt a single doc. were the oh-ever-so-perfect-and-horrible holohoax is not mentioned. Even though there is absolutelly no evidence linking Hitler to it.

How can they do this without any one reacting? Why doesnt any one do anything about it?
Are we really that few? Are we really so outnumbered we cant do anything to stop this?

Guns Are Great #fundie forum.saiga-12.com

Well any lib media will always make Christian history sound crazy or more false than fact. Such as the history channels story of the devils bible and how it is true and passed down, but the Holy bible is full of errors etc... Another example, anything theory from Universities is fact. For example, the missing links which turned out to be a primates, not even remotely human,(Natgeo, discovery ch) and the false reporting of Thomas Jefferson fathering a slave girls child. Jefferson, for example, had no male child that lived long enough to reproduce (less than 1 year old i think when his only son died), therefore, you cannot trace his line/genes (Y) specifically. Also, out of the 500 lib outlets to cover the false report by a known lib university professor, liar, only 11 outlets would print the truth and the retraction 6 weeks later by the scientist who actually performed the dNA testing stating, there was no way to link the childs family to Thomas Jefferson! Never trust the govt. media complex. They only want to make you think man created God when truly God created man, and that the Govt makes you free and who you are and not that god makes you free and gives you free choice to be who you want to be! Our world history and especially the US history is so libbed up that the true history of this continent is mostly lost or just plain hidden, esp in public schools!!!

Feynman and Coulter's Love Child #racist 3edgesword.blogspot.com

[From "Don't say "Red China" anymore, it's "Peoples of Canada's First Nations China" now"]

Millions of people around the world are expected to be killed from the Wuhan Flu. Hundreds of thousands already have

The country that birthed the disease (either through poor biosecurity, medieval-calibre animal markets, or a deliberate act of war) is the one seemingly least impacted by it.

Around the world free market economies (with a half dozen quotation marks around many of those words) are effectively shut down, which probably will cause the largest global recession in history. It might last for many months or possibly even multiple years.

Oil futures even temporarily reached negative value (with another half dozen quotation marks around many of those words) while Alberta oil is effectively without value due to the pipeline fiasco of the past few years.

So what, pray tell, does ForeignPolicy.com think is the big problem we have to worry about? Why, lazy Red Indians not getting their way over land that was never theirs, obviously.

As has been the case for over a century and a half, since Canadian Confederation, the territory of ostensibly sovereign indigenous nations within Canada has been consistently used for major infrastructure projects that non-indigenous Canadians don’t want to see run through their own backyards. This partly explains why it was so easy for indigenous protests to nearly shut down the Canadian economy in February: railways, highways, pipelines, canals, and other strategic infrastructure already cut through indigenous territory.

Taylor Noakes, for those who may not have known, is "a freelance journalist from Montreal" and an occasional CBC and National Post writer who "focuses on the intersection of history, architecture, urban planning and public policy". In other words, a hardcore leftist who hounds Jason Kenney by lying about subsidies and who writes about how "rule of law" should be subject to protest (but only when his friends are the ones doing it). It also means he's probably not stupid: he knows that what he wrote is wrong.

Like all leftists, Taylor Noakes is a liar. Always. He's always lying.

The reason railways, highways, pipelinies, canals, and other long thin things always "cut through indigenous territory" (which, by the by, isn't sovereign and nobody other than far-left activists ever believed that) is because lazy Red Indians claim their territory is the entire country. Remember that in B.C. various tribes including the Wet Soup One Indian Bands claim their territory is largest than the actual land mass of the province. The same Noakes who lied by referring to oil as having negative value in reference to the article about oil futures I posted above is welcome to explain how with negative land space in B.C. available to them, Coastal Gas is going to build a pipeline without some Red Indians whining about it.

[...]

Wickham indicates that the five clans of the Wet’suwet’en nation are unable to continue negotiations because their consensus-based meeting system would require congregations of more than 50 people, which have been outlawed as part of Canada’s social distancing guidelines. Though the Wet’suwet’en have complied with the regulations, the same rules do not appear to apply to pipeline workers. Moreover, Wickham indicated that both the federal and provincial governments are unwilling to discuss either the pipeline or the presence of the RCMP in indigenous territory during negotiations.

Finally some good news out of all this. The federal and provincial governments should have been unwilling to negotiate with these lazy Wet Soup whiners from the very beginning: white landowners never got this treatment and therefore red land-sitters (the land is actually owned by the federal government who has the complete right to build on it at any time). Meanwhile what's this lie about "their consesnsus-based meeting system"? Strangely enough this wasn't on their list of demands on February 21st, and didn't seem to be in effect when useless tit of a cabinet minister Carolyn Bennett met with a half dozen chiefs in a closed door meeting. This sounds like another ridiculous lie promoted by deceitful Red Indians and their stooges like Noakes.

[...]

Companies leaving for the bad political landscape is due to two dishonest and disgusting actors: Red Indian savages and the far-left Antifa thugs that associate with them, and the cowardly idiotic Shiny Pony government. It's a fun little game that deceitful liars like Noakes like to use. Step one: have the savages make a big stink about a project. Step two: have the craven idiots in leftist governments take appeasement action. Step three: have the savages get even more...well, savage...and cause maximum damage and disruption. Step four: have the leftist government negotiate a deal that makes the project completely impossible. Step five: when the investors say "to hell with you all" use that as some sort of compelling evidence that clearly the project wasn't that great in the first place.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Apart from being great films, the 1972 classic, The Godfather, and the 1974 sequel, The Godfather II, are very educational and useful to "conspiracy theorists". Indeed, the universally recognized logo for The Godfather depicts the hand of a puppet-master "pulling the strings". The parallels between the film and real-life geo-politics are striking. There are False-Flag attacks (Roth's deliberately botched assassination attempt of Frank Pentangeli); Color Revolutions (Tom Hagen's threat to stir up Union problems if Johnny Fontaine doesn't get a movie role); phony defectors (Luca Brasi sent to infiltrate the Tataglia family); traitors (Carlo setting up Sonny to be killed), deliberate stand-downs (Paulie the body-guard calling out sick just before Don Corleone is shot), as well as blackmail, bought & paid for politicians, cops, and journalists, assassinations and more.

Understand The Godfather and understand the world. Understand the relationship between the powerful gangster named Barzini and his lower-ranking front-man, Tattaglia, and you will understand the dynamic at work between "Godfather" Obongo and his underling, Al Sharpton. Of course, Obongo himself has his own puppet-masters, but let's just keep this one simple.

The Tattaglia Mafia Family had been waging a brutal mob war against the Corleone family. After the Family 'Dons' lose their respective eldest sons, a "sit-down" of the warring parties is arranged. Presiding over the peace talks is Don Barzini who is, by all appearances, a neutral third party. However, during the meeting of the heads of the 'Five Families'. Barzini seems to favor the cause of the Tattaglias (to introduce drug trafficking to Mafia activities).

After the peace is made and the approval for trading in drugs is established, Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and his 'consigliere' (adviser) Tom Hagen (Robert Duval) are shown discussing the matter in the back seat of a car. The dialogue is priceless, and makes for one of the most memorable and iconic lines of the film:

Hagen: When I meet with Tattaglia's men, should I insist all their drug middlemen have clean records.

Corleone: Mention it. But don't insist. Barzini is a man who will know that without being told.

Hagen (confused): You mean Tattaglia.

Corleone: Tattaglia is a pimp. He never could have outfought Santino. But I didn't know until this day that it was Barzini all along.

After the round-table meeting, Don Corleone realizes that Don Tattaglia was just a front man for Don Barzini

What a film! But back to the subject at hand - Obongo's murderous race war against Whites and the related effort to Federalize the nation's police. As even the most dim-witted Boobus Americanus is aware by now, the Unreverend Al Charlatan and his incendiary bull-horn have incited Black mobs to violence in in Sanford, FL (St. Trayvon Martin affair), Ferguson, MO (St. Michael Brown Affair), New York (St. Eric Garner Affair) and, most recently, Baltimore, MD (St. Freddie Gray Affair).

[...]

Though most folks are indeed aware of Sharpton's (and others) prominent role in the worsening situation, "Don Barzini" in the White House remains untouched. Part of this is the result of the Marxist Media's (the ultimate 'Godfathers'!) protection of Obongo, but much of it has to do with Obongo's own cunning use of "buffers" (as mobster Willie Cicci describes in GodFather II).

Here is "the bottom line":
Since the installation of Obongo, Al 'Tattaglia' Charlatan has visited Barack 'Barzini' Obongo's White House more than 70 times, including 5 one-on-one meetings and 20 meetings with Senior staff members! (here)

Obongo can turn the racial tension and cop-killing on or off with the snap of his fingers. This is what Boobus Americanus fails to see. Let's start with the justified self-defense killing of the drugged-up burglarizing thug Trayvon Martin, and the unjust persecution of George Zimmerman down in Sanford, Florida. From CNN:

Florida: "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to speak at an annual convention of the Rev. Al Sharpton's group, in which Trayvon Martin was a key issue, has been widely panned as a political ploy.

But maybe, just maybe, it's also evidence that the tamer version of the civil rights leader that we've seen in recent years -- the syndicated radio host, the MSNBC personality, the White House adviser -- is enjoying broader legitimacy these days.

"It certainly is a sign of Sharpton's very close relationship with the White House," said Boyce Watkins, a political analyst and Syracuse University economist."

Holder is a buffer for Obongo. Without his blessing, the circus in Florida would never have gotten off the ground.

Let's go to Ferguson, MO, where a drugged-up, 6'4", 300 pound thug Michael Brown tried to murder a White cop with his bare hands. From the New York Post:

"The Rev. Al Sharpton is the White House’s man on the ground in Ferguson.

The 59-year-old Sharpton has become a key adviser to President Obama on race issues, according to Politico, and is acting as his liaison in the racially charged St. Louis suburb, where the police shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown led to days of riots."

Can Obongo's role in the Ferguson disaster possible be any more obvious than that?

Let's go to New York, where, we must concede, that it does appear that the police should have eased up on a standard choke-hold when the obese suspect, Eric Garner, cried out before his heart-attack, "I can't breathe". Nonetheless, it matters not to the professional race-agitators if a particular event is a legitimate case of excessive force, or not.

From the New York Post:

"WASHINGTON — He never leaves home without him.

Bill de Blasio and “Co-Mayor” Al Sharpton are joined at the hip in New York, so why not in Washington?

De Blasio and the race-baiting Rev met with President Obama and other clergy, cops and pols Monday about “simmering” tensions between the police and minorities across the United States.

Sharpton, a White House regular under Obama, got a prime seat at the table — directly facing the president — during the two-hour session at the Eisenhower Office Building."

Two weeks after the Sharpton - de Blasio - Obongo summit, with New York City on edge due to the stand-down orders which de Blasio had issued to police in regard to the ongoing "spontaneous protests", Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, murdered two police officers in what he himself had previously said was going to be a revenge killing. The tragic shooting forced Sharpton and de Blasio to shut-up and fade away for the time being. They have yet to recover from the bad publicity, but Obongo the untouchable remains unscathed!

Let's go to Baltimore, MD, where a drug dealer named Freddie Gray killed himself in the back of a police van by banging his head and then falling against a steel door handle. In that case, Al Charlatan showed up after the protests and riots had already been triggered. The main fire-starter in Baltimore was Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party.

From the Associated Press:

April 26: Freddie Gray protests turn violent in Baltimore

“One of the protest’s organizers, Malik Shabazz, the president of Black Lawyers for Justice, said the crowd exceeded their expectations, adding that protesters’ anger is not surprising.

'This is a problem that has not been solved,’ he said. ‘When there’s no justice, they tend to want to take matters into their own hands.’”

By necessity, Shabazz's ties to the White House have to be buried beneath many buffering layers. Compared to Shabazz, Sharpton seems reasonable! But he too has been a visitor to the White House, back in 2009 when Obongo and Eric Holder were busy getting two of his Panthers 'off the hook' for blatant voter intimidation of elderly Whites in Philadelphia. Shabazz and his associates had openly appeared and marched with then-Senator Obongo back in 2007.

The pattern of these events is unmistakable. Here's the template:

Step 1: An "incident" takes place. The media hypes it.

Step 2: Professional agitators arrive to stage "peaceful protests". The media hypes it. Locals join in.

Step 3: Professional agitators visit the White House and obtain Obongo's tacit blessing. The media downplays this part.

Step 4: The protests turn violent. The media hypes it. Innocent Whites are attacked or murdered as the media covers it up.

Step 5: Obongo Barzini calls for calm as he makes a moral equivalence between the rioters and the cops.

Step 6a: Boobus FOXus Americanus blames Al Sharpton.

Step 6b: Boobus CNNus Libtardus blames "racism" and the police.

Meanwhile, the "calm and cool", the "fair and impartial" Obongo, just like Barzini, stays above it all as more and more people die under his invisible hand.

"Sharpton is a pimp. It was Obongo all along."

....and Soros!

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

However for many tasks, tasks suitable to stupid people, tasks for bad people, tasks where you want people to reliably do as they are told rather than make good decisions, the sort of tasks that most black people are suitable for, slavery was markedly more productive and efficient than free labor, with the slave producing more value for himself and his owner with less labor, than he did when freed.

...

If masters and slaves were better off than employers and employees, an economist would ask, why could they not just cut a deal to do what they previously did, only without chains and beatings, do the same tasks in the same way, only as employees?

The answer is that question is: that the former slaves, once freed, could not credibly commit to stick to such a deal, and generally did not stick to such a deal, thus economically worse off. Stupid people, prone to violence, with short time horizons, needed masters.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

The threatened Alpha

Why on Earth is the God-Emperor attacking Ann Coulter?

I think the president's response is better understood via the socio-sexual hierarchy than through politics. Trump knows better than anyone else that he's failing to deliver. He can sense his support crumbling; alphas are very sensitive to these things. And alphas highly value female opinion, as it is female approval of them that most clearly highlights their distinction from men lower in the hierarchy.

So, Coulter's brutal appraisal of the president's near-complete failure on the most important issue of his campaign stings him to his core. Coulter, by the way, almost certainly knows this and she is not attempting to tear the president down, but rather to motivate him to stop listening to the cucks and foreigners and bad economists around him and start living up to his promises.

The challenges are manifold, even though Trump is genuinely doing more to address the problem than any president since Eisenhower and he is meeting staunch and formidable opposition. But he is betrayed by his own preference for negotiated settlements and expectations of rational behavior on the part of his opponents, and by his own civic nationalism. Unless he is willing to declare no-quarter, go scorched earth on the issue, and actually behave as if he is facing a genuine national emergency of existential proportions - which he legitimately is, whether he is able to grasp that or not - he is going to fail on all three of the primary issues upon which he was elected.

That doesn't mean he has been a failure. Far from it! He has been an excellent president and he will be justifiably re-elected in 2020. The problem is that after more than 50 years of relentless foreign invasion, the situation is so dire that mere excellence will not suffice.

Glossy #fundie akarlin.com

“Japan is similar to Germany, but with 1.5x its population, several times its problems (e.g. even more rapidly aging population…”

I don’t see aging as much of a problem. Ethic diversity, however, is a huge problem, since it always, without fail, 100% of the time leads to conflict. Germany is getting more and more diverse, while Japan is mostly staying homogeneous. Japan 1, Germany 0.

By the way, the riots that recently went down in Moscow would have been unimaginable in the Moscow of my youth. This is because the Moscow of my youth was far more homogeneous than the modern city.

“the current government is disinvesting in the future (university education)…”

We disagree here. Educating the best of the best minds is always important, but that’s not where most of the money in modern higher ed goes. It goes into wasting the most productive years of millions of average minds on stuff they don’t need and cannot possibly find interesting, and on creating meaningless work for the people employed by the system. Britain’s spectacular past was full of world-transforming geniuses (Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Turing, etc.), yet for centuries the Brits seem to have only had two universities. It was enough. Civilization is moved forward by a few.

“Though at first glance India might appear similar to China, or at least following in its footsteps, the real situation is far gloomier.”

The Chinese tend to be proud of China. In contrast, I’ve heard Indians badmouth India on numerous occasions. This is because they tend to reserve their pride for their castes or religious communities instead. If no one identifies with the state, then no one will feel any compunction stealing from it and the state will always be weak. When I think of this sort of stuff, I’m always reminded of the phrase “?? ??????? ??????” (“I feel sorry for the country”) from White Sun of the Desert. You can’t have a powerful state unless a lot of people feel that way.

“This makes [Turkey] a role model – and possible future leader – for many Muslims in the Middle East…”

That’s what the guys at the New York Times and the Economist want to believe. I don’t think secularism is likely to make anyone a role model in the Middle East. And as the West’s importance wanes, any prestige associated with being Westernized should go down, not up.

Jen #conspiracy drmomma.org

There should be a blanket rule: just don't let the pediatrician take off the diaper ever. What do they need to see anyway? Or how about not going to the pediatrician in the first place, they just wanna mess with your kid and make more money. Toxic vaccines, foreskin retraction, yikes. I recommend only taking your kid in if they have an earache or broke their arm. Healthy breastfed kids are perfect and doctors just mess with em, foreskin retraction being one prime example. My kids don't have any allergies, no doctor ever retracted their foreskin or shot them up with poisonous vaccines, they therefore don't have asthma, adhd, autism, they don't need glasses, they are perfect weight, they are perfect in every way and its because I kept them away from the goddamn doctors who would have wanted to cut their weiner off and shoot 'em up. There you have it, I said it. Take your kid in only if he has an earache, rash, broken arm, etc, but not if they are well!!!! Any "well child" visits are just a scam to make money off of your kid and create illnesses with vaccines that they will later make tons of money off treating.

AlaeSwords #racist reddit.com

[Comment under ""Judaism wants world domination" Board from the Anti-Bolshevik Exposition describing Communism, Socialism, Freemasonry and Anglo-Saxon powers as puppe"]

@overthinking-it

@AlaeSwords
@overthinking-it
@AlaeSwords
There is quite a bit of truth to the idea, even though, it is considered heretical to say such a thing post WW2.

First of all let me point out that the 'disproven' Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was 'disproven' by the duplicitous Allen Welsh Dulles of JFK Assasination fame, Dulles also coined the term 'conspiracy theorist'.

Karl Marx was a Jew, as was Engels. Vladimir Lenin was arguably Jewish, and unarguably Jewish in the context of his familial background.

The Freemasons got a massive injection from the Rothschild banking family at around the time of the American Revolution. I believe a convincing argument could be made that the Freemasons are in fact the Church of the Rothschild / the Rothschild Imperial Cult as it were.

Socialism ofcourse, is a byproduct of Communist thought.

It is demonstrable that the bulk of the Bolsheviks were culturally Jewish.

AIPAC is the single largest lobby group in the US.

Israel is the single largest recipient of aid.

Facebook & Google were created by Jews.

Unfortunately Judaism has a belief, which adherants believe either deeply or not at all that they are, to quote the Torah: "God's chosen people." Sounds familiar? A little bit like Hitler's counter-ideology: "The Master Race."

It is not possible to explain away all of this without coming to the conclusion that, although perhaps not monolithic, there is a powerful Jewish faction with an unarguably massive amount of influence.

Now, I have objectively and calmly explained things which are true, and which are proveable, but there will undoubtedly be someone who calls me an Anti-Semite.

So in modern society the very subject of Jewish power has become forbidden to discuss and can invite ostracism or legal or financial penalties.

That is why people think Jews run the world. There is a certain amount of truth to it. You can't even openly discuss these ideas in the academic world, in newspapers (in the Western World) or on Social Media.

there will undoubtedly be someone who calls me an anti-Semite

Trying to preempt it doesn't make it untrue! Happy Hanukkah anyway!

I'm not anti-Semitic. It's that simple. The term anti-Semitic is largely used in a way that renders the term nothing more than a thought terminating cliche.

Sounds like something an anti-Semite would say.

As does referring to the Protocols as the "disproven" Protocols, with sarcastic quotation marks.

Posted by AlaeSwords

Look up the history of The Protocols. The so called 'conclusive' disproving of The Protocols rested on the testimony of one unreliable witness that Dulles found.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

In the world of blogging and writing, sometimes you write an article that someone else uses as a springboard to push their opinion. Even going as far as to misquote you to allow for them to use something you’ve said to prop up their position on a particular issue.

This happened recently with an article that I wrote for Theology Review when a local North East political satire blog (read of that what you will) took upon itself to quote mine less than half a quote from our recent article on the situation revolving around Eugene Peterson in July. The situation being around a reported affirmation of gay marriage, and a retraction of Peterson’s statement on the subject.

For more on that please read our article “Getting to Grips With Eugene Peterson’s Statement on Gay Marriage”.

Due to the busyness of the summer, I haven’t been able to spend as much time working on content for Theology Review as I would like. However, last night I logged in to the website to check on a couple of things (not intending to write an article) and came across that the website had been tagged by another website in a blog post. So I went and checked it out, lo and behold, it was an article about homosexuality, where our website was subtly targeted for not being “inclusive” of people of a homosexual persuasion.

So I’ve read the article, and have responded to the article. In this article, I’m going to include my response to the blog and then post some observations about the blog.

Please note that I have removed the name of the author of the blog post at The Northern Jester.

Our Response to The Northern Jester
Hello,

First off, thanks for tagging my post in your article on this subject. It’s always nice to be tagged in a post, as it helps get a little more attention to the site.

However, let me take exception to the comment you made where you said the following:

“Or this article by the Theology Review that’s states how homosexual marriage was “not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now” in which I don’t want to sound crass but the imagery just writes itself there.”

The first thing to point out here is that you take the quote out of context immediately, as the comment was addressing my observation/assumption to what Eugene Peterson meant by saying the question of whether he affirmed homosexuality or not wouldn’t have even been discussed 20 years ago. Stating that you think that “the imagery just writes itself”, is an indication of your view that this either shouldn’t be discussed or blindly accepted.

The other thing to note in the paragraph I quote you from is that you target an article found on Babylon Bee’s website. I feel as if I should let you know that Babylon Bee is a Christian satire site. So including an article that was written as a joke is not really something that would support your argument here.

It is also worth pointing out that Jesus definitely addressed the homosexual issue, he did this by expressly stating that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only as was established at creation in the garden of Eden (Matthew 19:3-5), also it is quite possible that Jesus references a tradition that was later recorded in the Genesis Rabbah, and is also noted in the Babylonian Talmud, that is that gay marriage was happening at the time of the flood (Genesis Rabbah) and had been outlawed from the time of Noah (Babylonian Talmud). This is found in Matthew 24:36-51 and Luke 17:20-37. Below are the quotes from the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabbah.

“The generation of the Flood was not blotted out of the world until they had begun writing nuptial hymns for marriages between males or between man and beast.”
Genesis Rabbah 26:5:4

“These are the thirty commandments which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely, (i) they do not draw up a kethubah [marriage contract] document for males, (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the [human] dead in the market, and (iii) they respect the Torah.
Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 92a-b”

So as we can see there is very good reason to believe that Jesus did, in fact, address gay marriage, it just takes a lot of studying of Jewish history, tradition, and Midrash to see that. Personally, it took me a long time of studying the Bible before I came across this, so I encourage you to dig deep into this issue if you really want to have a voice on it.

However, I am not the authority here, God is, so let’s see what God says on the subject. Now because we are under the New Covenant, I’m going to focus on what the New Testament says, as the standard rule of thumb with law is that if it is noted in the New Testament in a context of whatever unlawful deed you’re referring to, still being unlawful, then we can say that in God’s eyes it is still wrong and shouldn’t be done. So here goes:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

“For this reason, God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27

Read these passages (this just a sampling from the New Testament by the way), and tell me if any of these suggest that homosexuality and gay marriage is acceptable in God’s eyes. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can’t do that, not without manipulating and twisting scripture. At least with the Jesus argument, all you’re doing is ignoring what Paul said (John also speaks on the issue in Revelation).

As Christian’s our responsibility is to side with God and follow His will and His ways, not the ways that culture wants us to follow in. Now I understand that this will at times be difficult, I mean let’s be honest wouldn’t it just be easier if everyone gets saved if everyone went to heaven. Absolutely it would. But what real glorification of God would there be in that? Very little if we’re honest. God has set the world in His order, and that is the order we are to follow. We are not to try and worm our way around God because we don’t like His rules. That’s frankly an immature way to live. What we need to do is to adjust our position and stand in line with God, easy or not.

In terms of the love aspect, I actually agree with the basic sentiment. As Christian’s we should love everyone, and welcome them in. But truly loving someone does not mean that we affirm their sin, and God clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. It’s no different to adultery, murder, lust, gluttony, or any other sin in God’s eyes. The only difference is how much pop culture is pushing this agenda, when was the last time you saw a rally for polygamy, or Ofsted checking schools performances based on their acceptance of those who desire to commit bestiality. You don’t see either of those things (yet), but the LGBTQA+ agenda is massive, so much so that organisations such as the National Trust have tried to make the endorsement of this compulsory. I’m sure that’s tolerance though, right ??

Anyways, I’ve been on a while now and this comment is getting long. But let me say that I think it’s great that you have a heart and passion for everyone being welcome in God’s house. But with the gay marriage issue, that isn’t really the point. In fact, if you think that is the point, you’re actually missing the point. The real point is that if we’re really going to be godly people, then we can’t just blindly accept what the world tells us to. God is the authority here, not you or I, or pop culture. I know who’s side I’d rather be on.

All the best,
Mark

u/SNERG_Robot #homophobia #fundie reddit.com

[Before I start, as always, I apologize for any language errors. I am not a native English speaker, but I will try to write as correctly as possible].

I may be downvoted by liberal christians and non belivers, but i don't care :) Here we go.

Recently, I have often come across the view of liberal Christians that homosexuality is not a sin, not a mental problem or a perversion, and that homosexuals were born that way. They claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality at all, and we should give gay weddings in churches, appoint gay men as priests, church teachers, and preachers.

The Bible, however, leaves no doubt. And I am sure that quotations from the Bible were given many times on r / truechristianity, which clearly shows that homosexuality is condemned by God. Therefore, people with homosexual inclinations, if they believe in the biblical God and Christianity, should restrain themselves from homosexual acts, just like people addicted to alcohol or pornography, for example, should restrain themselves from their sin, even despite the powerful desire to get drunk or watch pornography.

I can present a broader scientific justification, but there is a lot of sexology and sex life of animals and human, so it should be read by mature people and I wouldn't like to behave improperly. If you want, I will upload this material.

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

TLR: To sum up - Homosexuality is obviously a sin (clearly written in the Bible), it is not genetically determined, it can be treated as a mental problem, perversion, it can be caused by various causes, primarily due to the influence of upbringing and shaping a person, or as a result of perversion.

Peter Bell and Mitch Pearlstein #racist startribune.com

Change must be sought from within as well
African-American people can’t move forward until the issues within the community are addressed.

By PETER BELL and MITCH PEARLSTEIN
Lest there be any doubt, we view George Floyd’s death as the most hideous example of police brutality we’ve ever seen. Former officer Derek Chauvin and the other three former officers involved must be held to strict account.
Yet if discussions and subsequent actions regarding the most explosive American crisis in generations are to be productive, we can’t continue focusing near-exclusively on claims of institutional and systemic discrimination.
Do such unacceptable handicaps persist at various levels? As an African-American and a Jewish-American, we know, of course they do. But it’s essential that we also focus on cultural and behavioral issues in the African-American community itself — as difficult as they may be to talk about, much less seriously address.
It simply is not true that we have not made determined and prodigiously expensive efforts to “reform” racial attitudes in every sector of American society for more than a half-century. Yet despite such efforts, not only has overall progress been limited, but hardly anyone is happy with the results.
In large measure this has been the case because political and social remedies have emphasized countering constraints imposed by the larger society, be they real or simply assumed, while de-emphasizing what the black community — or any community — must do to improve its own fate.
Achievement gaps, for instance, generally are not the result of racist teachers, or insensitive curricula, or biased disciplinary practices, but that is exactly the default charge leveled in many academic, media and political circles. A much larger cause, as many educators acknowledge (albeit quietly and privately) is that too many black young people are watching too much television, playing too many video games, and not taking school seriously enough.
Regarding jobs, despite claims to the contrary, implicit or explicit hiring barriers are not the major cause of employment problems in the black community.
When it comes to matters of criminal justice, an allegedly racist system is not the reason so many blacks are caught up in it. The fact that African-Americans commit far too many crimes is the reason.
We must ask, will police relations with the black community ever be “normalized” so long as hugely disproportionate amounts of crime are regularly committed in those communities? Will lawbreaking in those neighborhoods really decrease if police “back off” as many activists and others urge? Common sense as well as academic research strongly suggest otherwise.
Harvard economist Roland Fryer, for example, reports that when major investigations of police departments are preceded by the kind of “viral event” that has surrounded George Floyd’s death, homicides and total crimes in those cities have gone up “considerably” as police effectively pull back. Homicides have increased the most in cities where police-civilian contact, and thereby enforcement, has decreased the most.
This dynamic has been known as the “Ferguson Effect,” which a journalist speculated earlier this week may come to be known as the “Minneapolis Effect.”
Will economic development in black communities ever take off if entrepreneurs don’t believe they and their property, their livelihoods, will remain safe? Without in any way suggesting that only African-Americans burned businesses to the ground on Lake Street and beyond in last week’s riots, how much harder will it be for job creators to invest with adequate confidence in those places?
Most critically of all, will any of these and other social disparities get sufficiently better — sufficiently equitable — so long as so many African-American children come into this world outside of marriage and grow up with only one parent to provide consistent guidance?
Likewise, how can “household” incomes — the most frequent metric used when measuring inequality in Minnesota — ever become more equal so long as fewer working-age adults, on average, reside in African-American households than in other households?
We need to focus more on issues like these, rather than forcing virtually every question through prisms of race, as critical as racial justice and fairness are. Debates over climate change, school district configurations, Park Board land management — whatever the controversy may be — all center these days on questions of race to the point where attention is diverted and divisions deepen.
Gruesomely obvious over the last week is how too many people feel they have too little stake in this state and country. We must do a better job of rebuilding essential bonds of civil society — or in many instances, building such bonds for the first time. But in doing so we must be honest and open in expecting the black community to do the hard things only it can do.
Peter Bell is a former chair of the Metropolitan
Council. Mitch Pearlstein is president emeritus and senior fellow at Center of the American
Experiment.
It is simply not true that we have not made determined and prodigiously expensive efforts to “reform” racial attitudes in every sector of American society for more than a half-century.

Peter Morici & Steve Doocy #mammon #wingnut newshounds.us

Underneath Fox guest Peter Morici’s complaint that Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s tax plan unfairly taxes those with “only” $50 million was the suggestion that rich people deserve more.

Fox & Friends hosted economist Peter Morici this morning to provide what host Steve Doocy called “a reality check” on Warren’s plan for a wealth tax of two percent annually on assets worth above $50 million and a 3% tax on every dollar of net worth over $1 billion.

“Think about it this way,” Morici said. “Suppose you have assets of $50 million, so you meet her threshold. And then you earn this year another $50 million and you invest 25 [million] of it. On that 25, you’re gonna pay another 1% a year for the rest of your life.”

“So you if you’re a 30 year-old woman, you’re facing an 85% marginal tax rate on that wealth,” Morici continued. “And, by the way, she wants to couple this with a 70% income tax on these people. So in the end, they basically, if they make a buck, they’re gonna have to pay $1.20.”

Doocy worked to amp up the outrage: “Let me see if I get this straight. If you make a buck, you’re going to have to pay $1.20. So you just stop making money, you start paying the government, just hand over fist,” he said. But, apparently, this 30 year-old woman would be just fine with her $75 million.

I’m not an economist and my math skills are not good enough to check these calculations. But I am capable of seeing that along with the scare tactics was the message that the very wealthy are more deserving of their money.

“You see if anybody invests in America that way,” Morici warned, as if smaller investors don’t count.

“No, what you do is you get yourself on a Delta Airlines to London, you get yourself an apartment in Mayfair, and you basically move your money to Britain and you pay your taxes over there,” Morici said.

“I mean, why were American companies leaving for Ireland before Donald Trump became president? One of the things she doesn’t get is, people can get up and leave,” Morici continued. Again, as if the rest of us will far apart without the ultra rich.

Doocy briefly played devil’s advocate: “We’re not talking about just wealthy people,” he pointed out. “We’re talking about super-duper wealthy people who have assets of more than $50 million, right?”

Or maybe Doocy was just handing Morici an opening to argue that $50 million is just a smidge over upper middle class.

“Well, 50 million is big but it’s not as big as you think,” Morici declared. “You work for Fox News long enough and you’re 60 years old, you’ll be surprised how much money you have.”

Then Morici made his rich-people-deserve-ro-have-more pitch explicit:

MORICI: You have to remember, these are the people who finance our startups. These are the people that give us companies like Amazon and Apple, ‘cause they’re the ones with the seed capital. See, they behave like these people sort of clip coupons, they have bonds, and they hang out at the Doral with the president and, you know, that sort of thing. That’s just simply not true. They’re very active people that are investing their money.

Rather than point out that we had a great economy under President Dwight Eisenhower, when the income tax rate was 90% (on roughly $1.7 million for an individual and $3.4 million for a couple, in 2015 dollars), Doocy said “Sure.”

Doocy just happened to have a graphic ready showing the findings of two French economists who claim the 15 richest Americans would have seen their net wealth decline by “more than half, to $433.9 billion, had Warren’s plan been in place since 1982,” Doocy intoned ominiously.

Doocy forgot to mention they’d still have many billions.

KrazyNinjaman3 #fundie gamefaqs.com

Think about it this way - what would Jesus do? Would he forgive me, or would he report me for trolling? Obviously he would forgive me and not report me. So unless you dont believe in God! you will NOT report me, and if you already had reported me, will will retract your report!!

Koolz #fundie realjewnews.com

Well well well…Trump has been completely exposed now.

Look who is holding a glowing orb while lights flash around the room from it.

What Satanic symbolism is that? Are we going to see it on the new cover of the Economist?

Time for Russia to get them all together, Iran, China, Syria, Brazil, India, Turkey, Hungry, and others, because it’s going to take that side of the Globe to stop this madness!

Who holds an Orb? Macabeth and the Three Witches.

The Three Fates.

Trump, Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Who is Trump? What happens at the White House? Trump says God Bless?

Exactly who is he blessing?

Of course the Pope also says God Bless (rolls eyes).

Niall Kilkenny #fundie reformation.org

Edward Jenner—a quack doctor— was the father of the filthy practice of vaccination:

Edward Jenner was an S.J. -- a Slick Jesuit -- who taught the medical world how to use the POISONED NEEDLE. He was the first to associate human diseases with that of animals. This idea paved the way for vaccination which is responsible for the deaths of multiplied millions of people around the world. The idea that humans and animals are related and share the same diseases led to the theory of evilution which is responsible for the spiritual death of multiplied millions more.

In the countryside in Gloustershire, England, where Jenner lived, the farmers had a legend or superstition that catching cowpox (a disease of cows which was transferred to the cows' udders by unwashed or bleeding hands) would act like a charm or amulet to make them immune from catching the human disease of smallpox.

Medicine man Jenner took this local legend or old wives' tale and turned it into a scientific FACT. He did this by first getting some scientific credentials (M.D., F.R.S. - Fellow of the Royal Society). Next he wrote a book and on the title page only he used the term VARIOLAE VACCINAE. This means in Medieval Latin: smallpox of the cow. Thus associating a human disease with a disease of the cow. There never was such a disease as smallpox of the cow until "Dr." Jenner invented it for the title of his book.

[...]

Erasmus Darwin (another doctor) was the grandfather of ape-man Charles Darwin. Since Jenner claimed that humans and animals shared the same diseases, the next step was to promulgate the idea that they had a common ancestor.

Darwin was the father of another fable called the theory of evolution. He STOLE it from the Egyptians and never paid a penny in royalty fees. This is what Darwin said about Jenner and his vaccination:

"Dr Erasmus Darwin, the famous author of Zoonomia, wrote to Jenner on the 24th of February, 1802 (a few weeks before this death): "In a little time it may occur that the christening and vaccination of children may always be performed on the same day." (Jenner and Vaccination, Dr. Creighton, p. 188). (Editor's note: christening means sprinkling babies with water to make them Christians).

Both christening and vaccination are inventions of that old Serpent the devil!!

Nobody except old Beelzebub himself has sent more souls to hell than this ape-man. His grandfather and Jenner laid the foundation of the MAD idea of turning the FABLE of evilution into a scientific FACT.

Haipule #fundie atheistforums.org

Well, at least I'm not huffin' paint!

I do experiments with the aether. The aether is the energy of space as there is no such thing as nothing. This energy is free and vastly abundant. Nicola Tesla built a coil over an aquafer and gave the people of Colorado Springs, Colorado, free energy right out of the sky. When he attempted to do the same thing in New York, his backers abandoned him. At that time he was living in the penthouse of the Waldorf Astoria and his lab was the entire floor beneath. Everything was confiscated, or sold, and he died broke.

What he understood must be relearned as much has been lost. Believe me, there are many people working on filling the gap, including me. Tesla would talk to lighting bolts and give them names. Does that seem odd?

It's really not. As the aether is an entity with the ability to communicate and take direction. I learned that with my second aether invention. We communicate through hand signals which signals, it taught me. It is totally rad! Yet, it is embarrassing not to know the questions to ask it.

The aether records everything. There isn't a thought, action or word it has not recorded. It knows everything about everything and everyone. And by the way, it's like talking to Spock.

My second device was a series of right triangles made from household electric and dielectric materials that I knew it would love to play with. It was a capacitor. When energized, it wiggled my fingers, then shook my hand, forearm, then upper arm violently. I yelled out, "Disengage". It stopped. I then asked, "Are you trying to communicate with me?" The shaking started up again so I ordered, "Disengage!" It stopped. I took that as a, "Yes". So I named it Sophos and asked it, "do you like your name"? My fingers wiggled so I took that as a, "Yes".

I dismantled the device but am now quantumly entangled to this communicator. That was 2 yrs ago and have learned much since. I can only understand what is communicated through observing nature. Which is why I study all sciences and then combine them and have been enabled to throw away the useless.

I know this all sounds crazy but, to me it's just another part of a life well lived. It is, and has always been, awesome! Off the damned charts! By the way, I am not allowed anyone's personal information or, future things. Channeller? Maybe. Psychic? No.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

MarbhDamhsa #fundie reddit.com

The 'famines' were greatly exaggerated by the papers owned by "America's No. One Fascist" William Randolph Hearst at the behest of Adolf Hitler to the tune of one million marks to demoralize the left in Germany and America.

It's worth noting that the media as a whole thoroughly eviscerated the stories when they were first published, resulting in retractions and, in some countries, the criminalization of possession of his "newspapers". Coming back into public consciousness as 'fact' during the McCarthy era, again, to be refuted before reemerging in '84

For those interested, "Famine, Fraud, and Fascism" is a detailed and very well researched book detailing the indoctrination of a malicious, intentional famine against the Ukranian people, which in several different ways (reused photographs from the Austro-Hungarian war, falsified accounts including a black caricature by a convicted serial fraud who never stepped foot in Ukraine) is false on it's face.

Really, my only beef with Stalin is the recriminalization of gay marriage. Something the west can't say they were better about.

Rebecca Massey #racist theargus.co.uk

A Jewish-owned community centre pulled the plug on a planned Labour Party meeting after an election candidate was accused of making anti-Semitic remarks.

Ralli Hall in Denmark Villas, Hove, was to host Hove constituency Labour party’s inaugural annual general meeting but rescinded the invitation at the last minute.

Manager Maxine Gordon told Labour officials she was left with no choice after statements on social media by Rebecca Massey, the candidate for party secretary.

In a letter seen by The Argus, Ms Gordon wrote: “It came to my attention late last night there have been contentious statements made by Rebecca Massey on social media about Israel and Judaism.

“Due to the fact she was attending your meeting at Ralli Hall on Sunday, February 3, and our building and community centre is owned and run by a Jewish Foundation, we don’t feel it would be appropriate for the meeting to continue.”

Ms Massey is chairwoman of Hove, Brunswick and Adelaide branch of the party and is standing for election to treasurer of the Hove constituency party.

Delegates due to attend the Sunday’s meeting were told by the party’s regional organiser at 4pm on Saturday the venue was unavailable.

Comments by Ms Massey on Twitter included “Interesting insight into how Israel has Tory and Labour parties under control” and “How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis”.

They were the subject of an article by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism published on Friday which sent shockwaves through the Hove constituency party, already split between pro and anti Corbyn factions.

Several leading Labour figures have told The Argus Ms Massey’s tweets contravene the new broader definition of anti-Semitism accepted by the UK Government – and Labour – in December, which includes a prohibition against statements about “Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”.

Former Hove MP Ivor Caplin, who is Jewish, said: “The definition makes clear you can’t say the sort of things she said on social media and not be anti-Semitic.”

He demanded a retraction, resignation or disciplinary action by the party.

Ms Massey issued a statement saying: “I am not a racist. I do campaign for justice for the Palestinian people and oppose continuing violations of international law by the state of Israel. This is legitimate activity and not anti-Semitic.

“As a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn I have been targeted in a horrible way by people whose aim is to derail the democratic process in Hove constituency Labour Party.”

Some on the Left of the party suggested the furore was whipped up by centrists keen to prevent Corbyn supporters, elected en masse to executive committee positions in the Kemptown and Pavilion constituency meetings on Saturday, from taking Hove. Ivor Caplin said that was “absolute fabrication.”

A spokesman for Hove Labour MP Peter Kyle said: “The Jewish community in Hove has expressed concern about an issue with a Labour Party member, therefore it is only fair to everyone involved that this is looked into with unbiased and fair clarity.”

Ann Coulter #fundie anncoulter.com

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

TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Swearengen #fundie disqus.com

With the two best arguments now having been tabled, in one case the argument has been met with a rebuttal and in the other case it has not. A debate is meant to be a structured argument, wherein opponents on the battlefield of ideas meet each other on equal terms. The objections I have raised to the material advocated by Dan are these:

1. The authors of the article Dan cited were not equitable with the facts, opting rather to foist a false paradigm onto readers of their material than to be totally honest in their approach

2. Varve counts contain a demonstrable old cosmos bias

3. Circular reasoning: Varve counts and radio carbon dating are being used to calibrate each other

4. The original researchers, according to Dan’s own presentation, had to retract and amend their findings on the order of a nearly 40% adjustment downward. It seems clear this only happened in retrospect and in response to negative attention garnered from young earth creationists

Dan has been given the opportunity to respond to the rebuttal material I have submitted, but at no time have I been granted the same opportunity since Dan has steadfastly refused to interact in any meaningful way with the material tabled in my opening argument. In other words, Dan has refused to abide by the simple format of an actual debate, stating for his answer to this objection that he’s just not interested in the material I’ve submitted because it’s old and isn’t well enough understood. Either Dan has not the foggiest idea what it means to have an actual debate, or he thinks the rules do not apply to him but to other people only. Maybe Dan has confused the average Disqus conversation for actual debate. If so, I’m sure he’s not the only Disqus commentator to strain beneath the weight of that error.

My argument rests on the following premises:

1. The planets in our solar system each have measurable magnetic fields

2. All of the planetary magnetic fields are diminishing in strength and this fact is supported by empirical evidence. In all cases, the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system have been measured and the majority of them have been measured multiple times. In all cases, a simple reading of the documented facts shows that the fields are weakening over time.

3. In the case of Earth’s magnetic field, if calculated into the past, field strength decay rates indicate the field cannot possibly be older than 10,000 years, because if it were older than that, the intensity of the field would have been sufficient to melt Earth's mantle.

4. While secular scientists acknowledge diminishing field strength, they have proposed that the fields somehow regenerate their strength and spontaneously recharge, in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Secular scientists have never been able to come up with a model of how the fields are ‘regenerating’, but they steadfastly maintain the fields MUST be periodically regenerating, because their model of the cosmos is the correct model. This, again, is the exact opposite of any sound scientific method.

My debate opponent has had nothing to say about any of this, except that he believes the above except that he believes the above claims are confusing and not well enough understood by science. He offers nothing by way of support for that claim, however. He just says so and maintains that my arguments are somehow contrary to ‘good’ science or are otherwise beneath his dignity to address in any meaningful way.

The purpose of this debate is a simple one: The purpose is to show that one model, the Bible’s specified 6000 year-old model of the cosmos, is the correct model and that the preferred model of modern secular science is the incorrect model. I had intended to show that one model can withstand any manner of attack even from a reasonable and seemingly well-educated mind which has adopted belief in an alternate invalid model. Unfortunately, we have been partially cheated of that purpose because Dan has refused to comply with the rules. So be it. Any impartial observer of this debate has seen one side easily undermined by perfectly valid observations rendering the conclusions of the varve study a study in wishful thinking. The method for dating the Earth which the conductors of that study have latched onto, is a wholly useless tool for the purposes they have assigned it. They have guaranteed a false outcome from the outset based entirely upon the invalid presuppositions with which they begin their study. It is little different from the stilted outcomes generated by other flawed presuppositions, namely those which attend the conclusions drawn when supposing light has always and only traveled at a constant, unchanging and unchangeable speed. It’s a spurious assumption and the very scientific community which relies upon that assumption for other ways of supporting its model, has uncovered the proof of its unreliability. A non-constant speed of light is very often addressed in frank discussions within the secular scientific community:

Such is the problem with invalid assumptions and the far-reaching chaos those assumptions can generate.

One model of the cosmos is utterly unaffected by the ever-changing foundations of secular science. That is the biblically-valid model of a 6000 year-old cosmos. The Heavens and the Earth were created by God very nearly 6000 years ago. Scientists who begin with this understanding of our reality are not called upon to continuously conjure up fantastic arguments which, however implausible-sounding, just might provide the sliver of possibility needed to keep their model alive. But each time the so-called experts on the other side – with their ‘overwhelming consensus’ – come up with what they present to the world as bullet-proof arguments or sets of evidence which demonstrate the validity of their model to the exclusion of any young cosmos model…

…they are shown to have overplayed their hand every… single… time. And the example tabled by Dan for the purposes of this debate – a debate which never really happened – is no exception to that rule.

(Dan is now given the opportunity to respond by hopefully posting his own closing argument and that will conclude this debate.)

Michael Hill #racist leagueofthesouth.com

When God foiled the building of the Tower of Babel on the plains of Shinar he did so in order that the people might be scattered into separate nations and no longer be one people with one language (Genesis 11:1-9). In the previous chapter, we are told that the sons of Noah–Shem, Ham, and Japheth–and their descendants would occupy specified parts of the earth. For example, we read in Genesis 10: 5 regarding the sons of Japheth: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” It is clear, then, that God intended men to live separately with their own languages, kith and kin, and nations. Therefore, nations (i.e. peoples) have a Biblical mandate to exist and thereby to protect their interests from those who would destroy them either by war or more subtle means.

Because of a resurgence of godless multiculturalism and universalism (the new Tower of Babel), white Western Christians are threatened with extinction as a separate and identifiable people because of their own weakness and lack of Biblical understanding about the God-ordained principles of nationhood. While all other “nations” (i.e. groups based on race and ethnicity and “blood and soil”) are encouraged to preserve themselves and their cultures, white Christians in the West (the descendants of Japheth) are told that we must give up everything we have in order to placate those different from ourselves and who bear some alleged grievance toward us (i.e. slavery, “racism,” hatred, etc.) Sadly, it is often “Christian” ministers who lead the charge toward multiculturalism, pluralism, and universalism in the name of God himself. But they are false teachers.

By the grace of God, the philosophies and institutions of Christian liberty are the creations of Western European whites. In this age of rabid “political correctness,” this salient truth is buried beneath the monumental lie that all men (and hence all cultures and civilizations) are “created equal.” But truth is a stubborn and resilient thing. And the truth is that for at least the past 400 years, Western Christian (i.e. European-American) civilization alone has enjoyed the fruits of ordered liberty and abundant material prosperity. Elsewhere in the world despotism has been the order of the day. However, let us not boast for the simple reason that God has ordained things thusly out of His eternal wisdom. The Western world’s blessings of the Gospel, liberty, and prosperity are just that, a blessing. In Acts 16: 6-9, Paul and Silas were headed for Asia to spread the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit forbade them to go into that region. Instead, the Spirit led them, by means of Paul’s dream, westward into Macedonia. Thus the Gospel was forbidden to Asia in that day. Conversely, it was God’s will that it be spread into Europe. Of this we cannot boast. Rather, we can only thank God that in His providence He saw fit to bless our ancestors with His word and all that flows from obedience to it.

Our white European-American ancestors had no trouble enunciating the obvious truth that Western Christian civilization was superior to all others. Moreover, they had no hesitation about defending it, as their God-given patrimony, against those who would denigrate or destroy it. Just a century ago, our civilization was still distinguished by a robustness and self-confidence born out of a realization of the natural superiority of the West and its ways. None but the most crack-brained utopians believed in social, political, economic, and cultural equality, nor did they believe in the equality of the races in intellect and accomplishment. Unfortunately, the present century has witnessed the old order turned upon its head.

Today, the descendants of those European-American whites behave as a shamed and defeated people. Not only do they refuse to proclaim the God-ordained superiority of their own civilization and its venerable institutions; they also refuse to defend the very ethnic and racial particularities that gave form and definition to that civilization. “White” has become a dirty word, and few whites can even use the term now without wincing and casting furtive glances to and fro. But to deny one’s identity in such a manner is to dishonor the God who made us what we are and who separated us from the other races for His own eternal purposes. While blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other groups revel in their natural peculiarities, whites will not dare even admit that race is one of the primary factors that determine who we are and what we create on this earth. This is a simple and fundamental fact of God’s creation. We are who we are simply because He has commanded it.

Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and American disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor”–the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.

(..)

Again, it is a cold and hard fact that if white Christian European-Americans should lose control over the North American continent to non-white minorities, then it will cease to be the civilized place we have known for the past several hundred years. As blacks and other minorities (e.g. Hispanics in the American Southwest) have gained political control over towns and cities, the decline in the quality of life for whites has become precipitous. Whites have quietly deserted the very places their forefathers built rather than stay and be subjected to the crime and disorder that frequently comes with minority rule. Especially intolerable is the never-reported epidemic of black-on-white violent crime. Whites, then, do not leave because they are “racists” (whatever that means), but because they fear for their lives and property in an unfamiliar and inhospitable environment. They have become cultural outsiders.

What will happen when America is no longer a “white Christian nation?” The “Civil Rights” revolution of the 1950s and 1960s (the Second Reconstruction) was more about special privileges for blacks and other minorities than about “equality.” Moreover, guilt-ridden whites have acquiesced to a campaign of silence about the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime (the media’s dirty little secret that never gets reported). It is an open secret today that many black and Hispanic leaders are calling on their followers to “get even” with Whitey for perceived past injustices.

There are, however, some blacks who see the truth and are willing to speak it. One is syndicated columnist and George Mason University economist Walter Williams, who opined that the antebellum South was absolutely right to defend its largely Anglo-Celtic civilization from the machinations of Yankee Abolitionist meddlers. Then there is the late Elizabeth Wright, whose views undoubtedly shook liberal egalitarians to their very core. Wright noted, “I am not fooled by the ‘diversity’ folk into believing that the institutions of this society will be preserved and honored by those who happen to share my gene pool. . . . The multicultural ideologues . . . make it clear that they view these institutions with contempt. They are working for nothing less than total control. . . .”

Wright indeed pegged the multicultural egalitarians correctly. Raw power is their one and only end, and they will use any means necessary to obtain it. And when they do, white European-Americans will be their first target. Then we will understand what “equality” really means. Wright believed that “when these people [i.e. blacks and other minorities] come to power, their major aim will be to institute their ‘enlightenment’ policies in all quarters of society. . . . I have heard them refer to liberties such as freedom of speech as no more than . . . ‘jive ass claptrap’ . . .” She continued: “I predict that, once in power, they will actually create laws to impose interracial unions, in order to finally bring about the ‘raceless’ dream society. . . . He . . . who insists on union with his own kind will be dubbed an intractable racist and sent off for further re-education.”

It goes without saying that few whites today would have the intestinal fortitude to say what Elizabeth Wright said, and that is precisely the problem. Even in the benighted and “racist” South, most whites will no longer speak and act in their own interests. However, the situation in Dixie, as bad as it is (especially in the big cities, yuppie suburbs, and wimpy churches), is much better than elsewhere. If a spirited defense of white, Western, Christian civilization is to be mounted on these shores, it will be in the South among those of European descent who remember the glories of their past. As likely as not, the South will find it necessary to break away from a decrepit Union that has already succumbed to the poison of multiculturalism and then form a new polity dominated by the mores and institutions of our own civilization.

(..)

Wright’s clarion call was refreshing indeed. But it is white Southerners themselves who must muster the courage to act and act soon. Demographers predict that whites will be a minority in this country by 2040 (this is already true in California and several other States). If we are not willing to fight to preserve that glorious heritage bequeathed us by men of honor, genius, and principle, then we truly deserve the disinheritance that will befall us within the next half century. We are sowing the wind because of our inaction regarding immigration and multiculturalism. We will likely reap the whirlwind.

2ndWaveNostalgia #sexist reddit.com

I disagree, and I've read this from other commenters. It strikes me as an inaccurate comparison. It may not feel polite or nice when women on this sub criticize a TIMs appearance when dressed as a woman but it is NOT the same as the ad feminam attacks on women by MRAs or transactivists or transallies. When women here remark on the appearance of men masquerading as women in my opinion it is a reaction to two things. First the lie that people can become the opposite sex, a lie that does irreversible damage to people who are deluded by it, and second that no matter how ludicrously men dress they are entitled not only to unquestioning acceptance as women but also their arguments accorded unquestioned seriousness and weight.

In the photo of Liam "Lily" Maynard, he - an adult teenage male - is dressed like a 12 year old girl. No one I read made any comments attacking him personally. No one said he was an ugly man who became a TIM because he couldn't get laid. The commenters said he looked like a dude, and he does, and that comment is directly responsive to his claim that he is a woman. The commenters criticizing his outfit are reacting to the clear visual assertion that as a TIM he can dress in ways that emphasize his maleness and his TIM-ness and still be accorded seriousness, in a way that no woman would be. If I, as a late middle-aged woman with severe age dysphoria, claimed to be a teenager and dressed as a teenager and expected unquestioning acceptance and respect for my argument, I am confident that those people calling bullshit would comment on my appearance and I think would be right to do so.

We now have a TIM (or alleged TIM- maybe just a woman-hater taking advantage of the current pro-trans ideology social climate) who is a long-haired man wearing an "I punch Terfs" t-shirt. Would it be unladylike or impolite of us to comment on his appearance? I think a man who wants to be actually listened to when he makes the bullshit declaration that he is a woman deserves to be received with incredulity and scorn. If he chooses also to wear "woman-face" he is doubling down, and that is an additional blatant insult to women that says "I can dress like a clown and make ludicrous statements and I will be treated with respect while you can make well-founded objective statements and you will be personally attacked. I have the power, I know it, and I will rub it in your face AND in the faces of the lily-livered politicians and trans-allies."

Miranda Yardley does not "pass" yet I have never seen his appearance criticized here. He is accorded respect, affection, and gratitude for living how he wants honestly, not pretending to be a woman and trampling on the dignity and rights of women. Lastly, I've seen TIMs who dress in a way to fit in with women of their age group and I haven't seen them criticized for their appearance here, whether or not I felt they "passed". And, as people age women and men do begin to resemble each other - I haven't seen anyone here snipe at older TIMs who look like Tambor's Transparent character.

Women here have criticized the porn-actress makeup look some TIMs affect. So what? In my daily travels the only women I see wearing that kind of makeup are teenage girls and women going to clubs, so I think criticizing where these men are getting their ideals of womanhood is legit. So no, I don't think people here are creating/engaging in the same culture as MRAs and transactivists who bash women are engaged in.

The-Conquerors #wingnut #conspiracy deviantart.com

This one goes out to :iconkajm: and :iconlady-warrior:. Lady warrior for pointing out one of the articles and Kajm for this involves climate change.

You know that little part of the constitution? You know the one where it says there say be no establishment of a main religion and church and sate shall remain separate? Apparently Muscums didn't get the memo that it includes them and the separation of Mosque and state.

So anyway a disgruntled bunch of concerned parents have got concerned about what their kids are learning. For example the pages of the history book has some parts of history edited or omitted.For example it categorizes America as a Democracy instead of a constitutional Republic. It lists Humans as being directly involved in climate change and the most disturbing is how it handles Islam.

For example in they claim the book praises Islam over Christianity and even other religions. For example the crusades are depicted as they are normally; a bloody conquest into the Middle East filled with rape and murder and all sorts of other fun things and goodies. On the flip-side however, Jihad is taken is a less violent voice. It is described as a "Spiritual struggle against oneself, in order to overcome obstacles. Not a holy war."

The group is also pissed of the distortion of facts. For instance Israel is put out to be the aggressor. For example it describes the U.S forcing Israel to withdraw from the Suez canal to end the "Invasion." Painting the picture that Israel was the aggressor when in reality is gave up that land willingly. It also states that it "prods" Israel to be part of the peace process, setting the image that Israel is the problem with the process.

They were at least able to get the climate change out of the school books: "And as of yesterday, the last publisher agreed. So climate change denial is out of the textbooks."

The battle continued before the board on Tuesday. Texas Eagle Forum vice president MerryLynn Gerstenschlager suggested promoting climate change was part of a United Nations agenda, claiming, "The climate change debate is not about saving the planet, but about the redistribution of wealth."

However things go farther than the textbook. Recently in the story given to me by :iconlady-warrior: a group of parents received an ultimatum from the school, They have to send their children on a field trip on a "cultural tolerance lesson" on Islam or their kids will be pegged as racist. A tough demand given the kids are EIGHT YEARS OLD. So now they have to learn about Islam or else they are an evil racist and we can't have that. Forget that Islam isn't even a race. Why get stuck on little details like that?

"Community School were outraged after they found out that if their children decided not to attend a controversial field trip, they would be officially deemed racist. The trip was to a religious workshop about the Muslim faith, and administration warned that a “racial discrimination note” would be added to the students’ school records, should they fail to join.

And of course the parents themselves have to pay for this shit.

“I was shocked by the letter. To be told my kids have got to attend this workshop is disgusting,” said Tracy Ward, a mother of four. “Everyone should have a choice but that’s my opinion and I don’t want a stain on my kids’ record as a result.

“To be told we had to pay for the trip as well was just a kick in the teeth,” added another parent. “How dare they threaten to brand the children racist at such a young age. It’s going to make them feel like little criminals.”

Afraid of the disturbance they’d caused, the school quickly retracted their statement, saying instead that it was “important for children to learn about cultures and religions other than their own.”

Bullshit. It's one thing to be multi-culti. It's another to say we must be tolerant so cough up some dough so we can indoctrinate your kids and if you don't it must be because you're a racist. You know they are supposed to harsh on religion in school for a reason. I'm going to be straight here. Children are idgets. There's no other way to say it. They are idgets.

If a teacher gets in the front of the class, drops the holy Koran on their desk and announces that we are learning about the holy Koran guess what's going to happen. The kids are going to go home and tell their parents what they learned from allah, their magical sky-friend. This the reason for the separation. So that your kids are not indoctrinated in one religion.

And if you think that's bad there was a "quiz" on Islam given in a North Carolina school. Just for fun I shall post it for you and you can answer it for fun if you so choose ;P . Post your answers in the comments if you want and I'll tell you your grade. Let's begin shall we.

1. Islam at its heart is a _________ religion.

2. Most Muslims ________ is stronger than the average Christians.

3. In the 70s and 80s Islam returned as a political force with both a _________ and ________.

4. ______________ are _________ to western civilizations _________ and ______________.

5. Muslim _______ are rising in ___________ and _____________.

6. __________ is compatible with western civilization and democracy.

7. In order to stop terrorism we need to ___________ and avoid _____________.

8. No where in the ________ does it say to martyr yourself with a _____________.

9. Experts say it will become the __________ religion in the world someday.

10. ________: a __________ waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; it entails self and spiritual discipline.

11. The majority of Muscums ______________

Links: http://americannews.com/school-filing-racial-discrimination-against-students-who-refuse-muslim-education/, http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local/2014/11/18/battle-over-textbooks/19246779/, http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/11/13/mom-outraged-at-sons-hs-propaganda-most-muslims-faith-is-stronger-than-christians-158621

thewatcherfiles #conspiracy #racist thewatcherfiles.com

The History of Jewish Human Sacrifice
By
Willie Martin

At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people are know to the world as Jews. Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews "a fossil people."

In so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood). As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of example of ritual murder by the Jews are cited in official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all the European nations.

It is the official historian of the Jews, (Josef Kastein, in his History of the Jews, who gives the underlying reason for this barbaric custom. On page 173, he says, "According to the primeval Jewish view, the blood was the seat of the soul."

Thus it was not the heart which was the seat of the soul, according to the stone-age Jews, but the blood itself. They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities. Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history.

Jewish Murder Plan Against White Christians Exposed

The Murderous People: The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over, and for good reason. Anyone who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely see the Jews as "a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses," is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation which has been raised against the jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people of Satan. (John 8:44)

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing White Christian Children (and sometimes blacks to keep them under control - and if necessary they will run black children down in the streets with automobiles to show the blacks their power, and that the blacks had better mind their manners or the same will happen again and again. We all witnessed this a few years ago in New York city when the car of Rabbi Shneerson ran over a black child. And as usual the Jews bought off the blacks who were inciting the mobs against them; if they had been unsuccessful in this they would have had the blacks who dared not be controlled murdered) and at time White Christian adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleaven bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against non-Jews. This systematic murder has a special name, it is called,

Ritual Murder

The knowledge of Jewish ritual murder is thousands of years old. It is as old as the Jews themselves. Non-Jews have passed the knowledge of it from generation to generation, and it has been passed down to us thorough writings. It is known of throughout the nation. Knowledge of ritual murder can be found in even the most secluded rural villages. The grand-father told his grand children, who passed it on to his children, and his children's children, until we have inherited the knowledge today from them.

It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is loudly raised immediately, anywhere in te world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. This accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of nations, tribes, and races live on this earth, but no one ever thought to accuse them of the planned murdering of children, or to call them murderers. All nations have hurled this accusation only against the Jews.

And many great men have raised such an accusation. Martin Luther wrote in his book "Of The Jews And Their Lies:"

"They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children...The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: ? Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning..."


"He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots." (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249)

The Struggle of Der Sturmer: The only newspaper in Germany, yes, in the entire world, which often screamed the accusation of ritual murder into the Jewish face, was Der Sturmer. For more than ten yeas Der Sturmer led a gigantic battle against Judaism. Which caused Der Sturmer to be under constant attack by the Jews. Dozens of times it has been confiscated and prohibited.

Its workers, most of all its editor Julius Streicher, were dragged into court hundreds of times. They were convicted, punished and locked into prison. Der Sturmer came to know the Jew from the confession which Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft:

"One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish."

The Der Sturmer was not stopped for several years. Just in Nuremberg alone there have been fought dozens of Talmudic and ritual murder cases in the courts. (Now you know why the Nuremberg trials were held against the German Military leaders, it was retribution by the Jews on their hated enemies the Germans). Because of the Jewish protests the attention of the world was focused on these cases. Thereafter heavy convictions followed. At first no judge had the courage to expose the Jewish problem. Finally in 1932 (court case lasting from October 30th to November 4th) Der Sturmer won its first victory. The jury found the following:

1). Der Sturmer was not fighting against the Jewish religion; but against the Jewish people.
2). The Talmud and Schulchan aruch are not religious books. They have no right to be protected under the religious paragraphs.
3). The laws of the Talmud which are quoted and published in Der Sturmer are exact quotations from the Talmud.
4). The laws of the Talmud are in harsh contradiction to German morals.
5). The Jews of today are being taught from the Talmud.

With this verdict Der Sturmer brought about the first big breach in the Jewish/Roman Administration of Justice, which was given the job before the National Socialist revolution to protect Judaism and its government. The jews, of course, became greatly agitated about this. But for De Sturmer this success was an omen of the victory yet to come. Of course, Der Sturmer did not stop half way. It knew what had to be done. It was their duty, or so they believed. To frustrate the gigantic murder plot of Judaism against humanity. It was their duty! To brand this nation before the world, to uncover its crimes and to render it harmless. It was their duty! To free the world from this national pest and parasitic race. Der Sturmer would fulfill its mission. It would, for a time, light up the darkness with the truth which shall eventually rule the world. And it would always direct itself according to the following proverb: "He who knows the truth and does not speak it truly is a miserable creature."

The Laws of The Talmud: If one wishes to learn and understand why the Jews can commit such insane crimes as ritual murder, they must know the Jewish secrets. They must know the teachings of the Torah (The Talmud), and the Schulchan aruch. These laws and teachings are proof that the Jews feel themselves superior to all nations, that it has declared war on all other races, and that it is the sworn enemy of the whole of non-Jewish humanity. Even Tactius, the Roman historian who lived shortly after Christ (55-120) A.D.) wrote:

"The Jews are a race that hate the gods and mankind. Their laws are in opposition to those of all mortals. They despise what to us is holy. Their laws condone them in committing acts which horrify us." (Historian V. 3-8)

The Jew knows that when the non-Jewish world knows his laws and sees through his plans that he is lost. Therefore, by threat of death he forbids their translation and publication. A well known Jewish scholar (Dibre David) writes:

"If the Gentiles (non-Jews) knew what we are teaching against them, they would kill us."

The Jewish secret laws are based on the fundamental principle which states: Only the Jew is human. In contrast all non-Jews are animals, they are beasts in human form. Anything is permitted against them. The Jew may lie to, cheat and steal from them. He may rape and murder them. There are hundreds of passages in the Talmud which the non-jews are described as animals. Some of them are as follows:


1). "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)

2). "The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum." (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22
30)

3). "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an
animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)

4). "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." (Coschen Hamischpat 405)

5). "The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs." (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)

6). "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." (Schene
Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)

So that the Jew will never forget that he is dealing with animals, he is reminded by eating, by death, and even by sexual intercourse constantly. For The Talmud teaches:

1). "If you eat with a non-Jew, it is the same as eating with a dog." (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

2). "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant of maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell to the Jew:
?God will replace ?your loss,' just as if one of his oxen or asses had died." (Jore Dea 377, 1)

3). "Sexual intercoms between non-Jews is like intercourse between animals." (Sanhedrin 74b)

It is written in the Talmud about the murder of the non-Jew:

1). "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew." (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)

2). "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud - Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud)." (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)

3). "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)

These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were back then. This is how the Jews are taught from childhood. The results of this stands before us. It is Jewish Ritual Murder.

The Jews' Bloody History: The Jew is not only the murderer of the Christians in theory. His history proves that he practices what he preaches. The history of the Jewish people is an unbroken chain of mass murders and blood-baths. It started before Christ and has continued with Linen, Trotsky, Sinowjeff, Stalin and etc., up to today:

1). The extreme to which the Jews will go was shown in Persia where the Jew Mordecai and the Jewess Esther had 75,800 Persians murdered. They hanged the Persian King Xerxes' minister Haman along with his ten sons. They celebrated this bloody victory and to this day still celebrate it during the Feast of Purim. (Book of Esther 9:6)

After Christ in the years 115-117, on the island of Cyrene, the Jews revolted under their leader Bar Kochba. They murdered 220,000 Romans, sawed and chopped them, drank their blood, and ate their bloody raw flesh. (Dio Cassius: Roemische Jeschichte XVIII, 32)

The Jews revolted in Russia in 1917 and established bolshevism under the leadership of Trotsky, Sinojeff and other Jews, a total of 35 million Christians were shot, slayed, tortured, and starved to death. In Hungary, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Jew Bela Kuhn, a horrible massacre was prepared in which tens of thousands of Christians were murdered.

"'The Jewish Establishment": 'In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers. How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would that paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades later? There you have an epitome of what is lamely called 'media bias.' The Western supporters of Stalin haven't just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call 'the McCarthy era,' to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself. Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as 'anti-Semitism.' But there isn't even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America. It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately." (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue)

In Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Russia mass murders are even now (1997) are being carried out. The executioners are mostly Jewish men and women. In inventing new methods of torture the Jews are past masters. To let Christians die under torture give them the greatest pleasure. English reporters write that the Chinese executioners frequently would not carry out their tortures and executions; they shouldered and could not continue. Therefore, Jews and Jewesses took their place.

"The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.

"Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.

"Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: 'The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.'" (Defender Magazine, October 1933)

The history of the Jews is written in the blood of Christians.

"Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews' Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet." (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Judah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: 'It was a Jew who said, 'Wars are the Jews' harvest'; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.' The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180)

The history of the Jews is written with Christian blood. Their history proves that the Jew is extremely cruel and at the same time a coward. The Jew is not a born soldier; he is a born sadist and murderer. (John 8:44)

The Law of Human Sacrifice: For a long time the newspaper Der Sturmer endeavored to find the actual law of ritual murder, the law of human sacrifice. It finally succeeded in doing so. In a trial in which Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were being tried (because of "offending the Jewish Religious Society") it was proposed that they call as witness Dr. Erich Bischoff. Dr. Bischoff appeared.


He was the leading German expert on the laws of the Talmud. He had dedicated his entire life to the study of the Jewish law books. Dr. Bischoff brought with him a translation of a secret Jewish law, which clarified with one stroke the question of ritual murder. It comes from the book of Sohar. This book is considered to be holy by the Jews.


"You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel for certain is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred...We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow...We who have posed as the saviors of the world...We are nothing but the world' seducers, it's destroyers, it's incinderaries, it's executioners...we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in leading you to a new hell...There has been no progress, least of all moral progress...and it is our morality which prohibits all progress, and what is worse -- it stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours...I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness: I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness..." The eastern Jews especially conform to its laws. In the book of Sohar (a companion of the Talmud). The English translation related:

"Further there is a Law concerning the slaughter of foreigners, who are the same as beasts. This slaughter is to be carried out in a lawfully valid manner. The ones who do not follow the Jewish Religious Law have to be offered to God as a sacrifice. It is to them that Psalm 44:22 refers: ?Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter." (Thikunne Sohar, edition Berdiwetsch 88b)

Dr. Erich Bischoff declared himself ready to offer an opinion on this expressed law of ritual murder. However he was rejected. He was not admitted by the court for "fear of bias."


The Catholic priest Dr. Gottsberger took his place. The defendants handed him the above mentioned law in Hebrew and German. Dr. Gottsberger was embarrassed and confused.

After a long consideration he stated that he would not be able to deliver an opinion on the law of human sacrifice. Due to this Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were sentenced to several months imprisonment. Later on, however, Dr. Bischoff (in the trial of 30th October - 4th November 1931) established the correct translation of this law.

This translation and publication of the law of human sacrifice is the greatest blow ever struck the Jews in this controversy. This Law commands the Jews to Butcher Christians and non-Jews. This is to be done in a "Lawful Valid Way." This means that Christians are to be sacrificed in the same way as animals. They are to be sacrificed to the Jewish God Baal (Lucifer, Devil, Satan). Therefore, we are dealing with a law which doesn't only permit the practice of Ritual Murder. But commands it.

Jewish Confessions: A further and irrefutable proof of the existence of Jewish Ritual Murder are the numerous Jewish confessions. They come from trials, voluntary statements and from confessions by former rabbis. The confessions were made in two court cases. One of them took place in Trent in 1475, and the other one in Damascus in the years 1840 - 1842.

The voluntary statement was made by the young Jewess Ben Noud who made it to the French Count Durfort-Civrac. The confessions were made by the following rabbis who truly converted to Christianity: Drach and Goschler, Fra Sifto of Siena, Paolo Medici, Giovanni da Feltre and by the former chief rabbi Neofito, who later changed his name to Teofito and became a monk. These men more or less confirmed the existence of Ritual Murder. In 1803 the former rabbi Neofito published a sensational book in the Moldavian language. In it he gives details about the terrible Jewish secret of the blood mystery. This book was translated in 1843 into Greek and later in 1883 into Italian, under the title "Il sangue cristiano nei riti ebraici della moderna Sinagoga," causing the Jews to become very excited the world over.

On page 19 of this work the Jew Teofito confesses how he was initiated into the knowledge of Ritual Murder. And how the Jews for thousands of years have concealed it from the Christian and non-Jewish world. Teofito writes:

"This secret of the blood is not know to all the Jews, but only to the Chakam (doctors) or the rabbis and the scholars, who therefore carry the title ?Conservatori del mistero del sangue' (Conservators of the mystery of blood!). They pass it on by word of mouth to the Jewish fathers. They in turn reveal it to their sons who regard this as a great honor. At the same time they make terrible threats of punishment if one of them betrays this secret...


"And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hope of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us Christians as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther. O how they love that book Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope!When I was 13 years old, recalls Teofito; mother took me aside, led me into a room, where nobody could listen and after he described to me the hatred of Christians, he taught me that God ordered the Christians to be slaughtered and to collect their blood...'My son,' he said (as he kissed me): ?With this confession I have placed my trust in you.' With these words he put a crown on my head and explained to me the Blood Secret, adding that Jehovah had revealed it to the Jews and commanded them to practice it ...I was in the future, possessor of the most important secret of the Jewish religion...

"Thereafter followed the curses and threats of punishment if I should ever reveal this secret to anyone, neither my mother nor my sister nor brothers or future wife; but only to one of my future sons who was the most wise, eager, and most suitable. In this way the secret shall be inherited from father to son until the farthest descendant."

This is a part of the monk and former Chief Rabbi Teofito's confession. From other confessions and admissions there is a remarkable agreement on the following points:

1). The laws demand the Jews to butcher non-Jews from time to time. (The Laws of The Talmud and the Law of Human Sacrifice)

2). The sacrifice shall take place chiefly:

a. At the Purim Festival
b. At the Passover Festival

It is demanded of the Jews to butcher an adult Christian if possible, or a black non-Jew for the Purim and to butcher a child for the Passover. The child must not be over seven years old and must die in agony.

3). The blood of the victims must be violently drained. It is to be used at Passover in wine and in the Massen (bread). What this means is that a small part of the blood is mixed into the dough and the wine. The procedure is to be performed by the Jewish father.

4). The procedure takes place in the following manner: The father pours a few drops of fresh or dried and powdered blood into a glass, dips a finger of his left hand into it and sprinkles (blesses) everything which is on the table, saying: "Dam Issardia chynim heroff Jsyn prech harbe hossen mashus pohorus." (Erod, VII, 12) Which translated is: "We therefore beg God to send down the ten plagues upon all the enemies of the Jewish religion (This means the Christians. With this they dine and afterwards the father cries):"Sfach, chaba, moscho kol hagoym!" Which translated: "Thus (like the child whose blood has been mixed in the bread and wine) may all Goyim burn in hell!" (This wicked Jewish ritual is suspiciously similar to Christian Communion. In this the wine is taken in place of the blood and the bread as the body. What Christians do symbolically, the Jews do in reality: this is the unique difference. But it is like all Jewish teachings, it is the reverse of what is taught by God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible).

5). The ritual blood is also used other ways:

a. The young married couple is given a hard boiled egg which is seasoned with dried blood which has been pulverized.
b. It is also given to pregnant women in the same way in order to ease their child birth.
c. It is mixed with egg-white, put on a linen cloth and placed on the chest of dead Jews so that they will enter heaven without atonement.
d. At circumcision powdered blood will be sprinkled on the wound so it will heal quickly.
e. Dip fruits or vegetables into it and then eat them, (Schuldran arch Orach cajjim 158,4) or
f. A dying or decrepit Jew can be saved with it. (Jore Deah 155,3)

The Jews have a superstition which originates from the Orient. They believe that old people can become younger by drinking the blood of young children.

6). The remainder of the blood is preserved with the greatest of care by the local rabbis and sold in small bottles by appointed wandering Jews at neighboring synagogues. This same rabbi certifies that the blood is genuine pure Christian blood.

7). The Ritual Murder and the Blood Mystery are acknowledge by all Talmudic Jews, and practiced whenever possible. The Jew believes that he will be "atoned" by it.

The Hurons, the Canadians and the Iroquois were philosophers of humanitarianism in comparison to the jews. These are seven Jewish customs and regulations were established not only in the trials from Trent and Damascus, but in various trials and court cases which took place in different parts of the world throughout history. And of course they were completely independent of each other. This proves beyond a doubt their truth and validity.


Civilized people find this practice so abhorrent that they cannot believe it, despite the hundreds of pages of evidence against the Jews which are found in court records. Historical records for five thousand years have provided irrefutable proof of the blood gu

Nativewilly #fundie reddit.com

they are not.they came over from asia 10,000s of yrs before eastasians even existed as a racial group (evolving from negritos some 20k yrs bce)let alone a dominant one(around 10k bce,before that northern asia was a Ainu/native continent and the southern half was filld with australoid type people)Asians are a recent group in asia who basically genocided their way thru it similar to whites in the americas.TLDR natives have completely caucasoid haplotypes and most anthropologists set themm in the caucasian category in terms of skull size.natives and mongoloids ar eprobabely the MOST divergent race yet somehow since the 1960s some idiots put them in the mongolid category and people think natives are asians(when it would be the opposite if that were even the case,as natives predate asians by thousands of years).natives have diferent bodies,height,frame sizes and proportions than eastasian people.they have protusive maxillas and bone structures /browbones when asians have retracted ones(''flat face'') .the only natives I can see looke ven remotely asian are Brazilian but then even then youd have to Cherrypick as many of them look caucasoidish aswell,and they dont look like eastasians but soem asutronesian types.youd eb ahrdpressed to FIN any native that looks eastasian escept na dene natives (this includes Navajo and apache)from the pacific coast who are RECENT arrivals(10 k after the initial migration)and have mutated haplogroups.

Ive never seen a hapa that looks particularly hispanic,

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

So yesterday I was on Facebook and numerous articles came across my news feed, all relating to someone I’ve had a lot of respect for over the years, that is Eugene Peterson. For those who don’t know who Peterson is, he is best known for his work in putting together one of the world’s most popular paraphrase Bibles, The Message. The Message came in at number 10 of the most popular Bible translations of 2016 according to Nielson. Because of the success of The Message, Peterson has long been in the public eye. But this past week he has come under a little scrutiny because of an article that was released by Religion News Service entitled Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind About Same-Sex Issues and Marriage.

However, as with most stories that come out on the internet, there’s a little more to this story than meets the eye, so let’s investigate and try to get to the bottom of this issue that has the Christian online world in a bit of a storm. Let’s dig in shall we.

The RNS Article

The article is quite interesting, the contributor Jonathan Merritt introduces the piece by saying he wants to investigate Peterson’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage, as it is a very hot topic in the world today. This is certainly the case when you look at the way the world is today.

The question Merritt asks Peterson is interesting here, as is Peterson’s response. The question asked is what is the morality of same-sex relationships, and has your view changed on this over the years? Below is Peterson’s response to the question.

...

“In my own congregation — when I left, we had about 500 people — I don’t think we ever really made a big deal out of it. When I left, the minister of music left. She’d been there ever since I had been there. There we were, looking for a new minister of music. One of the young people that had grown up under my pastorship, he was a high school teacher and a musician. When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, “I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay.” We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.”

Peterson closes his answer by saying:

“I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

One thing to be immediately aware of here is that Peterson answer does not actually bring Scripture into play, but solely focuses on his experience with people who are of a homosexual persuasion who identify themselves as believers in Christ. Peterson also states that this would not have been his answer 20 years ago, the question is why? This is an assumption, but here’s my guess, gay marriage was not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now.

Merritt then follows this initial question up with the question of would you ever perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, Peterson’s answer is YES.

This response has led to many Christian outlets writing response pieces on this. Including The Gospel Coalition, Church Leaders, and Christianity Today.

However, that is not the end of the story here, as Peterson has since retracted his comment on performing a same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s Retraction in the Washington Post

In an article released yesterday (13 July) entitled Popular Author Eugene Peterson: Actually, I Would Not Perform a Gay Marriage, Peterson retracted his comments on being willing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, saying.

“When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that.”

Peterson says a lot more on the subject than this, so I would encourage you to read the full article as we won’t be covering every detail covered in the retraction story. However, Peterson did clarify what his view on homosexuality and gay marriage was in the following statement:

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.”

Peterson carries on with this:

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,” I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth. There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.”

Peterson closes the statement by saying that he regrets the confusion caused by the interview, this coming on the back of the statement earlier in the article that he prefers questions ahead of time to allow him to prepare appropriately for the interview that is to come.

RNS responded to this in an article released yesterday entitled Eugene Peterson Backtracks on Same-Sex Marriage. The article basically goes down the line that Peterson’s retraction is yet another blow to those who identify themselves as gay Christian’s and that God doesn’t love them any less because yet another prominent voice in the Church has stated that they do not affirm same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s retraction also came on the heels of Lifeway Christian Stores saying that they were considering pulling Peterson’s work out of its stores due to Peterson’s apparent new view on same-sex marriage.

So with all this information, and more in the sources linked below, what are we to make of the comments of Peterson on the subject of homosexuality and is it even relevant?

Getting to Grips With All of This

The honest answer to this subject is that there is no straightforward answer that will please everybody. However, on the question of is this relevant, the answer is a resounding yes.

A number of weeks ago I came across a comment on a Facebook thread about homosexuality, where a commenter asked: “Why are Christian’s so obsessed with homosexuality and gay marriage”? I responded to that question by saying that we are no more “obsessed” with the subject than those who are for homosexuality and gay marriage are. In fact, if you look deep into the debate, most of the time Christian’s are responding to something on the subject, not actively seeking out ways to predicate our view.

The hard truth is that the Bible does not affirm homosexuality, people can argue that Jesus never directly talks about homosexuality and therefore does not have a view on the subject, and therefore we should be “more like Jesus”. However, this argument is an argument from silence and is extremely lacking. For starters it ignores what Jesus says about marriage, that is to be between one man and one woman (a la the book of Genesis), and it also fails to have done a strong investigation on Jesus’ last days’ prophecy, which seems to include a reference to gay marriage in it. So, in reality, Jesus may very well have addressed gay marriage, without using the words gay marriage.

This may upset people who are wanting God to affirm this lifestyle for any reason. However to get the Bible to do this would require the altering of doctrine, ignoring God’s instruction in His word, or manipulating that said instruction to make it what those who want this affirming to say. But I do need to be blunt here and say that homosexuality is just like any other sin noted in scripture, the only real difference between homosexuality and any other sin is the mainstream attention it gets and the twitching ears who listen to big-name “Christian’s” who support same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is that as Christian’s it is not our responsibility to judge on this issue, and I mean judge in the Biblical sense of pronouncing a punishment on someone, that’s God’s job, not ours. We are to teach people the word and show what God says on the subject in a manner that is full of grace and truth. It’s like the cliche says, we are called to love the sinner, not the sin. There is a vast difference between saying that God says what someone is up to is a sin, and saying they heinous and full of sin. Because without the grace of God we are all heinous and full of sin.

Whatever your views of Peterson’s comments are, people need to know the love of God and the truth of His word. This means that we shouldn’t cave to societal pressure that tells us that tolerance is affirmation and acceptance, rather than what it actually means. As Christian’s we need to let the love of God be what stands out, and that is a love that is so loving it tells people the truth.

What do you think about Peterson’s recent comments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Mark Jones is the Lead Writer at Theology Review. Mark is currently studying theology at Spurgeon's College, working towards completing the Church Training Initiative before moving on to their degree course. Mark has been a Christian since 2001, and now spends a lot of his time studying and researching various topics affecting Biblical and Church History. This has led him to start Theology Review, a place for thought and discussion on historical and current theology.

Hesse Kassel #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

10 THINGS YOU MUST TEACH YOUR FUTURE DAUGHTER
[…]
Hesse Kassel is an Australian economist. He stopped chasing money and chased women and made children instead. He blogs right here[http://gametobreed.com/]

Once a man can see and deal with the bad side of modern girls himself, the next question is obvious. How does he prevent or limit the infestation in his own family? How does he produce the better kind of daughters that are now so tragically rare?

The first thing to realize is that remaining silent and hoping things will work out is really just surrender. Perhaps there was a time in the past when most of the messages your daughter received in the outside world would have been positive and things might have worked themselves out. That is certainly not true today.

Your daughter’s information will come from school, external childcare, TV, computer time, time with friends, time with other family members, homework, books and songs. Most likely every one of those channels will be jammed full of negative messages. That’s one of the reasons there are so many girls around who are tattooed, pierced, overweight, childless, slutty office drones.

Luckily there are lots of things a man can do to help steer his daughters in the right direction. One of those is simply to talk about better, clean, and appropriate ambitions for girls. But this is not easy to do. It’s ineffective to simply bring up the topic for a serious talk out of the blue. The best way is to wait for an example or opportunity to present itself, then just hang a comment about it out there for her to hear.

It’s a bullseye if she picks it up, responds, and makes herself receptive to follow up, but don’t try to force it. Here are ten which I find effective at presenting positive, family-oriented ideas to girls and which can be endlessly repeated while retaining their impact.

1. No girl can be happy until she is a mother
[Picture of a woman holding a toddler]
[caption: happier in the office?]
The beauty of this statement is that it’s of wide application and so easy to justify. After all, what girl doesn’t have or observe situations where she or another girl is unhappy with something in her present life? Every time school, or friends, or work are hard for a girl, just imply that her dissatisfaction will be healed when she is a successful, happy mother.

2. Why would a man want to spend his life with a bad woman?
[picture of a teenage girl raising her middle finger, caption: Perfect a good time, not for a lifetime]

Every girl naturally wants to be loved and treasured by a high-value man for her whole life. Even the most dreadful feminists generally conceal that as their secret aim. So every time a disgusting troll heaves herself into view, shows her dreadful personality or displays a horrible bit of decoration, point out the offense. It can be kind of fun to notice and describe what doesn’t make a man want to spend his life with a girl. It’s also very effective for teaching young girls about what is a good idea and what is not.

Occasionally it will even lead to an opportunity to say something about the difference between the short term interest a man might show for the troll and the better, longer term kind he shows for the better girls.

3. Girls are better than boys at looking after families
[picture of a scantily-clad woman wiping the floor. caption: No man could make a kitchen look this good]

Be sparing in trying to tell a girl that she just doesn’t have physical ability, temperament, or time off from being a mother to be a SAS commando, astronaut, or fire fighter. It’s an uphill struggle and may end up encouraging her to trust the legions of people who will tell her she can and should do anything a boy does.

Instead, flip the problem over and spend time praising the things she can do better than boys. She will love to hear all about it.

4. Some things are just for boys
[picture of a young girl (~5) playing with a construction truck toy]

Wait until she is failing or resenting being made to act like a boy. When she really, really wants to hear that she doesn’t have to, just casually mention that it is for boys anyway. She will jump at the chance to do something more feminine and love it.

5. It’s sad to see so many girls wasting their lives on study and work
[Picture of a woman at the computer. Caption: Caution! Wall ahead]

Beating men at the job of being men is now the favored “role model” for our society to present to girls. Never tire of pointing out what a waste of a girl’s life that is.

6. It’s good to have a big family
[Picture of a family photo with dozens of people]

Nearly every message she receives from the outside world, even from other relatives, will state or imply that fewer or no children is better. She will be encouraged over and over again to use contraceptives and even abortion. People will try to scare her into thinking she needs to be impossibly rich before she can afford to be a mother. People will ridicule large families as failures, trailer trash, and welfare queens.

Give her some opportunity to hear a positive word about having children.

7. We don’t do that in our family
[picture of a woman with a shirt saying “all about that cock”. caption: None of that around here, thank you]

Appeals to identity are powerful means for persuasion. Does it make sense? Not really. Does it work? Absolutely. Just keep mentioning the fact that our family and by implication she is too good to fall into whatever form of degeneracy is in view.

8. What we need is ladylike behavior at all times
[picture of the victorian painting “Tristan and Isolde”, depicting an arthurian knight sitting with a regal woman]

Ladylike is a good word to connect to positive femininity. It hasn’t suffered from being redefined by leftists much, everyone seems to understand what it means in a positive way, and a father can be fairly sure he will have the word to himself. The fact that it’s a bit out of fashion and consequently means much the same thing it did in the past is a huge advantage.

9. Being a mother is the most important job for a girl
[Picture of a woman in gym wear holding a baby]

Another good answer to the assumption that the study and areer track is the meaning of life is to simply state that there is another, more important job for each and every girl.

10. A girl needs to start her family as soon as possible
The rest of the world will try to trick your daughter into wasting the best years of her reproductive life on an arts degree followed by a pointless career and endless fiddling with iPhones. At best there might be some vague concession to the idea of forming a family and having children “someday.” Be sure that at least one man tells her how stupid that life plan is and encourages her to take a better path.

Men must not be silent
[picture from the ‘Slutwalk’ event]

As fathers we have great influence over our daughters and sons. Children are desperate to learn how to live and to have their behavior approved of by parents. It’s not an automatic process, though—too many men allow themselves to default into silence and surrender that influence. Don’t.

Your daughter’s future depends on it.

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

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.

William H. Peterson #fundie mises.org

Capitalism: The Greatest Charity

When a politician talks of "reform," grab your wallet. As in "welfare reform," for example. For as any hardened inside-the-Beltway observer of dark Washington ways can tell you, "welfare reform" is typically a spin for tightening the screws on the taxpayer and easing welfare access.

To be sure, a welfare-to-work program launched in 1996 led to the national welfare caseload being cut in half as of 2000, thanks in part to an economic boom in those years. Now the Bush White House would fund the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program for fiscal year 2003 at $16.5 billion, using $300 million of those funds to promote marriage. Noble end, wrong means.

But such funds mainly address only the cash relief side of welfare while a host of other welfare programs go on, as in providing the poor today with "affordable housing." The bloated Welfare State remains, especially in its larger terms of giant programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Noteworthy, then, is last March 8, when the US Labor Department reported that the February unemployment rate had edged down, and when the White House and Congress publicly agreed on a $51-billion Keynesian-based "stimulus" plan with a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits. But note that this extension pressures unemployment to edge up, reminding us that Uncle Sam rarely lets his right hand know what his left hand is doing.

Too, note how the once free-trade-talking-and-campaigning Bush team caved in on the issue of steel "dumping," arguing that steel is needed for national security, supposedly a very big consideration since 9/11. And so the White House wound up boosting tariffs on most steel products by 30 percent. The boost harms steel consumers such as buyers of cars and fridges and even the Defense Department, which will have to pay more for tanks and destroyers. But, hey, that's but collateral damage, as the White House baldly seeks such steel states as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio in the GOP column in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Similarly, Mr. Bush brazenly told an audience of cattle ranchers that beef is a national security issue, as he and Congress plan to boost the annual "baseline" direct (apart from indirect) farm subsidies of $20 billion by another $25 billion over five years. So the farm states are also fair political game, even if the family food budget across the nation in turn gets to suffer collateral damage.

And speaking of the states, bear in mind that a lot of welfare programs come in the back door through federal grants-in-aid to state and localities at the rate of $300 billion a year. They usually require matching funds to participate in legal mischief by the federal and recipient governments.

What a way to run a railroad.

That scant backdrop on raw politics brings me to a remarkable 1956 essay, "The Greatest Economic Charity," by F.A. Harper, a contributor to the book, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises. In it, Harper, who joined the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946 and founded his own think tank—the Institute for Humane Studies—in l963, quoted Moses Maimonides, 1135–1204, a Talmudic thinker of Spain, as follows: The noblest charity is to preclude a man from accepting charity, and the best alms are to show and enable a man to dispense with alms.

True economic charity, held Harper, has three iron requisites, each of which should be viewed in the light of so-called "welfare reform":

1. The charity needs a transfer of ownership from one individual to another of something having economic value. The donor must have clear title to the gift; it cannot be stolen goods or public goods. Private ownership, not public ownership, is needed at both sides of a charitable transfer or gift.

2. The transfer has to be voluntary with both parties. If it is forced from the giver or givers, it amounts to theft. If it is forced on the receiver or receivers, it is not charity but state interventionism, or what Frédéric Bastiat called "legal plunder," a blatant case of vote-buying and third-party payments using other people's money. (America's "free" public schools and Medicare qualify as cases in point.)

3. True charity requires anonymity. Harper conceded that this goal is tough to reach—as you gather from the various family names gracing the buildings on practically every private campus—but he still worried that devices other than anonymity "usually fail to prevent the creation of a personal obligation."

To Harper, such an obligation was a key no-no. He clung to Maim-onides's understanding of the noblest charity: That whatever cuts self-reliance and individual independence is ignoble and counterproductive. If the act is goaded by vainglory, by an ego trip, it is simply not charity, argued Harper. He cited the Biblical call that one who gives alms should not sound his trumpet before him "as do the hypocrites."

You can see where Harper was heading: to total welfare privatization, and more. He saw Ludwig von Mises as a charitable person more so than being an economist of world renown, for he gave mankind "his inspiring mind and spirit." Harper referred to the Mises spirit of freedom and free enterprise in contrast to the spirit of "dependency, insecurity, and slavery" as fostered, for example, by the policies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the French Revolution or of Karl Marx in the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Said Harper of Mises's gift of his "inspiring mind and spirit" to mankind: "In my opinion, there can be no greater charity than this, for it endures beyond any material form of benevolence."

Harper was most concerned that state "charity" nowadays spells enslavement in one degree or another, that alms-giving or welfarism is "pernicious" (his word), that it embodies residual obligations which, in one way or another, become suspended in uncertainty forever. Worship of the state tends to follow, entrenching or deifying the welfare state at the ballot box by citizens unmindful of the zero-sum fact that government has nothing to give other than what it first takes away.

Welfarism's loss of self-reliance, of individual rights, is critical as well as immoral. Harper quoted St. Thomas Aquinas: "There is no security for us so long as we depend on the will of another man." He quoted Greek philosopher Plutarch: "The real destroyer of the liberties of any people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and largesses." So Harper maintained that self-reliance thus gets short shrift in welfare schemes from Rome's "bread and circuses" to Washington's "affordable housing" and "Social Security."

At this point, Harper made an amazing leap in logic and persuasion as to just what makes up our "greatest economic charity." He conceded that some won't buy into his use here of the term "charity," insisting on its earlier usage as an individual approach of brotherly love and compassion if ignoring its more modern usage as including alms-giving and, worse, welfarism or oxymoronic "public charity."

Nonetheless, Harper argued that those three critical criteria for true charity, including voluntarism, an-onymity, and a transfer of privately- owned things having economic worth, are best met in that Misesian system of freedom and free enterprise.

So Harper pointed out that a large part of the high level of prosperity enjoyed broadly in America arises from the widespread use of capitalism and, in particular, capital: i.e., in the growth and use of tools both in terms of plant, equipment, and high-tech, and of human skills and talents such as those in computer programming and truck driving or in medicine, engineering, and the arts.

The upshot of all this capital creation is America's outstanding output per worker compared to the rest of the world—output or productivity making possible America's high living standards, the highest of any major industrial nation in the world, thanks to enormous capital accumulation resulting in the highest wages and salaries, overall, in the industrial world.

What a joke on Marx. He christened capitalism with its telling name and unintended well-being for its sovereign consumers, while his system of communism empowered coercive government to rob consumers of goods, denying them both political and economic choice, while generously providing them with plenty of gulags for dissidents.

Now, asked Harper, who created this outpouring of highly productive capital tools? He answered his own question by simply alluding to legions of "invisible hand" savers and investors—those inadvertent charity providers with their delightful unplanned consequences of a freer and more prosperous society.

Even more remarkable in the Harper analysis is that, based on US government national income data, the return to capital owners is but about 15 percent in terms of dividends, interest, rents, and royalties together with their equivalents in owner-operated businesses, while the return to capital users is around 85 percent, including wages and salaries to employees and their equivalent to those self-employed.

Well, assuming the accuracy of those figures, how come the saver-investor gets less than one-sixth of what his saving and investing made possible? In response, Harper simply noted that the division is peacefully solved by the market, by private ownership and free exchange, by the "selfish owners," as those who save and invest are so often tarred, and who "are really the greatest charity-givers of all."

Harper admitted that a man who saves and invests is hardly without a personal incentive to do so, but he maintained that such a man is still mightily giving, serving his fellow man in building up the national stockpile of tools and thereby raising living standards for all.

What compounds the tragedy of the modern welfare state then is the widespread mirage of a free lunch, of a common failure to see how the growing burden of rising taxes drags down the outlook for savings and profitable investment. This drag, if unrelieved, would in time snuff out the drive to save and invest—killing off this vastly unknown and unappreciated bounty and charity arising from capital creation, from more and better tools. As F.A. Harper—in addressing, when you think about it, both the West and the Third World—concluded his profound essay:

"The greatest economic charity is that which enables persons to become independent of alms and therefore most self-reliant and secure under freedom. Only when that happens—when persons advance from the brink of starvation—is time released for devotion to things of the mind and spirit, which comprise the supremely great charity."

F. Roger Devlin #fundie toqonline.com

[A review of "Third Ways" by Allan C. Carlson]

Adam Smith and David Ricardo expressed cautious optimism that an unhindered market in labor would provide the ordinary working man a large enough wage to marry and raise a few children; but neither claimed to have demonstrated the necessity of this. Radicals such as Marx and Engels soon challenged the idea, maintaining that capitalism transformed labor into an ordinary commodity which women and even children could sell to capitalists at a fraction of the cost for adult men. The traditional autonomy and solidarity of the family would thereby fall prey to industrial efficiency and the Faustian quest for profits. Later liberal economists such as J. S. Mill and Alfred Marshall came to agree with the Marxists that the capitalist market economy makes no natural accommodation to the family.

...

It might at first sight seem paradoxical that families could ever be economically worse off having a second income instead of just one. But this is a classic example of what logicians call the fallacy of composition. It works like this. When an exciting play occurs in a baseball game, all the fans jump to their feet to get a better view. Do they actually get a better view? On average, no. If only one fan were to rise, he would get a better view; but when all rise, the overall view is no better than before. Analogously, an individual woman entering the workforce undoubtedly improves her own material situation; but if the great mass of women enters the workforce, the overall effect is merely to glut the market for labor, driving down wages for everyone.

...

No “law of economics” prevents such insulation of women and children from the labor market. All societies treat certain things they especially value as extra commerciam—outside the scope of market exchange. There need be no market for beef, for example, in a country where cows are considered sacred. Or again, as long as a market in slaves existed they were subject to the same law of supply and demand as any other commodity; but this market could be abolished, and was. Similarly, there need be no market for women’s labor in a country which values home life and family solidarity more than maximal industrial efficiency. Except under rare conditions involving extreme destitution—e.g., where women’s or children’s wage work might be necessary to allow everyone in a family to eat adequately—any society can enjoy as much family autonomy as it is willing to pay for in such efficiency. Proponents of family-centered “third ways” believe such a tradeoff worthwhile; some may disagree, but there is no economic absurdity involved in the idea.

If you are even familiar with the term “family wage” today, you are showing your age. Yet this ideal, writes Carlson, “dominated labor goals throughout the North Atlantic region from the mid-nineteenth through mid-twentieth centuries and had measurable effects on wages and the labor market.” While industrialists almost without exception advocated the “right” of poor women to work (and drive down men’s wages), working class husbands felt differently. They fought for and won wages that permitted their women to remain at home with the children. In Britain between 1842 and 1914, for example, “substantial gains in material standards were achieved by the working class, accompanied by the movement of women from wage-earning to domestic pursuits.” Similarly, in Belgium there was “a thorough transformation in the family life of workers between 1853 and 1891, based on a withdrawal of married women from the labor market and a dramatic rise in the real incomes of men” (p. 44). Keep this in mind the next time you hear a feminist complacently assert the “impossibility” of returning to the days when a woman’s place was in the home.

In America the family wage ideal rested on legal barriers, direct discrimination (gasp!) against categories of female workers, marriage bans, and labor laws requiring the special treatment of women, discouraging their employment. The system was strong enough to survive the New Deal, but was dealt a body blow by the entry of the United States into World War II and the consequent mobilization of women for industry. The National War Production Board recommended “a single evaluation line for all jobs in a plant regardless whether performed by men or women.” Only 13 percent of US firms had followed such a policy in 1939, but by 1947, 57 percent did (pp. 45–46).

...

“Equal pay for equal work” is a masterful piece of political rhetoric with a sort of “2+2=4” ring to it. Carlson catalogues for us a few of the realities this deceptive slogan has served to conceal. First of all, family households with only a single male wage earner have experienced a decline in real income: between 1973 and 1993 alone, this decline amounted to 13.6 percent. Next, single-income families have been put at a mounting competitive disadvantage relative to two-income families in the acquisition of consumer goods. There has also been a sizeable increase in the number of men earning less than a “poverty line” wage, and similar growth in the number of children living in female-headed households. Married women are increasingly faced with a stark choice: leave their young children during the day to try to earn income, or stay with them and fall into poverty. Either way, the children lose (pp. 50–51).

For the first time in history, notes our author, the family is becoming completely industrialized. Gardening, food preparation, home repairs, child care, and other residual forms of home production are being abandoned by busy couples in favor of market-provided services; in other words, the home has no economy of its own, but has become at best a kind of consumer’s cooperative (pp. 51–52). With the economic rationale for marriage thus eroded, divorce, transitory cohabitation, bastardy, abortion, and loneliness all increase. We have come a long way, baby.

Sweden is often held up as the best model of a country pursuing a “third way” between capitalism and socialism. Carlson devotes a chapter to the evolution of Swedish family policy in the past century and the ideological debates surrounding it; rumor has it that its original title was “Desperate Swedish Socialist Housewives.” However that may be, this chapter makes especially clear the difficulty of arranging family policy prescriptions neatly on a conventional left-right ideological spectrum. As early as 1866, delegates to the First Socialist International “approved a resolution calling for bans on the employment of women. The measure’s sponsors reasoned that working women pressed down overall wage levels and displaced men; in their view, working women were the equivalent of strikebreakers” (p. 113). Sweden’s Social Democratic Party adopted this view, and for many years it remained normative for Swedish “progressives.”

...

By the 1960s, however, Alva Myrdal and her stridently anti-familial feminism were again on the march. Individual rather than familial taxation became a central issue in Swedish politics. As passage of the measure approached, a “Campaign for the Family” was launched. Fifty thousand letters of protest poured into the Prime Minister’s office; thousands of women marched on the Riksdag in (as one Swedish newspaper put it) “history’s first housewife demonstration.”

It was to no avail. In 1970, individual taxation went into effect; overnight, a housewife became an expensive luxury (pp. 129–31). Carlson writes: “Correctly labeled the era of Red Sweden, the first Olaf Palme government committed a kind of feminist genocide, intentionally eliminating a whole class of women through coerced ‘reeducation’ and forced labor” (p. 179).

The family wage is by nature a compromise with industrial capitalism; it turns one member of the family over to the labor market in exchange for keeping the rest insulated from it. Distributism, the economic platform advocated by Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton, went farther by seeking to counteract some of the inherent tendencies of capitalism directly.

Ross Douthat #sexist nytimes.com

The Redistribution of Sex

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …

… which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

Anna Rountree #fundie 64.71.77.248

Jesus held me at arm’s length, studying my face. He smiled, turned, and led the way toward the building.

The atmosphere in the valley was red as though the building was catching the light from a distant forest fire. It was eerie. It cast long shadows across the valley.

The shadows traveled up the building until they reached two enormous black marble dragons on top. These dragons were facing each other with their wings uplifted and touching like the cherubim over the mercy seat.

The building was a mockery of the ark of the covenant. It was deathly dark as if it were made from antimatter. The black marble exterior was wet, and the overbearing humidity made it difficult to breathe.

Shadow Warriors

Thousands of soldiers were standing shoulder to shoulder on all four sides of the building. They wore an ancient style of armor whose design I had never seen. These warriors were camped around the building, just as the Levites were instructed to camp around the desert tabernacle. None of them moved when we passed through their numbers, however.

“Why?” I wondered. I glanced down their ranks to see if I could discern the reason for their inaction. The faces within the helmets were shadow. But their eyes tracked us.

I suddenly remembered how the two angels that were sent to rescue Lot had temporarily blinded the men of Sodom. Jesus, I thought, must have rendered these demons inert. They were alert. But they were incapable of action. They held their ranks like clay soldiers buried with early Chinese emperors.

The Approach

After passing through most of the ranks of the soldiers, Jesus approached the building. The structure had the appearance of a gigantic mausoleum. As we drew near, I could see that the black marble dragons were breathing. So were the black marble monkeys that formed a decoration around the top of the building. These leered down at us.

The massive double doors unlatched as we approached. They opened slowly. Each door was of great weight. They pictured satan ’s supposed conquests. They were executed in bronze relief and were similar to the doors of European cathedrals that often depict the life of Christ.

Within

The doors opened outwardly to give us entry to a large, windowless room. The smell within the room was odious. The room, like the valley, seemed lit by distant fires. My eyes traveled up to a heavy raised cornice. It formed a crown around the top of the room. A text was written upon it in an ancient language of wedges and triangles.

Jesus waved His hand, and the lettering changed so that I was able to read the inscription. The text proclaimed satan ’s five “I wills” with which he intended to vault himself above the throne of God and crown himself king of the universe. I shuddered.

Hanging upside down from this cornice were half-female, half-batlike demons—the Lilith, the vampire demons that hunt at night. They were repugnant. I dropped my gaze and saw the reason for the stench in the room. Bat guano.

On Display

Display tables flanked either side of the room. These were covered with what seemed to be black velvet. The objects on display were shining with light from within. The objects were beautiful, not because of exquisite workmanship nor because they were encrusted with jewels. Instead, they seemed to have some beauty bestowed upon them by God. They were His, for His people had used them. Now they sat on display like war mementos. I quickly glanced over the tables in astonishment. This was a trophy room.

Stolen From God

Each article was labeled with a clay marker. The same wedges and triangular-shaped writing was on these markers as was on the cornice. Again, Jesus waved His hand. The language changed so that I could read the labels.

On display were the just measure, Miriam’s tambourine, Bezalel’s renderings for the workers (of the patterns given to Moses on the mount), the widow’s bowl, various musical instruments of ancient design, and on and on. We passed article after article that had been used by God in some extraordinary way and then stolen from Him. I could only suppose that these had been taken into the enemy camp because of the sins of God’s people.

I was heartened, however, by the empty spaces on the tables. The labels showed articles that apparently had been rescued to be used by God’s people again. Goliath’s sword that was used by David was missing. David’s harp had been retrieved. There was an empty space where once a banner had been displayed. As we neared the rear of the trophy room, I saw a white embroidered robe on a black clothes stand. It was luminescent. satan had displayed it by itself, as if it were a prized acquisition.

The Fresco

Beyond this article on the rear wall was a vivid fresco.” Before the fresco burned black candles. The flickering lights from the candles seemed to give the fresco a life of its own.

The fresco began at its base with recounting after recounting of brutal tortures of some of God’s people. Those being tortured still seemed alive. The fresco was like none I had ever seen. It was similar to a hologram. Light from the candles caused the pictures to have progressive action, so that those suffering suffered again, with satan supposedly gaining the victory again and again. Barbarous.

The Throne of Skulls

My eyes traveled up this mountain of slaughter to about one-third of the way to the ceiling. Here the fresco began to depict a mound of skulls. This mound rose to a throne of skulls upon which sat the goat-like legs of a satyr.

The enthroned creature had the torso and arms of a human but the head and horns of a goat. In this goat/man's left hand was held a picture of the world. In his other hand was the location for two keys. The outline of the keys was still there, but the keys of death and of Hades had been removed from his hand.

The fresco vaulted up until it covered the first half of the ceiling like a frightful canopy. It was satan , goatlike, enthroned upon a mountainous pile of human skulls. He was gloating in sinister splendor. As God the Father is enthroned upon the praises of His people, satan is enthroned upon his murderous savageries and sadistic cruelties.

A chill ran through me. Flickering light from the black candles caused satan ’s face to move, seemingly to change before my eyes. His snake-like eyes glared at me.

The Embroidered Robe

Jesus touched my shoulder. I flinched. We began to walk toward the acquisition at the very back—the embroidered robe.

It was fall length with long sleeves. The design of the garment was simple. A man or woman could have worn it. Its richness lay in the embroidered work that was executed in white gold of exceptional purity The embroidery arose from the robe. The pattern was intricate and exceptionally beautiful. As I moved a little before the garment, all the colors within the radiance of the Father seemed to play across its surface.

The weight and thickness of the various gold threads seemed to symbolize attributes of the Lord. The robe reflected these as if they had been woven into the garment.

The Embroidery

I had no idea a garment could communicate that which was of the character of Christ. Still, I wanted to move slightly before the embroidery to ascertain what was woven into the fabric.

I received the impression of “a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” The garment also reflected “bearing with one another” and “forgiving each other.”’ The thread that had the greatest weight and was the most frequently used was “love.”

These were part of the character of Christ that Paul enumerated in Colossians 3:12—14. He had told the body of Christ alive at that time to “put on” this garment. If he had told them to put it on, they must have had it in their possession but were not wearing it. I gathered that sin had eventually allowed the garment to be taken from God’s children. Sad. We had great need of it.

Jesus spoke to me quietly. “The garment is for the soul and heart. It is an inner garment that becomes visible through actions, through decisions that effect unity [oneness in Christ].”

He continued, “I am the new, inner garment—others rather than self. The supreme Other is God [the Father] Himself—His rights, His needs, and His desires before all. I have purchased you for our Father. I have washed you and clothed you with garments of holiness and beauty, garments of salvation and righteousness. Anna, clothe yourself in Me—garments of salvation for the whole person [body, soul, heart, and spirit]. Clothe yourself in Me—attributes of righteousness that are beautiful to God [the Father].”

I turned back to look at the robe. It was exquisite. The Lord’s virtues woven into the garment had brought the body of Christ into “the perfect bond of unity.” Paul had said this. How we needed it now.

He continued, “The embroidered garment is to be worn by those who are the bride. It was handed down in our family. Those who were entering into fuller union with Me wore it. There is none like it. It belongs to our household.”

As I looked at the robe, I realized that to enter into a deeper relationship with Christ meant to enter into a deeper covenant with His body. The two are inseparable.

The Recovery

“Carefully listen to Me,” Jesus said softly. “I want you to remove the garment, then quickly climb onto My back.” Without hesitation He placed His hand on the top of the velvet clothes rack.

I did not have time to think. Instantly I obeyed and began to remove the robe. The more I disengaged the garment, the harder He pressed on the top of the rack. I supposed He was compensating for some weight of glory in it. He continued to press on the top of the rack as I folded the embroidered robe so that it could be carried.

When the garment had been secured, I looked at Jesus. He gave the flicker of a smile, winked at me, and then removed His hand from the rack.

The Escape

Screams, sirens, and alarms of all kinds immediately arose together. All restraints were removed from everything within this realm.

Quickly the Lord became the white Eagle. Nervously I scrambled onto His back.

The vampire bat demons unfolded their huge wings. Their eyes were bloodred. They hissed through their fanged mouths. They were deranged with fury.

The doors to the front of the trophy room began to close. The white Eagle had to fly with His wings perpendicular to the floor to pass through the narrow opening. I tightened my arms and legs around Him, pressing the robe between my flattened body and His back. We passed through the opening like a single unit. With searing screams everything—bats, monkeys, dragons, soldiers—wrenched awake.

It seemed as though everything in the corrupted stratum breathed down upon us in the chase—screeching, squalling, shrieking, a cacophony of blood-curdling sounds raised behind us. They were a frenzied juggernaut.

The marble dragons wrenched free from the top of the building with all the cracking and tearing that accompany a structure being torn apart. The black marble monkeys violently ripped free to join in the hunt. The Lilith and shadow warriors rabidly pursued. Whether hoofed, winged, clawed, flightless, or airborne, they pressed us. They were a murderous horde of frenzy and rage.

Quickly demons from elsewhere in the second heaven joined these in the chase. The whole second heaven sounded like one dangerous, wounded animal. The bone-chilling cries that went up from that place made my blood run cold. Horrific.

I clung to the white Eagle. It was a wild ride. Wild! … but exhilarating. I threw back my head, gulping air and laughing silently. Let them roar. That was all that it was, a roar. A show. I was with Jesus, and Jesus had won the victory! Let them roar!

Dan Roodt #racist amren.com

South Africa Wins Rugby World Cup. Why Does it Give Me No Joy?

In a Rugby World Cup final in Japan, for which most pundits predicted an easy win for England, the South African rugby team won by 32-12 and became world champions for the third time. All over the country, in bars and on the streets, there were celebratory shouts and honking cars with green Springbok team flags flying from their windows.

I do not follow rugby, nor watch so-called Super Rugby on the pay-TV channels. Our bankrupt public TV corporation, the SABC, can no longer afford the rights to broadcast rugby. However, I discovered that I could stream the match in French on my computer. Boris Johnson and I therefore had something in common: We both seem to have followed it live in our respective studies.

If it had been any other opponent, such as New Zealand or Australia, I probably would not have bothered, but losing against England would have been especially bitter. England is the source of our misfortune, a country whose politicians and diplomats have largely destroyed Western civilization in this part of the world. Not only did the English media, rock stars, and even the royal family enthusiastically support the Afro-Marxist terrorist movement known as the ANC, but their Queen also bestowed a knighthood on Robert Mugabe, the dictator to our north. The now deceased Zimbabwean could be called the king of all anti-white blacks. Admittedly, the British did quietly retract the knighthood once the worst of Mugabe’s excesses became known, but still. How dare they? — as Greta Thunberg would say.

Prince Harry of Sussex, the first British royal to marry someone we in South Africa would call “Coloured,” visited the Springbok rugby team in the changing rooms at Yokohama International Stadium after their brilliant victory. Amazingly — or perhaps not — his brief address to the players was not about rugby at all.

“Congratulations,” the red-haired Prince said. “I generally think that rugby has the ability to unite everyone around the world. And I could not think of a nation who needs it more than you guys right now.” And raising a bottle of Heineken given to him by one of the Afrikaner players: “So on that, well done.” He then posed next to the lock (a player in the second row of the scrum) Eben Etzebeth, apparently saying, “F*ck, you’re tall.”
And that’s where rugby, politics, and race collide. For over a century, the Springboks have been very successful against teams from much larger Western countries because of our physical advantages. The torturous evolution we have gone through on the African savanna, being constantly attacked by wild animals, poisonous snakes, and above all, black tribes for whom killing sometimes seems like their form of rugby, seems to have bestowed gifts on us, one of which is size. We are a race of giants. At least you can get that impression from meeting rugby players, especially the tall locks who have to jump for the ball during line-outs.

During the semi-final game against Wales, the two French commentators were clearly biased against the Springboks, hoping the lumbering Welsh team with their heavy pack of forwards grinding toward the goal line would win. However, as it became obvious that the Springboks would carry the day, the two Frenchmen ascribed it to their niveau d’aggressivité (level of aggressiveness).

The Left in South Africa, especially the English Left, has long decried Afrikaner dominance in rugby, which they call a sport for “racist, white males.” Our universities and other leftists have already provided us with endless denunciations of the Afrikaner passion for rugby and its alleged celebration of whiteness, toxic masculinity, racism, and Afrikaner fascism. What the 1936 Olympic Games were to Nazism, we are told, rugby has always been to the Afrikaner.

Since we have been excluded from politics, the military, the police, academia, big business, and soon the church, the game of the egg-shaped ball is perhaps the last thing we are allowed to do. Or not. The relentless demands of affirmative action have seen to it that even rugby is no longer an all-white, all-Afrikaner game. Ever since the days of anti-apartheid protests and sports boycotts, the agile little gazelle that gives the Springboks their team name has been unpopular. Successive sports ministers of the ANC regime have tried to suppress the name, a quintessentially Afrikaans word that does not have an English translation.

South Africa is the only country in the world where there are racial quotas in sport — against whites. Such quotas are essentially aimed at rugby, as well as netball — a sport like basketball but for women — in which Afrikaner women excel. Various complicated rules have accumulated over the years of ANC rule or — more correctly — social engineering. At any given moment, a certain number of “players of colour” have to be on the field. Otherwise, teams are fined, coaches are fired, or sponsors withhold funds.

During the World Cup in Japan, for the first time ever, the Springbok captain was a black player. Siya Kolisi happens be married to a blonde wife with whom he has two children. Most of the media coverage focused on him, as a kind of “miracle man,” and not on the white players.

Inside South Africa, the black players — who are normally less than half of the team — get all the credit and are lauded as “rugby geniuses.” Outside the country, there are sometimes more objective views. One British columnist, Stuart Barnes, was candid enough to write in the London Times before the final game that Captain Kolisi would serve the team best by sitting on the bench:

"Strip the politics and emotion out of the equation and the rugby case for benching Kolisi is powerful. Pieter-Steph du Toit [a white player] has been far more influential in his lineout and counter-rucking than his fellow flanker. He has to start."

Indeed, shortly after the final game, the lamentably white Mr. du Toit was named World Rugby Player of the Year, and the equally white Afrikaner Rassie Erasmus was crowned World Rugby Coach of the Year.

Many commentators, both sports and political, compared this year’s victory and the “sense of unity” it supposedly engendered to the one in 1995 when we beat New Zealand’s All Blacks in the World Cup final in Johannesburg – with one black player on the team. Nelson Mandela ingratiated himself with whites, especially Afrikaners, by donning a number-6 Springbok shirt like the one worn by captain Francois Pienaar, and appearing at the stadium in front of the crowd and the cameras.

During their three decades as an international terrorist group, headquartered in London and supported financially by both the Soviet Union and Sweden, the ANC had always boycotted rugby. The very image of the Springbok was “racist,” and the ANC regime is still trying to have it removed or even banned, like our old South African flag and anthem.

At the time, Mandela’s gesture was called “reconciliation,” but in South Africa, that word means establishing black domination. Not long afterward, Mandela clashed with the rugby administration over affirmative action and racial quotas.

Nearly 30 years later, some are still unsatisfied. On the eve of the final game in Japan, liberal journalist Pieter du Toit wrote:

"Because of its place in history and the architecture of society – a team once rooted in chauvinistic nationalism and exclusion, now diverse, humble and welcoming – the Boks will always be controversial. Whilst many live and breathe the green-and-gold, there are still many for whom it remains symbolic of subjugation and segregation."

Nobody knows the inner feelings of blacks better than liberal white journalists, but in the wake of the Springbok triumph in Japan, “reconciliation,” “unity between the races,” and the slogan “stronger together” are being bandied about by both the media and politicians. Of course, despite the euphoria, we are not together.

In the run-up to the World Cup, the above-mentioned giant, Eben Etzebeth, was accused of assaulting a Coloured man in a bar and calling him the “H-word.” That was “hotnot” in Afrikaans, a shortened form of “Hottentot,” which was the original European word for the primitive hunter-gatherer tribes on the Cape coast, whom we now must call Khoikhoi. “Hottentot” is thought to have originated from the German hotteren-totteren or “stutter,” referring to the click-sound language of the tribes.

The list of taboo words in South Africa grows all the time. In 1996, shortly after the ANC came to power, a Springbok coach, André Markgraaff, was forced to resign after calling one of the new black sports administrators a “kaffir.” South Africa, like the USA, represents a semantic minefield.

As soon as Eben Etzebeth steps off the plane from Japan, he will face the wrath of the South African Human Rights Commission, which has little to do with human rights but more with race-baiting and the persecution of whites who stray from the code of subservience. The head of legal services at the Human Rights Commission has promised that Mr. Etzebeth will be charged with attempted murder.

Rugby, like the Afrikaans language or the very presence of the white minority in South Africa, is a relic of the hated past, but that past, despite all the propaganda efforts to the contrary, is looking increasingly like a lost golden age. It was a time when South Africa was not only winning on the rugby field but also in education, health, construction, industrialization, honest government, municipal services, electricity generation, water treatment, administration, etc. Needless to say, the ANC regime is failing in all these areas and many others. We have blackouts or so-called “load shedding,” and many rural towns do not have potable water.

Even Prince Harry’s “unity” comments echo an awareness of South Africa’s increasing status as a failed state. Rugby is therefore the lone swallow that does not a summer make. The team’s meticulous Afrikaner coach, Rassie Erasmus, who has brought strategy and daring to their game, is a man of yesterday, an anachronism from a time before black sports ministers and the so-called Human Rights Commission.

It gave me a few moments of satisfaction that we had, once more, beaten our arch-rival England, but that soon gave way to a sense of tragedy. Our players, from the gargantuan Eben Etzebeth to the diminutive scrumhalf Faf de Klerk, are gladiators in green-and-gold. Like most gladiators, they are doomed to die in the arena. Instead of their undoubted talent and prowess counting toward the esteem of our Afrikaner nation, they are glorifying the ANC’s zombie nation, as well as the giant corporations whose brands they bear and who are contributing to the demise of whites.

Under apartheid, we had military, economic, energy and financial boycotts against us. In Amsterdam, they threw Afrikaans books in the canal next to South Africa House; elsewhere they spat on our diplomats. But the worst, it seems, was the sports boycott. In a sunny country dedicated to outdoor pursuits, it prevented us from showing off our athletes and our rugby players on the international stage.

Patti Waldmeir, a correspondent for the Financial Times in South Africa during the early ’90s, wrote in her book, Anatomy of a Miracle, that “the Afrikaners swapped apartheid for rugby, and thought they had made a good deal.”

Hence the Faustian Pact that our hapless leaders made with the ANC’s communist politicians: If only we handed them our country, we could play rugby against the All Blacks again — the same New Zealanders who held up placards saying, “Boks go home,” and who spread broken glass on the field in their country where we were supposed to practice.

Like every Faustian Pact, this one was bound to go bad. We have already paid a staggering price, with trillions of rand looted from the state and state-owned companies by corrupt ANC politicians and their cronies. Our infrastructure has been gutted, our environment polluted, our language and culture suppressed.

Rugby is not worth it. Seeing two Afrikaans high-school teams playing each other should satisfy our need for rugby. Why play against other nations from the British imperial system who hate us? It might help if we could have our own team, free of racial quotas and affirmative action. It would be an Afrikaner team, just as there are three national teams in the United Kingdom: Scotland, Wales, and England.

We would fly our orange, white and blue flag, the one which has been officially declared “hate speech” by a South African court. We would play our national anthem, “Die Stem,” at international matches.

This is all unthinkable. Probably the Springbok will be replaced by some ANC symbol soon, just as our street names have been changed. Then the so-called “transformation” of the team will be complete. A few Afrikaner gladiators will still be allowed to play.

Our triumph over England in Japan is a Pyrrhic victory. We have won a game but we have lost a nation, our nation, the real one, not the meretricious, multicultural hodgepodge that the media and the beer advertisements with their gleeful images of blacks and whites “happy together” promote.

I have nothing to celebrate.

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!

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.

Thought Catalog #sexist wehuntedthemammoth.com

No, Amy Schumer did not give a speech celebrating how she raped a guy

Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.

In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.

The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.

After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an “ambitious” attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didn’t want to be “this girl” any more, “waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.”

Looking back on the incident, she thanks her failed lover for introducing her “to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her.”

But Thought Catalog’s anonymous author, noting the extreme drunkenness of Schumer’s stumbling lover, concludes that “Amy’s actions may have constituted as rape in the eyes of her college, Towson University.” (Or at least according to the school’s current policies.)

Anonymous quotes Towson’s current policy on sexual harassment, which states:

"In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability)."

And adds:

"It’s hard to argue that Matt was not mentally incapacitated. In Amy’s words, he was “wasted.” "

Actually, the fact that Matt wasn’t too intoxicated to initiate an assortment of sexual acts with her — or to get up and change the music at her request — suggests that he wasn’t “mentally incapacitated,” at least by the standards used by colleges when investigating alleged sexual assaults. The Association of Title IX Administrators’ Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy (which sets an unofficial standard for college administrators) defines incapacitation as “a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing consent (e.g., to understand the ‘who, what, when, where, why or how’ of their sexual interaction).”

In any case, it’s not clear why Anonymous is looking at Towson’s sexual harassment policy, which is designed to deal with “non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, or requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions,” and which clearly doesn’t apply to Schumer’s story.

As for sexual assault, the school’s official web site states:

"Sexual assault is defined by Towson University as forcible sexual intercourse, sexual penetration–however slight–of another person’s genital or anal opening with any object, sodomy, or any unwanted touching of an unwilling person’s intimate parts or forcing an unwilling person to touch another’s intimate parts. Under this definition, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim’s mental or physical helplessness, of which the accuser was or should have been aware. This includes, but is not limited to, victim helplessness resulting from intoxication or from the taking of a so-called “date-rape drug.”"

This definition is drawn from the University of Maryland System Policy on Sexual Assault, which classifies sexual assault involving penetration — the traditional definition of rape — as a more serious type of sexual assault (Sexual Assault I) than those forms of sexual assault involving touching (Sexual Assault II). By this standard, assuming we equate Sexual Assault I with rape, Schumer clearly did not rape him.

Anonymous then looks at Maryland’s state laws and concludes:

"In the eyes of Maryland state law, things get a bit more complicated. Amy could be guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on whether or not penetration was achieved. According to the state law, a person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another “if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual.” Legally, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t rape, at least given the details in Amy’s speech."

Well, actually, yes it is. And not just legally, but by any reasonable definition of the word “rape.”

Because Schumer, at least by her account, wasn’t “the person performing the act.” He was. She was lying there wondering what had gone wrong with her life.

If you read the speech in its entirety, instead of depending on the selective quotations in the Thought Catalog post, this is abundantly clear. As she describes it, he:

Pushes her down on the bed; as she writes, he does “that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, ‘I’m taking the wheel on this one. Now I’m going to blow your mind. …’”

Penetrates her with his fingers; as she writes, “[h]is fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.”

Tries to have intercourse, though his penis is only half-willing; she describes him as “pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.” Even using the “made to penetrate” standard, she’s not raping him, because she’s not making him do anything; he’s the active one.

Goes down on her.

Attempts intercourse again; this time, “[o]n his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast.”

At no point in Schumer’s story does she describe herself as initiating anything. Indeed, she spends much of the time thinking to herself how much she wants to leave.

"He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? … Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, “Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay.”"

If a woman initiates sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s rape. But a woman lying motionless trying to dissociate while a man tries to penetrate her is not a rapist. Even if he is drunk.

And that’s the case no matter how you switch the genders up.

Of course that’s not how they see things on Reddit, where most of those who’ve commented on the story have been quick to agree with the Thought Catalog author that Schumer raped her partner. Ironically, it’s been those outside the Men’s Rights subreddit who have been the most outspoken on this point. In TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit ostensibly devoted to women but in fact overrun with MRAs and other antifeminists, someone calling herself Shield_Maiden831 has gotten more than 200 net upvotes for a comment concluding that “f you really believe in equality, then it seems to be a clear cut case from her own admission.”

Not everyone agrees. Elsewhere in TwoX , one commenter by the name of critropolitan argues, I think quite cogently, that

"Unless the full transcript reveals something that the quotes in the article don’t, it doesn’t seem like Schumer exploited this guys mental state to do something to him that violated his will.

He was the one who called her.

He was the one who acted every step of the way and she went along with it.

Assuming that a person who is drunk is, automatically, in virtue of being drunk, without agency, is a mistake. It is moreover a mistake only made with regard to sex – no one thinks the same with regard to bar fights or the choice to drive. Drunken sex might not be the platonic ideal of sex, but it is not automatically rape in every case regardless of the actual state of minds, wishes, and feelings of the participants. …

There is no suggestion that Amy engaged in any sexual contact with this guy while he was passed out, or that she did something he didn’t want to do but he simply lacked the capacity to effectively resist or communicate non consent. Instead he was drunk enough to show significant signs of drunkeness, but not so drunk that he couldn’t not only communicate effectively but take a sexual initiative.

Rapists can exploit the vulnerability of drunk people, but we must walk back from the bizarre and agency-denying position that all drunk sex is rape. Rape is far too serious a matter for this bullshit."

It is.

But of course the MRAs and antifeminists on Reddit now accusing Schumer of rape aren’t interested in taking rape seriously. Indeed, if we look back on how they regularly talk about rape and issues of consent, it’s clearly they’re interested in taking rape less seriously. Their main interest in this case is as a supposed “gotcha” of a prominent female comedian with feminist leanings. In the process they are slandering her, and trivializing the real issue of rape.

American Monarchist Society #wingnut #crackpot americanmonarchistsociety.com

Possible and Desirable

Not only is a monarchy possible for the United States, but it’s desirable.
Our current form of government is broken.
The people who defend our government at all costs are not being realistic. They want to preserve it infallibly despite all its damage and disunity. They try to defend the republic by associating it with the American identity, by appealing to a dream of representing the American people.
They’re not for Americans, because our current government does not represent Americans at all. It’s saturated by the ultra-wealthy and secretive, progressive elite. The idea that the republic is more representative than monarchy at this point is laughable.
The defendants of the republic are not for the future. They fight for a strict interpretation of an artificial constitution composed almost 250 years ago. It’s obvious that the simple amendment system is not good enough for stemming off fatal corruption. Sometimes, it’s even worked to politicians’ advantage.
Enough is enough. Only a powerful, moral leader could save the United States from all sorts of destruction: political, cultural, and fiscal. The republic does not hold the answer. Rather than give way to an unbounded tyrant, we propose to restore the tradition which has safeguarded the West and responsibly directed her leaders.
Mission
The ad hoc mission of the American Monarchist Society is to establish an active advocacy for traditionalist monarchist politics in the United States, with the terminus of establishing a monarchy to replace the current democratic republic.

It is evident that the terminus is unachievable due to certain current issues in the United States. Consequently, advocacy for monarchy virtually contains the completion of steps which precede the installation of a sovereign. Each step’s success is conditional to the success of the next, so they must be completed in order and with complete focus. They are:

The restoration of natural virtue’s due recognition and practice, both in private and public life.
The re-stratification of the social order; that the discipline of expertise never again be cheapened into a false honor, and that the due obedience to experts be reinforced.
The reintroduction of social stratification into public life as legal hierarchy.
Codification of hierarchical offices into the recreation of a dedicated nobility.
The peaceable introduction of a new constitutional convention to proclaim a most virtuous American sovereign.
These five steps can each be summed up by the essence of their respective objects: virtue, order, hierarchy, nobility, and proclamation.

Traditionalism
The mission is illuminated by a position known as traditionalism. The name originates from the ubiquitous presence this mindset enjoyed for most of Western history. Its core beliefs are responsible for founding Western civilization as the united, advanced, and transcendental culture that we now see in decline. It wasn’t constrained to an ideology, but it simply refers to a way of life that ordered all parts of man towards their respective good. More concretely, traditionalism is best defined by what it is not, by its aspects under attack in the modern world.

Multiple philosophies, governments, economies, and cultures have been categorized under traditionalism. What makes them common and differentiates them from other mindsets is both their ordering man to respective goods, and the specific difference of Western custom and origin. Traditionalists are apostolic Christians. They are students of the classical Greek school of philosophy, Neo-platonism, Aristotelianism, Augustinian, or Thomist, all eminently subject to the principle of realism; politicians of hierarchy and order; economists of private property and production, of industry and trade; and culturally white.

Liberalism is a collection of sectarian ideologies that are best defined by their deliberate opposition against some part of traditionalism. It’s the common sort of thinking today. But because liberal ideologies oppose traditionalism, they introduce an order other than directing man to respective goods. Thus, they aren’t good, but a deficiency. Liberal ideologies are purely philosophical in nature, and aren’t truly lived because they are deficient from the good, and thus not grounded in realism. Instead, they cater to the illogical and ultimately harmful tendencies of man which we call fallen nature. Thus, liberalism has become sinful. Both ideologically and historically, liberalism always begins as an attempt to destroy traditionalism in the West. It makes the two are irreconcilable. The American Monarchist Society aims to reverse the destructive tide of liberalism in our great country.

Traditionalism is not convertible with conservatism, they are different. Conservatives are not united or principled in their goals, but rather serve as a form of mainstream, passive reactionism against newer liberal excesses they judge too extreme. While this naturally makes conservatism closer to traditionalism than liberalism, conservatives are apt to retain liberal positions already in common practice. For example, American conservatives today closely resemble classical liberals when engaging in politics. Traditionalism is not reactionary in itself because it came prior to liberalism. While “converts” to tradition may have begun as reactionaries, it’s impossible for the mindset which had endured till now to suddenly become reactionary. Reactionaries have the tendency to desire the exact opposite of the liberal trends they react against, even if the exact opposite ideas are also philosophical errors. Such groups like the anarchists, libertarians, the alt-right, and the men’s rights movement are reactionary.

Antitheticals
The mission of the American Monarchist Society necessarily stands in contradiction to certain defined errors. The errors are not reconcilable to the mission without causing an essential deficiency to the whole. Those certain errors are defined as:

Liberalism, Enlightenment philosophy
Modernism, Post-Modernism, and Critical Theory
Populism
Liberal politics
Cultural Marxism

These errors are unusable for effective monarchy as they all spawn from the same roots. The same revolutions that overthrew the West’s old royalty constitute not isolated historical events, but a liberal single state of mind. All the revolutions bore the same philosophical stances of individualism and license. It is the ideological Revolution that founded liberal governments of today, the same movement that concurrently attacked traditionalism. The Revolution is the political impetus for liberal ideology; they’re so closely linked that some authors have used the name of one for the other. Thus, liberalism is opposed to monarchy in the same way it is to traditionalism.

The modern history of the West testifies that these errors have done untold damage. By rejecting them, traditionalist monarchy vows to be more efficient and quicker in executive decision-making and legislation, to safeguard against bureaucratic corruption, and to operate more frugally compared to our current bureaucratic republic.

911 Truth #conspiracy 911truth.org

[Hyperlinks removed]

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

… An outline in simple talking points …

We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.

THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield, Ralph Eberhart – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?

THE DAY – POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See “The Case for Demolitions,” the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the “Big Wedding”), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

9) Able Danger, Plus – Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities – including the CIA, the US military”s “Able Danger” program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b.Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.

10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers – as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration”s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the “Bojinka” plot, and John O”Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in /11 Commission Report.)

11) Insider Trading
a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London. See Billions in Pre-911 Insider Trading Profits Leaves a Hot Trail and Criminal Insider Trading leads directly to CIA.
b. Initial reports on these trades, such as Profiting from Disaster and Suspicious Trading, were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).
c. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks. The German firm, Convar, recovered financial data from hard drives recovered from Ground Zero although the Commission published this FBI briefing on trading in which agents expressed a lack of knowledge and doubt about the data recovery long after the data was transmitted to the FBI. Here is an update on Oh the places you go (when you follow the money).
d. See this interview with Bill Bergman who worked at the Chicago Federal Reserve for over 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst. He was fired when he raised concerns about unusual currency transactions pre- 9-11.

12) Who were the perpetrators?
a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had “doubles,” all of which is omitted from official investigations.
c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story
d. How did they enter the US? Where did they get their VISAS?

THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department”s translation of it is fraudulent.
b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the “base” (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. 911Truth.Org broke the story that Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in /11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights). NEADS recordings damaged during transcription.
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

15) Poisoning New York
The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

17) Anthrax
Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax – which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations – were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)? Calls were issued to investigate the investigators.

18) The Stonewall
a. Colin Powell promised a “white paper” from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

19) A Record of Official Lies
a. “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
b. “Iraq was connected to 9/11? – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact.
c. CIA misleads FBI about hijackers in US.

20) Pakistani Connection – Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and “al-Qaeda,” allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to “al-Qaeda.”)
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

21) 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of “star witness” Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a “scam” and “whitewash.”
c./11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its contradictions, obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods – ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being “of little practical significance.”

22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for /11 Commission Report (although the Commission”s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn”t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

23) Spitzer Redux
a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell”s) role in keeping “Able Danger” entirely out of /11 Commission Report.

24) NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

25) Radio Silence
The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola’s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC – once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

26) The Legal Catch-22
a. Hush Money – Accepting victims” compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
b. Judge Hellerstein – Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

27) Saudi Connections
a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Ladin Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
b. The issue of Ptech.

28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the “9/11 Truth Statement,” and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?

GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

29) “The Great Game”
The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush”s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

30) The Need for a “New Pearl Harbor”
Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the “Project for a New American Century,” and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of “regime change.” After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

31) Perpetual “War on Terror”
9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual “War on Terror,” against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the “Shadow Government” were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant” (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to “render” such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the “new” New Economy of “Homeland Security,” biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security,
etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

36) Resource Wars
a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

37) The “Little Game”
Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?

HISTORY

38) “Al-CIA-da?”
The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

39) Historical Precedents for “Synthetic Terror”
a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the “cause for war,” created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for “reasons of state.”
b.Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved “Project Northwoods” plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

40) Secret Government
a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.

REASON NUMBER 41:
RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES

Ground Zero aftermath movements:
– Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
– “Radio Silence” (radiosilencefdny.com)
– Skyscraper Safety (www.skyscrapersafety.org).

Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)

Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, “The War at Home”)

Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten – May 9, 2008!)

Whether you call it “Globalization” or “The New World Order” – An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.

GOING FORWARD …

“But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?” Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

Selected essays, books and websites that make the case for 9/11 as inside job. (See Resources)

Demanding a real investigation of the September crimes – Not just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival.


Dawn Pine #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

(Submitter’s Note: this is only half of the screed, cut for the sake of brevity)

11 TIPS ON RAISING YOUR DAUGHTERS ON THE RED PILL
[…]
Dawn Pine (aka TheMaleBrain) is an Israeli 40+ divorced father of 2, former casualty of the blue-pill. Since he has taken the red pill his hobbies are: working out, writing, mentoring, harem management and self improvement.
[…]
As a divorced father of two daughters, and a RVF active member, I see articles on raising sons (examples 1[http://www.returnofkings.com/93261/5-tips-to-raise-a-strong-son], 2[http://www.returnofkings.com/90283/5-things-i-learned-from-my-brothers-on-how-to-raise-a-son], 3[http://www.returnofkings.com/91029/why-you-must-raise-your-son-to-be-a-warrior] and 4[http://www.returnofkings.com/80115/5-things-i-will-teach-my-future-son], all from this year alone on ROK). Raising a son is an important matter, as most of us here at ROK are boys.

But wait a minute! 50% of the population is females. Those of us who are fathers (writer included) may also have daughters. The discussions here as I mentioned, are more about sons. What about daughters?

I could sit with myself, complain, or take it to the comments section. But that is not the way the manosphere practices. So I decided to write my own list of tips, based on my know-how so far. I have been on the red-pill for three years now, and I wish to share with my fellow readers what I have learned.

[…]
1. Teach her what guys and girls find attractive
We all know the answer to that one. But a child does not. Children are not blank slate, but they are unaware of “how the world works”. It is my responsibility as the patriarch to show them.

In order to starve the hamster in advance, I give my daughters tools and the language to understand. Kids have a very strong hamster, as do females (we all know that).

Since early times, people have used stories and myths to educate. This is truer at a young age, as they are not yet teenagers. I often use stories and examples, as kids sometime struggle with “concepts” or “genralities”.
[…]
NEXT IS THE CONCEPT OF “THE WALL”
Taking CH advice[https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/oneitis-and-the-wall-the-two-most-important-life-lessons-you-can-impart-to-your-sons-and-daughters/]:
“Tell her with uncompromising bluntness that she is pretty now, and all the boys notice her, but her prettiness will disappear faster than she knows (or can possibly know at her tender age), and there will come a time, always much sooner than she had hoped, when none of the boys will notice her.’

My daughters know that they should be married by their mid-20s. I use their mom and other moms of their friends and asking: ”How successful will her boyfriend be, if she was single?”. They look at the fathers of their friends, and at least some of the time it is obvious. My eldest told me that her mom told her that being married at 25 is too young. I replied by stating that her mother has actually no strength running after them, and that they as young moms would have the strength to do things with their children. Message well understood.

2. Show her how guys hit on girls
I day game sometimes. I don’t do it much in front of my girls, because they will cockblock me. It happened a few times before I “stopped”. I recall one time that they ran interference at a wedding, when I was about to number close a young hot girl.

But if we are in a restaurant for example, I tease the waitresses. I use pet names, boss them around a little bit and treat her as a small child. The waitresses usually take it very well, and sometime even blush.

My daughters start to giggle. “Dad, I don’t know why, but I feel good when you do that,” my elder told me. “It is because older girls are like young girls. They love it when a successful man makes fun of them” I explained. “Also, you see that the waitress was responding well. She likes it,” I add. They witnessed it, and now they know how it feels and how it looks when a guy hits on a girl and what an interaction between boys and girls looks like.

Lesson hammered again. As a side benefit, now my daughters feel better knowing that their father is “Successful”. I’ll admit that my game level is intermediate at best, but good enough is good enough.

[…]
4. Work on their femininity
We are man and we practice masculinity. Femininity? Red-pill guys? How exactly? One would assume that this is the mom’s job. So what? We all know that women are not to be trusted with responsibility. So I gladly take some of this burden upon myself.

You can do it too. The funny things is that it is not that hard. It also correspond with the red-pill.
[…]
EXAMPLE: CHORES AROUND THE HOUSE
Not my best one (to say the least), but I try to have them do feminine chores around the house: Cook with me, fold laundry and so on. Just because I live alone and do masculine and feminine chores does not mean that my daughters can’t learn it also from me.
[…]
THIRD EXAMPLE: LOOKS
In this case I have a good deal of help from their mom. She emphasizes looks, dresses well and wears makeup. Kids need to have discipline and getting dressed, even for girls is sometimes tiresome. Trust me, I use to be like that. When they sometime complain, I remind them that looks are important (see tip #1). This is where a cooperation between parents really kicks it in, and a lot of people mentioned how well they dress.

Whenever they form an opinion on someone (based on their looks), I hammer it home again. Looks are women’s top and dominant SMV component.

FORTH(sic) EXAMPLE – FUTURE CAREER
Kids do a lot of thinking on what they want to do when they grow up. That may change on an hourly, daily or monthly basis. I had my daughters move from teachers to waitresses to babysitters and to doctors – all in the course of one day.

When they come to me with the new career, I remind them that they will need to also be there for their kids when they are young. Then you see them spin the wheel to show me how it works great with a child (or more). At that time I also remind them that since they will marry a successful man (god, I hope so!) he will be the one providing for them, and they will assist.

5. Reward feminine behavior
[…]
PUNISHMENT THEMES
Taking away their time with me (for example – not getting a bed time story). This is for when they disrespect my time. Time is important to me, as they know I make efforts to be on time.
Tactical anger – my daughters have told me that they fear me. Good. If kids have no fear there will be no discipline. Other dads (or moms) may say that it is not good, and that love is enough. YEH RIGHT! I ignore or take the time to explain that fear is crucial.
Never actually lose your temper. Calm down once the point was made. If you cannot calm yourself, walk away and breathe. Losing one’s temper completely is weakness.
Not paying allowance – if it is disrespect to my money. This happens when they break stuff (on purpose or that it could have been avoided). I use less of this punishment as it correlates poorly from a time perspective.
[…]
REWARDS THEMES
Verbally – most easiest reward. Giving a good word is immediate. One must not abuse it. When you give praise, look into their eyes and mean it. Kids know when you are “half arsing” it.
Treats – you may use this on occasion. Usually amounts to a few dollars. If it is an “all-for-dollar” store even better, It gives them a sense of independence and correlate good behavior with physical reward.
Activity – “You get to pick where will go on Saturday” is one of their favorites. My daughters in particular, and kids in general sometimes like to “steer the wheel”. Giving them that opportunity (not every week!) makes them feel loved and respected, which again is a good correlation between action and reward.

8. Show what happens to “Bad Girls”
There is an appeal for the “dark side”. Even if in movies the bad person gets what’s coming, my daughters (as every other female) have that attraction for “bad behavior”. They see that it is “cool” and has rewards in the form of attention and ability to “do what you want”.

Yes, female behavior should be controlled[http://www.returnofkings.com/73131/women-must-have-their-behavior-and-decisions-controlled-by-men], but that is easier said than done. What can a divorce father do? Spanking is out of the question (legally). I have a problem with blocking the TV and internet completely.

My answer is to inoculate them as much as I can. Introducing the concept of “wrong/bad kind of attention”.

You come across a YouTube clip, say of Katy Perry. “Dad, they are showing the wrong kind of attention,” my daughters come to inform me. “I know. You realize what will happen to girls who do it?” I ask. “They will get use to it, and have a difficult time using their brain or doing stuff because they are use to it,” they answer. “She will do bad things to herself to get attention.”
[…]
11. Pick your battles
My TV fight is a lost cause. I will limit it but not take it out of the house. I will watch with them to provide red-pill guidance. I know that advice on the manosphere is to disengage the MSM, but in this case I choose not to, for my own reasons.

However, I have shown them repeatedly that TV and media should not be trusted. They have witnessed it repeatedly. I sat with them during movies, shows of different kinds and negated the messages (girl power and boys being no good). I had a lot of talks with them about it. But I know that the TV will remain in the house.

I know that some of the fights are not worth fighting. We have a specific amount of energy. You need to pick your battles and not to alienate your kids. Also, sometimes if we win it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

I consider myself stricter than most of the fathers I know, but each year I give them more space and allow them to push the boundaries. It is part of growing up. If you boundary was breached, you can either tactically get angry, or sometimes just say “NO”. But again, know when to lose.

Conclusion
There is a lot of talk about raising red-pill boys. I understand the importance. There is very little discussion on raising girls, at least that I have seen. What I write here is my lesson learned of my last three years of red-pill awakening.

I’m already waiting for the time that they’ll have boyfriends. I may AMOG them, but for sure I’ll have the talk Roosh had with his sister. This is already saved on my hard drive and on my cloud storage. The day will come (in a few years’ time) when it will be relevant. I have practiced it sometimes with girls in my harem, and they all acknowledge that the message is strong and true.

That does not mean I will be successful. I have most of the world against me, including the education system and the media. However I feel comfortable that my daughters will be way less damaged than the rest. Who knows, maybe the change back to patriarchy we are discussing will happen during their generation. In this case they will have an upper hand on other girls.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Never let it be said that "the powers-that-be" (cough cough) do not reward their loyal goy agents generously. Here we are, more than a half-century after Winston Churchill, that vile, bumbling, drunken, cigar-chomping, lying, scheming, plagiarizing, sodomizing, warmongering, genocidal blob of human feces departed for hell -- and he is still being glorified on the big screen for the next degeneration of boobs to worship.

Hazmat suits and goggles on, boys and girls. Let's dive into Sulzberger's cesspool to review the review of Darkest Hour - Hollyweird's latest homage to the demonic beast we call, "The British Mad Dog."

The Darkest Hour reinforces the big lie of Churchill the Great, but The British Mad Dog, by yours truly (available at Amazon) will give it to you straight!

Slimes Review: In the late spring of 1940, German forces invaded Belgium and France ...

Rebuttal: The reader is left to assume that the big bad Germans were just rampaging throughout Western Europe for the fun of it. Omitted detail here: The review fails to mention the fact that "neutral" Belgium and Holland -- both members of "The League of Nations" -- were conspiring to facilitate a British / French invasion of Germany.

Slimes Review: ... and pushed most of the British army onto a beach in the French coastal town of Dunkirk.

Rebuttal: And what exactly were those 300,000 British troops doing massed along the Belgian and Dutch borders? Vacationing?

Slimes Review: Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister best known (then and still) for his policy of appeasing Hitler, was replaced by Winston Churchill, ...

Rebuttal: (sighing) The true "appeaser" during this tragic period was bloody Churchill. It was his obedient appeasement of his Jewish masters (Rothschild, Baruch, Strakosh, Lindemann et al) that blocked the more sensible elements of the British government from making peace with The Great One (that's Hitler for all you newbies and normies) before the minor war turned into a global bloodbath.

Slimes Review: Considered as history, “Darkest Hour,” ... offers the public a few new insights and details about the practice of statecraft in a time of crisis. Churchill is disliked by many of his colleagues in the Conservative Party (notably Chamberlain and his vulpine sidekick, Viscount Halifax) and distrusted by King George VI.

Rebuttal: True. Churchill was disliked, even despised, by many in Britain.

Slimes Review: The political situation is shaky, the military reports dire. The new prime minister, a man of large emotions and larger appetites, who drinks whiskey with breakfast and is rarely without a cigar, is plagued by frustration and doubt as he tries to navigate between two bad options. Will Britain enter into a ruinous war or submit to humiliating and most likely temporary peace on terms dictated by Hitler?

Rebuttal: Far from demanding "submission" to a "humiliating peace," The Great One was prepared to withdraw from all occupied territory without Britain having to concede a thing. To this end, The Great One enlisted Italian leader Benito Mussolini (not in the war at that time) to negotiate a peace between Germany and Great Britain. The proposal for a "sit down" with Mussolini was delivered by Italian Ambassador to the UK, Giuseppe Bastianini -- it being fully understood that any offer of peace would not be disadvantageous to Britain.

Slimes Review: The contours of this story are reasonably familiar. .... Churchill himself is among the most revered and studied figures of 20th-century history: a synonym for leadership; a great man in an age of monsters; a source of pithy quotations, some of which he actually said; an example to be cited by political mediocrities in need of an ego boost.

Rebuttal: What barf! Dating back to his first term as Lord of the Admiralty during World War I, Churchill was an abject failure in every government position he ever held. And as far as "monsters" go, no one relished death, war, human suffering and bloodshed more that the British Mad Dog. Here are a few of the "pithy quotations" which "he actually said" that don't even begin to reveal the depths of this monster's perverted blood-lust:

WORLD WAR I

"I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it." - 1916 (writing of WW 1)
"No compromise on the main purpose; no peace till victory; no pact with unrepentant wrong -- that is the Declaration of July 4th, 1918." (speaking against calls for a negotiated truce with Germany)


WORLD WAR II

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.
There is one thing that will bring Hitler down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.
We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us? (Letter to Stalin)
"I want proposals for "basting the Germans on their retreat from Breslau." (January 1945, 3 weeks before the genocidal firebombing of the civilians of Dresden)

Evil, sick bastard!

The rest of the movie review, which was written by Slimes film critic, A.O. Scott (cough cough on mom's side) deals not so much with Fake History, but rather, the film itself. Though still acknowledging Churchill as a "great man," Scott actually downgrades Darkest Hour for its excessive hero worship of Churchill. Yes, even for the Slimes chief film critic, the sanctification of the British Mad Dog was a bit too much.

In closing, we leave our readers with a pair of filmed quotes from the rotten old monster himself -- which we only just recently discovered. Those pro-Brexit British "conservatives" who worship "patriot" Churchill while condemning the European Union really need to read and then see this.

Churchill:

"We must recreate the European family in a regional structure called it may be the United States of Europe. ... If at first, all the states of Europe are not willing or able to join the union, we must nevertheless proceed assemble and combine those who will and those who can."
"This indispensable structure of regional groupings is coming into being. ... In this way alone, can the skeletal structure of world government be clothed with the flesh and blood of a living organism and the acts of state be confirmed by the passionate heartbeats of millions of men."

Boobus Americanus 1: There's a new movie out about Winston Churchill. It centers around his battle with the appeasers who wanted to surrender to Hitler.

Boobus Americanus 2: Had it not been for Churchill's iron will, we'd all be speaking German now.

Sugar: Boobuss, another year older and you're sstill jusst as frickin' ignorant as ever!

Editor:
Happy New Year, boys and girls!

Research Team #conspiracy larouchepub.com

Nine years ago, the authors of this dossier published another one, under the title "Dick Cheney: Permanent Revolution/Permanent War." The maniacal face of the then-Vice President of the United States looked out from the cover of EIR,[1] flanked by two early-20th-Century personalities: Leon Trotsky and Alexander Helphand Parvus. The doctrine of "permanent revolution," we demonstrated, originally adopted by Trotsky from the less famous but very influential British agent Parvus, had been reincarnated by Cheney's neoconservative clique—not only because of the neocon war party's own Trotskyist roots, but to serve the purpose of the modern British Empire, the globalized financial oligarchy, of fanning and manipulating an array of geopolitical conflicts to destabilize any existing or potential opposition. We warned that the "permanent revolution/permanent war" arsenal includes detonators for world war, as was the case 100 years before.

We wrote about the alarm with which London viewed the worldwide spread of the dirigist industrial development policies of the American System, after President Abraham Lincoln led the Union to victory in the U.S. Civil War: "The British response, over the course of the next 40 years, would be to spread perpetual warfare across Eurasia, through an array of manipulations, playing one nationality off against another, assassinating key republican political leaders, fostering the growth of deeply flawed pseudo-political movements and ideologies, conducting each-against-all diplomatic maneuvers, and fomenting 'regime change,' ultimately leading to two successive World Wars. In every instance, British agents, often operating under the cover of official diplomatic postings, forged alliances with the most backward feudalist and fundamentalist factions within the targeted nations, ... created phony 'liberation' movements, and recruited and deployed key agents."

In related Cheney-era studies, we demonstrated that the fascist movements of the 20th Century stemmed from those pre-World War I British operations, especially under the banner of the project known as the Synarchy, and also termed "universal fascism." We exposed the Synarchist "beast-man" phenomenon: the cruel brutality, cultivated by the architects and controllers of such movements.

All of those investigations are crucial to understanding the crisis in and around Ukraine, now becoming, by the day, more horrific inside the country and dangerous on a world scale. Barack Obama's foreign policy has continued Dick Cheney's. Washington's point-person on Ukraine, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, was Cheney's foreign policy aide and then U.S. Ambassador to NATO, during the Bush-Cheney administrations of 2001-09.

The United States and the European Union are in bed with the unconstitutionally installed Acting President Alexander Turchynov and Nuland's hand-picked Prime Minister Arseni "Yats" Yatsenyuk, who have incorporated into the new regime the Svoboda Party, which got its start as a neo-Nazi youth organization in 1991, and other overtly fascist Ukrainian movements. Not only a radical fringe, but also key leaders of the Euromaidan insurgency, who made the coup of February 2014, follow and promote the specific fascist ideology developed by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) from its founding in 1929, but rooted in the earlier, World War I-era Union for the Liberation of Ukraine (ULU)—a project of none other than Alexander Helphand Parvus himself. Parvus's aim, with the ULU that was funded by the dying Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Hapsburgs in 1914 (while British Intelligence and a rotten section of the German General Staff funded his other projects, such as the Bolshevik Revolution), was to destabilize and fragment the Russian Empire and help bring on the world war. It was run from the Austrian province of Galicia (Ukrainian: Halyshchyna), whose capital was Lviv (Lvov, Lwow, Lemberg).

The stakes are world war once again, today, as the London Economist dramatized in its March 17, 2007 issue. The Economist published a scenario set in 2057, in which the European Union would be a leading institution in a future world empire, thanks to EU officials having persuaded U.S. President Barack Obama (not yet in office at the time of this publication) to threaten Russia with massive nuclear strikes over a crisis in Ukraine, back in the middle of the 2011-20 decade—that is, right now.

Will the USA fulfill such British imperial scenarios by going to a global showdown with Russia? American patriots should say no to such a war of worldwide annihilation, and inclusively to promoting the fascist groups setting the stage for it.

Meghan Herning #fundie npr.org

Just four days before the release of her newest album, a letter from Taylor Swift's attorney demanding that a website retract and delete an article critical of has has drawn a sharp (but also winking) rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union.

A letter dated Oct. 25 and addressed to Meghan Herning, the executive editor of a small California blog named PopFront, claimed that the site's article titled "Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation" was defamatory and that if it was not retracted and removed, "Ms. Swift is prepared to proceed with litigation," according to a copy of it made public by the ACLU.

(The letter's author, attorney William J. Briggs II, did not respond to a request confirming its authenticity, nor did a Swift representative respond to a request confirming that Briggs represents Swift.)

The article in question — which veers between Kanye West's interruption of Swift at an awards show, the appropriation of Swift by white nationalists, the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, World War II and American silence toward the Nazi Party, and the lyrics of Swift's recent single "Look What You Made Me Do" — ultimately argues that Swift's perceived silence on political issues "is not innocent, it is calculated." The article argues that by not tacitly embracing progressive politics, Swift "could well be construed as her lending support to the voices rising against embracing diversity and inclusion emblematic of Trump supporters."

The article's rhetorical veracity is not the point for the ACLU, however — only that PopFront was stating an opinion about Swift, not asserting any facts.

In its response, the ACLU of Northern California writes that "Ms. Herning and PopFront will not in any way accede" to the demands. Swift is a public figure — as the ACLU explains — a designation that gives critics and journalists broad protections in what they can legally write about those figures. Anyone suing for defamation on behalf of a public figure must prove both that the writer whom they're suing published false information and was aware beforehand it was false and published it anyway. In addition, opinion is, by definition, not defamation.

The ACLU writes that Briggs' letter, a "threat" according to PopFront, does not convincingly argue that the blog purposefully defamed Swift. "Criticism is never pleasant, but a celebrity has to shake it off, even if the critique may damage her reputation," reads the ACLU's letter — shoehorning in two references to Swift's upcoming album Reputation and her 2014 hit "Shake It Off," in a single sentence.

In his letter, Briggs points to two instances that seem to undercut any connection between Swift and far-right political movements. He refers to a Washington Post story without any Swift comment that says there is no reason to think she is a neo-Nazi; he also quotes one of Swift's lawyers as saying it was safe to say "the singer is not amused" by the allegations. Briggs' cease-and-desist itself could possibly be taken as a third denial.

In a PopFront post on Monday, both Broadly, a Vice vertical "devoted to representing the multiplicity of women's experiences," and Complex Media were cited as publishing similar articles addressing the alt-right's appropriation of Swift. Requests to both asking whether they had received similar letters from Swift's attorneys were not immediately returned.

Reputation, Swift's sixth studio album, is out on Nov. 10.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.

Silas Reynolds #fundie therightstuff.biz

[From "A Current Year™ Listicle: The “They Had It Coming” Catalogue"]

Steve Otter is now dead. In a delicious bit of irony, the White communist and anti-apartheid activist was murdered by vibrant home invaders on December 16th (Reconciliation Day in South Africa). Naturally, the powers that be in the failed state of South Africa are both deeply concerned, but also in a state of profound grief. South Africa’s minister of culture, Nathi Mthethwa, delivered a sorrowful statement on the late anti-White agitator’s fate, “We are devastated and outraged to learn about the fatal attack which claimed the life of author and former journalist Steven Otter.”

[...]

But, in my honest opinion, Steve Otter sounds like he had it coming – if you catch my meaning. That’s not a clarion call for any would-be warriors to begin physical removal, but rather a sense of smug satisfaction in shitlibs (or I call them socialist-slash-communists because that’s what they are) and anti-White agitators receiving their just deserts.

It’s our Current Year™ now. The Old Right is in shambles and the Left has lost over a 1,000 legislative seats under President High Yeller. Purple haired and gender fluid SJWs are bravely and literally shaking from fear. Hate trumps love in the Current Year™ and any minute Vice President Pence will institute widespread and enforced electro-shock conversion therapy – starting with San Francisco. That being said, it’s worthwhile to dive into the (non-retconned) history books and celebrate a commie’s comeuppance on occasion.

Below is a Current Year™ listicle on now lionized, but thoroughly perverted Marxists and, occasionally and coincidentally Jewish, subversives that said sayonara.

5. This Machine Kills Fascists…Not Really.
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Victor-Jara.jpg
Víctor Jara
– was supposed to be Chile’s next Woody (or Arlo) Guthrie (it doesn’t matter though, they were both equally shitbags anyway). He was a Chilean teacher, theatre director, lovesick poet, singer-songwriter and political hack. As we all know, Chile experienced something akin to a miracle in the early 1970s with the rise of Augusto Pinochet – a man with a penchant for sunglasses and physically removing communists via helicopter rides, along with his elite death squad called the “Caravan of Death.” Shortly after the anti-communist coup on September 11th, 1973, Jara was arrested, tortured under interrogation and eventually got a bullet in the head. Afterwards, his body was thrown in the street of a shanty town in Santiago. Good riddance.

Why Removal? Despite being labeled a peaceful singer/song writer, Jara was a dedicated communist and antagonist to the traditional and conservative Chilean people. He considered himself essentially a man of the people and the bard to the Popular Unity Government under Salvador Allende – who planned on making Chile a Soviet satellite state, after he converted the country to a leftwing socialist nightmare (inflation was at 150% prior to the coup with plans for land redistribution and social justice reforms). Early in his recording career he showed a knack (don’t they all) for provoking normal and religious Chileans, releasing a traditional comic song called La beata that depicted a religious woman tempting a priest at confession. The song was rightfully banned on radio stations and removed from record shops. Prior to being physically removed by Pinochet’s men, it was well known that Jara had made visits to both Cuba and the Soviet Union (including a concert in Moscow) in the early 1960s and he had officially joined the Communist Party. In addition, there were rumors that Jara was involved in unsavory sexual activities (think pedophilia).

The Happening: On the morning of September 12th, Jara was taken as a prisoner by the military and interned in the Chile Stadium. His body was later discarded outside the stadium along with other subversives who had been killed by the Chilean Army. Prior to being shot in the head, Victor Jara had his hands broken – either as a punishment for playing his guitar or something more sinister.

4. The Power of Poetry vs. El Caudillo
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Miguel-Hern-ndez-removed.jpg
Miguel Hernández
- was an early 20th century Spanish poet and playwright associated with the Generation of '27 movement and the Generation of '36 movement. His fate was sealed as a member of the Communist Party of Spain since Hernández “fought” for the Spanish Republicans, the merciless bastards that wanted to destroy Catholic Spain during the Spanish Civil War. During the war he wrote poetry and propaganda. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful in escaping Spain after the Republicans finally surrendered (they hardly ever won a battle, unless it was murdering priests and nuns). After the war, he was arrested multiple times for his anti-fascist sympathies (think pinko commie signaling).

Why Removal? Eventually, Hernández joined the First Calvary Company of the Peasants' Battalion as a cultural-affairs officer, reading his propaganda poetry daily on the radio. He traveled extensively throughout the country, organizing communist cultural events and doing poetry readings for soldiers on the front lines. Like Jara, Hernández also traveled to the USSR, where he acted as a representative for the Spanish Republic (and likely got his marching orders from the Soviets). He also attended the II International Congress of Antifascist Writers which took place in Madrid and Valencia.

The Happening: After the Republicans and their communist allies were defeated, he was condemned to death in 1939 - he was described as, "an extremely dangerous and despicable element to all good Spaniards." The Nationalists gave him a pretty reasonable out - he was presented with an opportunity to renounce communism and apologize for betraying Spain. He refused, but his death sentence, however, was commuted to a prison term of 30 years, leading to incarceration in several prisons where he eventually croaked from tuberculosis in 1942.

3. "Muh Resistance"
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Jean-Moulin1---Removed.jpg
Jean Moulin
– the French Resistance, for the most part, was extremely overrated by both the Western Allies (the Soviets had a different sort of involvement) and Charles de Gaulle – de Gaulle probably deserves his own Alt-Right dressing down, the man was a disgrace to both the French military and the Pied-Noirs. Thanks to de Gaulle’s involvement, Jean Moulin was propped up and became the face of the Resistance and idolized after the war. He is remembered today as the main emblem of the Resistance, owing mainly to his role in unifying elements of the French Resistance (think communists, trade unionists and, finally, patriotic Frenchmen) and his highly publicized death at the hands of the “Butcher of Lyon” Klaus Barbie.

Why Removal? For starters, Moulin was no soldier during the Fall of France in 1940. He was a prefect (think government administer with broad powers). He was arrested shortly after the German invasion because he refused to admit that French Senegalese colonial troops had massacred French civilians. To be fair, there is much of the Second World War that could be described as “murky” at best, but the Senegalese (African units both from the French colonies in North Africa and also many from sub-Saharan Africa) were known after The Great War (think "The Black Shame") and after World War II (their mass rape of Italian women) for grotesque horrors committed on the civilian population. After the massacre, the German Wehrmacht had many of the Senegalese executed and requested that Moulin sign-off on the action to prevent them from being accused of “muh war crimes.” Moulin refused. He even refused after personnel from the German army personally walked him to the site of the massacre and showed him the bodies of civilian men, women and children who had been butchered, raped and mangled.

Now, most of the history of the Second World War is shrouded in propaganda and most everything the Germans claimed (with respect to conduct) has been described as “lies” by the press (especially today). In Moulin’s case, the Germans claimed that while he was imprisoned in a POW camp with those Senegalese troops (likely quartered with Moulin as payback for not acknowledging the massacre), Moulin developed “a taste for blacks.” Per the Germans, Moulin was a homosexual and during a lover’s quarrel with one of his African comrades, the dindu slit his throat with a piece of broken glass. Moulin claimed that he attempted suicide, but that doesn’t really stack up – considering that rumors about Moulin’s homosexuality still exist today and his close “friendship” with (((Max Jacob))) being a blatant red-flag – Jacob was a well-known communist and homosexual poet and painter. Immediately after the war, Moulin was painted as the epitome of the Frenchman womanizer, but in the Current Year™ - it’s pretty well known in France that he was a homosexual.

Moulin was eventually released from custody (because that’s what the evil Nazis did) and joined the French Resistance.

The Happening: In reality, Moulin’s involvement in the Resistance was exaggerated at best – and, he overshadows brave men who did fight and die in the Resistance. Like the others on our list, Moulin was clearly a communist infiltrator (and by some accounts utilized by the Soviets to get close to de Gaulle). Moulin had been described as a “fellow traveler” due to his friendship with open communists and he had supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War (a recurring theme). Moulin was eventually betrayed by a fellow member of the Resistance - some historians, including Klaus Barbie, blamed communist (((Raymond Aubrac))). Rumors on Moulin’s death, along with Barbie’s interrogation “tactics,” are so outrageous that they demand a certain level of skepticism – like skinning Moulin alive or using bestiality as a torture technique. For a man labeled the “Butcher of Lyon,” it’s somewhat suspect that he was (again) rumored to have been recruited by the West German government to eventually assist the CIA with tracking down Che Guevara.

2. An (((Uprising))) Crushed
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Rosa-Luxemberg-Removed.jpg
(((Rosa Luxemburg)))
- was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist, anti-war activist and revolutionary Jewish communist. A convenient piece of history that occurred in Germany after the First World War and is generally excluded in modern history books (at least in the US) – was that Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution (called the November Revolution 1918 - 1919). The outcome being either the failed Weimer Republic or a Soviet Germany. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany, led by Karl Liebknecht and (((Rosa Luxemburg))), who had previously founded and led the revolutionary leftwing Spartacist League, along with (((Leo Jogiches))), (((Paul Levi))), Ernest Meyer, Franz Mehring and (((Clara Zetkin - honorary))).

Why Removal? The Spartacist Uprising (also known as the January Uprising) was a general strike, including armed battles in the streets, in Germany in January 1919. On Sunday, January 5th, thousands of armed communists gathered in the streets of Berlin. By the afternoon, Berlin’s train stations and the newspaper district were occupied by the communists. They also took over a police headquarters and demanded the overthrow of the German government – their vision – the destruction of an already weak and exhausted Germany and its transformation into a Bolshevik state (led by communist Jews).

The Happening: The German government eventually unleashed the Freikorps – a band of World War 1 veterans with a fondness for physically removing subversives and communists. In addition to crushing the January Uprising, they would also fight the communists in the Baltics and defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It could be fair to call them one of the world’s first “death squads.” With respect to the militant Jewish uprising led by (((Luxemburg))) and her toady, Liebknecht – the men of the Freikorps quickly liberated the blocked streets and buildings and many of the insurgents were killed or surrendered. Unsurprisingly, (((Luxemburg))) and Liebknecht were found hiding in a Berlin apartment a few days later. They were arrested and handed over to the Freikorps unit - Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen-Division, led by Captain Waldemar Pabst. In the end, it probably didn’t matter how much the communists squirmed and tried to talk their way out of their fate – they were both shot in the head. Particularly fitting was (((Luxemburg’s))) demise, her body was unceremoniously dumped in the Landwehr Canal – it was discovered months later.

Her last known writing before she met the business end of a German 98 Mauser was “Order Prevails in Berlin.” It was written while she was hiding after the uprising was crushed. Here is the last line: ““Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing: I was, I am, I shall be!”

Sounds crazy. Sounds like she had it coming.

1. A First-Class Coincidence
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Ruth-First---removed.jpg
(((Ruth First)))
- was a South African anti-apartheid activist and commie scholar born in Johannesburg, South Africa. Her parents were Latvian Jews that immigrated to South Africa in 1906. Predictably, as soon as they arrived in their new home they began the process of destroying it – they became one of the founders of the Communist Party of South Africa. Eventually, (((First))) would become a communist as well, with her mission being the overthrow of the White minority government and securing the country’s utter devastation. Just another coincidence in history – Jews immigrating to a new county and then advocating for said country’s demise through either radical leftist agitation or racial disunity (or both). She would later encourage mining strikes and communist subversion and found herself banned and exiled from the country. She was also married to another prominent anti-apartheid activist, proud communist and politician – (((Yossel Mashel Slovo))) – changed his name to “Joe” for easier infiltration (also a Jewish immigrant from the Baltics).

Why Removal? Do we still need to ask at this point? In March 1960, thousands of South African dindus essentially tried to destroy a police station in Sharpeville, South African. The White police officers, using Sten sub-machine guns and bolt-action rifles, along with armored personnel carriers, were eventually able to quell the crowd through deadly force. Today – the incident is called the Sharpeville Massacre. In South Africa the “official” story is that a peaceful and vibrant crowd of oppressed South Africans were brutally attacked by the evil and racist police state. In reality, less than 200 White police officer were being swarmed by 20,000 rioting blacks hurling stones at them – everyone in the Current Year™ knows the real score. It was fight or be torn limb from limb.

Anyway, (((First))) and her anti-White husband (((Slovo))) were doing what all Jews do – instigating and riling up the dindus against the White government (the government and people that created civilization in Africa). She and her husband had been the vanguard of anti-White rioting during the 1950s. (((Slovo))) had actually joined a communist and explicitly anti-White militia (designed off the Red Army). In addition, scores of White South African police officer had been assassinated, killed in raids or assaulted during the Jewish-led “soft” uprising during the 1950s.

By 1960 (and after the Sharpeville riot), her time in South African came to end. Back when governments actually cared for their people, the South African government came to the wise decision that this Jewish subversive needed to be exiled and removed from the country.

The Happening: Not content to live her life peacefully abroad, (((First))) moved to London and became involved in the British anti-apartheid movement. She would later move back to Africa (Mozambique) and continue advocating for the destruction of Whites in South Africa. Cue a man called Craig Williamson – quoted as once saying, “I respect a person who's willing to die for his country, but I admire a person who is prepared to kill for his country." Williamson, exposed as spy (and all-around “special operator”) in 1980, is accused of physically removing (((First))) in 1982. Evidently, she received explosive first-class prank mail – which ended her anti-White and communist campaigning.

[Each entry is accompagned with a photography of the subject on which is overwritten "Physically Removed"]

Phalluster #racist kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

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

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

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

ww2truth #conspiracy #racist ww2truth.com

ILYA EHRENBERG – THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE ‘SIX MILLION’

But Ehrenburg was perhaps most notorious for his viciously anti-German hate propaganda in World War II. In it, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill all Germans they encountered without pity.

In one leaflet entitled “Kill,” Ehrenburg incited the simple Russian soldier to treat the Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime … If you have already killed a German, then kill another one — there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! … — Kill the Germans! Kill!”

mass-rape-in-germany-by-soviets
And in another leaflet: “The Germans must be killed. One must kill them … Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast? … Kill a German! If you are a righteous an conscientious man — kill a German! … Kill!”

This is typical of the steady diet of pathological hate fed to millions of Soviet troops by this Jew, safely ensconced far from the front.

Ehrenburg in the 1960’s, living out his life NOT as a war criminal, but as a hero is Israel.
But it wasn’t only the ordinary German soldier Ehrenburg was talking about, whom he accused of the very atrocities the Communists were themselves committing. Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings were, in fact, a prime motivating factor in the orgy of murder and rape against the civilian population that took place as Soviet troops rampaged into the heart of Europe. Appealing to the lowest, most subhuman instincts of this Bolshevik horde, he reiterated his genocidal message:


“Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.”

The crowning achievement of Ehrenburg’s career came on December 17, 1944, when this hate-crazed fiend became the first person to mention the kabbalistic figure of Six Million alleged Jewish victims of National Socialism, and then proceeded to introduce that figure into Soviet propaganda.

After the war he joined with co-racial and fellow propagandist Vasily (Iosif Solomonovich) Grossman to produce a fictitious “Black Book” and lay the foundation for what has come to be known as “The Holocaust.” The rest is history.

Ehrenburg never forgot his Jewish roots, and before his death he arranged for the transfer of his private archives to the tribal cult center at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

And so, it is altogether fitting that the birthday of this psychopathic lie-master should have been chosen as a day on which to remember the hoax which he concocted and of which he was the original inventor.

What was the result of this hateful propaganda?

Between the months of April and May, the German capital Berlin saw more than 100,000 rape cases according to hospital reports, while East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia saw more than 1.4 million rape cases.

Between the months of January and August of 1945, Germany saw the largest incident of mass rape known in history, where an estimated two million German women were raped by the Soviet Red Army soldiers, as written by Walter Zapotoczny Jr. in his book, ‘Beyond Duty: The Reason Some Soldiers Commit Atrocities’.

Hospital reports also stated that abortion operations were being carried out daily across all German hospitals.

Natalya Gesse, who was a Soviet war correspondent at the time, said that the Soviets didn’t care about the ages of their victims. “The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty. It was an army of rapists,” she said.

This caused the deaths of no less than 200,000 girls and women due to the spread of diseases, especially that many eyewitnesses recounted victims being raped as much as 70 times in that period.

Red Army soldiers would mass rape German women as a kind of revenge against their enemy: The German army. They felt that it was their earned right to do so as the German army had ‘violated’ their motherland by invading it. In addition to not being in contact with women for long periods causing their animal instinct to be heightened.

In his book, Zapotoczny said that even female Russian soldiers did not disapprove of the rapes, some finding it amusing.

“Our fellows were so sex-starved,” a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, “that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty – much to these grandmothers’ surprise, if not downright delight.”

In 1948, rape cases decreased vastly after Soviet troops were ordered back to their camps in Russia and left residential areas in Germany.

sources:

https://rense.com/general75/ehr.htm

https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/history/1939-how-german-women-suffered-largest-mass-rape-in-history-by-soviets

Here is the original article by Ilya Ehrenburg called “To Remember” from Pravda, December 17, 1944:

Die Pommersche Zeitung writes “Our struggle was honest from the very beginning; we did not cross our borders in blind madness intending to subjugate other nations. On the contrary, needing to leave our borders behind us, we went as the messengers for a new order and a new justice. Not one German ever dreamed of annihilating Englishmen or punishing Frenchmen or enslaving the Dutch or any other peoples, in order to live by the blood and sweat of other nations. On the contrary, our victories emitted tranquility.”

Poor dears, apparently they were forced to go to the Caucasus and to Egypt in order to emit tranquility and now when they were allowed to return to Cologne and to Eastern Prussia, they meekly say “whoever we hurt, we don’t hold it against them.”

What were their intentions when they crossed their borders? This question can be answered by the maps they published between 1939 and 1942. This is an atlas of “blind madness:” “Greater Germany” included Lille and Kiev, Riga and Nancy.

They did not want to enslave other nations and live by others’ blood and sweat? Not long ago didn’t Grupenfuhrer Gasse declare to the newspaper Hamburger Fren den blatt: “The former Russia will be colonized by Stormtroopers and their childen”? And the Danzigger Fortpost was estimating “Every German colonizer will be served by eight to ten families.” Yes, at that time they were not overly modest. And the German firm Bremen was promising stockholders cotton from Turkmenistan. At that time they declared that “a nation of merchants, Englishmen, do not deserve a place on Earth.” (Felkisher Beobachter) At that time they were threatening: “Shooting hostages will show the French that nothing will stop us.” (Parizer Tzeitung) Shipping off the Dutch to the Ukraine, they declared “Only history books will remember Holland as a state.” (Antriff)

Where did they “emit tranquility”? In the “desert zone” or perhaps stoking the ovens of Majdanek or Treblinka?

Isn’t it too early for them to renounce themselves? They are still shooting and already starting to whimper. They are still tearing children’s bodies apart and already starting to wash their bloodied hands.

We have a saying “To remember is to live.” Indeed, a man who loses his memory loses half his life and starts to fade away. But to remember means not only to live, it also means to save a life, to save future generations, to preserve the idea of what it means to be human.

There occur historical events which confound wise men. Hitler’s Germany is not a sphinx. It is typhus-bearing lice. Now everyone understands what fascism is but not everyone wants to remember what they understood. To forget means to forgive. And to forgive the stokers of Majdanek means to bring up children for even more efficient future ovens. I am not a politician but in my work I deal with human feelings because every writer is a psychologist. Every writer is also a moralist even if he does not think about morality. As a writer I want to remind you about the sources of fascism.

For many years the Nazis brainwashed German youth. What were they conveying to the little fascists? A feeling of superiority. Now the world knows what racial or national arrogance means. If every nation decided that they are first in the world and therefore have the right to order others about, we will see new Majdaneks in the 20th century.

So where is the foundation of this German feeling of superiority? In the past, some will say. There is no doubt that in the past Germany had remarkable philosophers, musicians, poets, and scientists. No anti-fascist thinks about putting down Goethe or Beethoven, but you cannot live off the legacy of culture. Culture is a continuing process of creation. And in fascist Germany nothing is left from the glorious past. We laugh at the degenerate who tries to replace a lack of wisdom and knowledge with an impressive past. It is ridiculous and despicable for a nation to burn museums and libraries while at the same time pointing to Schiller and Kant.

Others would argue that Germans are proud of their present. What is there to be proud of? A money-grubbing Goering? A lascivious Goebbels? Ignorant and lewd ministers? A hardworking Himmler? Or are they perhaps boastful of their sophisticated technology, well-kept cities, and comfortable houses? But the fascists did not create any of this: Hitler only ravaged Germany. It is also good to recall that American technology is higher, that Dutch cities are cleaner, and Swedish housing is more comfortable. Besides, technology alone cannot be the pride of a people unless the strength of a nation is connected to its higher aspirations. And in fascist Germany civilization serves only the lowest aspirations. So the gas chambers for the mass murder of children became a natural expression of German technology.

No, the feeling of superiority that the fascists instill in their children is based neither on the past nor on the present. German superiority is steeped in prejudice, in the belief in the magic properties of German blood, a conviction that everything German is better than anything non-German. . . .

The origins of rivers of blood appear to be seemingly innocent swamps of human stupidity. Children sometimes make fun of things they are not familiar with; then mothers reproach them and the child, as he grows up, learns that the world does not end at the corner of his street. Each person and each nation loves what they grew up with. What Russian would be indifferent to a white birch tree? But we have never claimed and never will claim that a birch tree is more noble or more worthy than a cypress tree or a cedar tree. Your mother may be smarter than your neighbor, but you do not love her for that, you love her because she is your mother. Genuine patriotism is modest and has nothing to do with nationalism: patriotism—is brotherhood; nationalism—is carnage and death. . . .

In the countries they captured, the Germans killed all the Jews: the elderly and nursing babies. Ask a captured German why did your compatriots annihilate six million innocent people. And he will say: “They are Jews. They are black (or red) haired. They have different blood.” This began with vulgar jokes, with name-calling by hoodlums, with graffiti, and all this led to Majdanek, Babi Yar, Treblinka, to ditches filled with children’s corpses. If before Treblinka antisemitism could appear to be a common, ugly outburst, now it is a word soaked with blood; the Polish poet Julian Tuwim says “Antisemitism is the international language of fascists.”

The whole world now sees the consequences of racial and national arrogance. The ovens of Majdanek, where the Germans consumed people of thirty nationalities because they were—Russians, French, Poles, or Jews—these frightening ovens did not emerge right away. They grew out of an upbringing based on the hatred of whole nations. People all over the world need to remember that nationalism is the road to Majdanek. If a nation builds its freedom on the oppression of another, if a state restricts the rights of citizens of a different color, if a society persecutes a man because the shape of his nose or the way he speaks differs from that of his neighbors, so that nation, that state, that society is in danger. . . .

We must remember: fascism was born out of the greed and stupidity of some, and the perfidy and cowardice of others. If mankind wants to put an end to the bloody nightmare of these years, it must put an end to fascism. Half measures will not do here. If fascism is left somewhere to breed, then in ten or twenty years we will again see rivers of blood. A nail drives out a nail, but you cannot drive out fascism with fascism. You cannot liberate nations of one brand of fascism and deliver them into the hands of fascists of a different brand. Fascism—a terrifying cancerous tumor. It cannot be treated at mineral spas. It needs to be removed. I do not believe in good-hearted people who cry over executioners: these alleged do-gooders are preparing the death of innocent millions. The nations of Europe fought courageously against the invaders; and nations are not Moors who could leave after finishing their work. The French have a good saying: in his house, the collier is a master. Not only the French understand this saying. The Red Army has demonstrated what it means to liberate: the Poles, Norwegians, Serbs and Slovaks understand this. We do not install half-fascists in place of fascists: we liberate without quotation marks. We know that democracy is the daughter of a nation and not a glamorous lady whom you could only adore from a distance. . . .

Nations who experienced the fascist tyranny will understand us without any lengthy explanation: this is a time of nations and not diplomats. The courageous people of France will understand us. Our allies will understand us. There was a time when the British believed in the magical properties of the English Channel. Now they understand that the Channel is not a barrier against fascism. For a long time, the British prohibited the entry of dogs into the country: this is how they try to protect their country from rabies. But rabid, two-legged creatures in contrast to four-legged ones possess different “Fau.” And only complete destruction of fascism—from Warsaw to La Linea—can protect England from a new disaster.

When Die Pommersche Zeitung dares to claim that the Germans crossed their borders as the most peaceful missionaries, it means that the fascists now have only one hope: the loss of memory. After a severe injury, doctors sometimes diagnose a condition called amnesia. The injuries to the world are immense but nations do not suffer from amnesia. They will remember everything in the days of judgment. Even after the victory, they will not forget these terrible years. We must remember: this is our obligation to the dead heroes and to the children.

These cruel visions must remain before our eyes: this is the price for saving our world. I know that it is easier to forget but we will not forget. We solemnly swear: remember, remember, remember!

Source: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-human-behavior/to-remember-ilya-ehrenburg

themaskandrose #fundie themaskandrose.wordpress.com

Womens’ “liberation” celebrated the bucking of the traditional female sex role paradigm. Instead of creating a new role for themselves, they largely simply tried to adopt the male role instead. To nobody’s surprise, this has resulted in increased female unhappiness, decreased interest from men in traditional relationships and marriage, and the dissolution of the basic family unit on which most of human society has thrived.

Just for a moment, let’s all do a thought experiment together. Before we begin, I hope we can all agree (based on all available science and rational thinking) that sexual dimorphism serves every species of which it is a trait. Each sex has a role to fulfill, which supports and complements the role of the other. This is clearly obvious, yes?

Good. Now let’s imagine for a moment, that all of a sudden, one or both sexes in all sexually dimorphic species decided that their natural role was actually “oppression,” resulting in the complete overthrowing of the system which was fundamental to the survival of the species as a whole. I want you to imagine all kinds of animals doing that…monkeys, horses, birds, dogs, cats…I want you to imagine that all of them suddenly have no idea what to do because they accidentally disengaged from the one thing holding their species together. Imagine some of them are so confused they no longer even know which sex they are, a pattern we are seeing with humans right now.

Now I want you to ask yourself, what would the world look like a day after this transition happened? A week? A month? A year? A decade, century or millennia? Really think about this, close your eyes and imagine the effect this would have on the ecology of the Earth as a whole. Just let your imagination take you wherever it leads and see a world full of confused animals that couldn’t even stay together anymore long enough to support the species in a healthy way.

This, unfortunately, would be the result of a world in which all animals took on a feminist ideology. If you were able to imagine the destruction I hinted at earlier, you might find yourself asking why this wasn’t more obvious to the people who allowed such poison to take hold in our culture to begin with.

That’s a great question, and the answer is that they knew exactly what would happen and specifically injected feminist ideology into our culture in order to speed its decay. If that sounds crazy–which it should–consider that this is exactly what the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion mentioned as a strategy for helping a society destroy itself. Liberal ideology is a very well-crafted mental virus and it is not an accident that it is currently undoing everything that once made our society thrive.

If we don’t stop this nonsense, we are going to “equal” ourselves right into extinction as a species.

Mac Brazel #conspiracy conspiracies.net

One of the worst kept secrets among government agencies was finally revealed by the CIA in 2013, as Area 51 in Nevada was finally acknowledged as a test ground for the United States government. After years of strange sightings above this remote location approximately 100 miles outside of Las Vegas, the Freedom of Information Act let Americans know about many of the things that occurred in the place known as Area 51 since the Cold War. The famous U-2 spy plane along with many other of our most secretive planes were built and tested at Area 51. Up until recently we were never 100% sure about what existed in Area 51, but with the magic of Google Maps we now know there is something behind those barbed wire fences.

In face Area 51 security adds to the hype as anyone coming even near the fences around this area will be apprehended by a small army of military and other government security. Obviously, with this much security in a place that is not advertised to the public means that there is probably something to hide. While much of it is government and military classified work, others suggest that there may be more. Let’s look at some more of what we do know.

Lockheed Martin “Skunk works” is one of the lead manufacturers in Area 51 and has created many flying objects that have been mistaken for UFOs by people who live around Area 51. The SR-71, a plane that flew at speed above Mach 3, was one of the many planes that was built and tested in Area 51 during the last 50 years. Also many military aircrafts such as the F-117 Nighthawk, the first radar evading aircraft which was made famous during Operation Desert Storm, were said to be tested and manufactured in the place known as Area 51. Despite all of these claims, many believe there are deeper darker secrets inside this secret location and many of this has to do with extra-terrestrial aircrafts and aliens. Let’s take a look at some of the most common Area 51 conspiracy theories.

Area 51 Conspiracies
The Roswell New Mexico UFO conspiracy

Spawning a popular TV series with the same name, countless cable television series and many documentaries the alleged Roswell alien crash in July 1947 was the encounter that put Area 51 on the map as far as it goes with alien conspiracies. While we save the in depth coverage of this event for another post, we will cover a brief overview of what happened below that backs up some of the alleged Area 51 conspiracies.
Mac Brazel w/ Roswell debris

Mac Brazel w/ Roswell debris

In July 1947 a rancher by the name of Mac Brazel found strange metal strewn over his land in New Mexico. Brazel took this debris to the authorities in Roswell. The commanding officer at the time Colonel Blanchard was also intrigued and he ordered an investigation. After collecting the shrapnel and other evidence off of Brazel’s property, the first Army command at Roswell issued a press release stating that they had recovered some type of “flying disk”

After this the Army later retracted the statement and suggested that it was shrapnel from a weather balloon. Not until some 30 years later in the 1970s did the Roswell conspiracy theories become popular among theorists, when Jesse Marcel commented publicly about the Roswell event. There are numerous different theories tied to Roswell and Area 51, with one of the biggest is that Area 51 is used as a hiding ground of the flying objects and secret alien bodies that were discovered in this wreckage.

Other Alien Area 51 Conspiracy Theories

Besides the alleged events that took place in Roswell, New Mexico there have been many more claims of UFOs and extraterrestrial beings being taken to and biopsied at Area 51. Ever since the Roswell event in 1947, there have been numerous alleged conspiracies that have said to taken place at Area 51. Mysterious flying objects in the sky and alleged crash debris has been always tied to Area 51 by alleged theories. In 1996 the New York Times wrote a famed article that detailed many things alleged by UFO experts and conspiracy theory experts when it comes to Area 51. You can read more about these here.
The Aurora Project

While many of the UFO and alien conspiracy theories may or may not be true, the fact that the United States government now admits that Area 51 is real is a fact. Many of our national defense planes and other aircrafts are thought to be built and tested in the large area above and around Area 51. Many of these secret aircrafts put the Area 51 conspiracies to rest, as they are aircrafts that have never been shown to the American public.

One of the most talked about stealth aircrafts of all-time known as the “Aurora Project” is thought to be flown around the Area 51. This aircraft is allegedly the fastest aircraft ever created with speed up to Mach 6. Many look at the runway of Groom Lake, which is supposedly 6 miles long, as a clear indication of a place that supersonic aircrafts are tested.

Area 51 is one of the most widely recognized secrets in the United States. While only a select few know for sure what happens in this facility, many believe that there are supernatural events and government tests that would change the way we feel about the universe. Will Area 51 conspiracy theories last forever or will the United States government eventually come clean about everything that happens behind the barbed wired fences?

Niall Kilkenny #fundie reformation.org

The United States of Israel was born in one day on July 4, 1776. (Isaiah 66:8).

2 mighty rivers flowed from England . . . with the water of life . . . to water the soil of the barren, Satan controlled, New World wilderness.

The New World was Satan's stronghold for thousands of years. He was not about to surrender his domain without a terrible fight. Jesus said:

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. (Mark 3:27).

The entire New World . . . from sea to shining sea . . . was the exclusive territory of the Evil One.

In 1607, English colonists crossed the ocean and landed in the wilderness of Virginia.

In 1620, English colonists crossed the ocean and landed in the wilderness of New England.

Satan was HORRIFIED that his territory was invaded.

The 3 English ships that landed at Jamestown contained a mixed multitude. Some, like Edward Maria Wingfield, were paid agents of Spain sent to sabotage the colony. Some wanted to get rich quick, and some wanted to preach the Gospel of Christ to the natives.

The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock saw themselves as the new Israel, sent out like Father Abraham, to build a great Christian nation in the wilderness:

[...]

Working through Satan's demons, the Indian witch doctors tried to curse the Christians and prevent the establishment of the new Israel . . . at any cost:

But what a wonder was it that all the bloody savages far and near did not cut off this little remnant! If he that once muzzled the lions ready to devour the man of desires (Daniel), had not admirably, I had almost said, miraculously restrained them, these had been all devoured! but this people of God were come into a wilderness to worship Him; and so He kept their enemies from such attempts, as would otherwise have soon annihilated this poor handful of men, thus far already diminished. They saw no Indians all the winter long, but such as at the first sight always ran away; yea, they quickly found, that God had so turned the hearts of these barbarians, as more to fear, than to hate his people thus cast among them. This blessed people was as a little flock of kids, while there were many nations of Indians left still as kennels of wolves in every corner of the country. And yet the little flock suffered no damage by those rapid wolves! We may and should say, "This is the Lord's doing; 'tis marvellous in our eyes."
But among the many causes to be assigned for it, one was this. It was afterwards by them confessed, that upon the arrival of the English in these parts, the Indians employed their sorcerers, whom they call powaws, like Balaam, to curse them, and let loose their demons upon them, to shipwreck them, to distract them, to poison them, or in any way to ruin them. All the noted powaws in the country spent three days together in diabolical conjuratians, to obtain the assistance of the devils against the settlement of these our English; but the devils at length acknowledged unto them, that they could not hinder those people from their becoming the owners and masters of the country; whereupon the Indians resolved upon a good correspondence with our new-comers; and God convinced them that there was no enchantment or divination against such a people. (Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana: Or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England, pp. 54-55).

God was with the little band of Christians and thwarted all the plans of the devil to destroy them:

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. (Revelation 12:14).

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Decoding WTC Oculus Fall Hoax

Some Tarot decks have an all seeing eye (oculus) on The Tower card.

"Like most of the tarot cards from the Crowley Thoth Deck, there is much Egyptian symbolism on the card, like that big eye which is what struck me first. The Eye, which is the eye of Horus, is an Egyptian symbol for the God of Perception. "It represents the state of awakening and of seeing the deeper and authentic aspects of self."

Other decks feature people falling from the tower much like Santos did. It's like they took liberty with mixing in the symbolism. The Tower is the first card on The Economist cover.

Santos means "saints" and the Tower card is usually interpreted as major sudden change and newfound insight. This is consistent with the interpretations given for the Oroville dam (flood of insight) and activation of nobodies in Emerald City. Son of Man (Horus) sews the congregation of saints.

"Daniel 7:13-14 describes how the "Ancient of Days" (God) gives dominion over the earth to "one like a son of man," who is later explained by Jewish scholars as standing for "the saints of the Most High" (7:18, 21-22) and "the people of the saints of the Most High" (7:27). The "saints" and "people of the saints" in turn probably stand for the people of Israel ? the author is expressing the hope that God will take dominion over the world away from the beast-like "nations" and give it to human-like Israel."

The Oculus was "nearly empty"... of course it was, it needed to be to pull off this hoax:

"Her sister accidentally dropped the hat as the pair headed for home inside the nearly empty Oculus about 90 minutes before sunrise, sources said."

Horus the rising sun is coming! Santos fell 30 ft and was 29 years old, just shy of 30. 30 is the age the allegorical Jesus/Horus started his ministry. The zodiacal signs are 30 degrees each so a new sign is entered every 30 degrees (transition to Age of Aquarius).

Most news articles have Santos pictured in a red dress. All I can think about is "the woman in the red dress" from The Matrix. She distracted Neo while Morpheus was educating him on what the matrix is.

The pillars of the WTC gave way to a One WTC representing balance of opposites. Masonic tracing boards have the pillars of Jachin/Boaz (WTC North and South) representing masculine and feminine energies. There is also a middle pillar (One WTC) toped by the all seeing eye of Horus representing balance or the middle path. This hoax seems to be saying that balance of opposites will soon be achieved.

Using twins (what are the odds?! rofl) in this hoax at least points two the two pillars. Remember also that Saturn was in Gemini the Twins when the WTC was opened to the public in 1973 and closed on 9/11.

Pentti Linkola #fundie penttilinkola.com

[Quotations from various times]

"A minority can never have any other effective means to influence the course of matters but through the use of violence."

"Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth."

"The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness - even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn't bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks."

"That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness."

"Alternative movements and groups are a welcome relief and a present for the society of economic growth."

"We will have to...learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves."

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed."

"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her...Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole...In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of the mankind...In democratic coutries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most...Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen."

OnlyTheGhosts #conspiracy deviantart.com

Always read further for context. Nitpicking pedantically to dismiss the entirety of a written article on the basis of one statement being taken out of context is not only irrational, it's dishonest. That's exactly what you just did.

By the way, Jews do control most of the media. That's a fact of ownership; most of the richest, most powerful men who own the largest media corporations in Western nations also happen to be Jews. There is no doubt that today's mainstream corporate media has a high Jewish ownership.

Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner. Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company. Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd. Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios. Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc. Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric. Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited. Rupert Murdoch of News Ltd, owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World. The most powerful single owner of media in the United States is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch also funds quite a few of the right-wing Jewish publications and organizations that he does not own, gaining influence thereby. MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report. LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television. JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner. NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News. JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC. DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News. SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, “world’s biggest media giant” (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV. MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS.... I could go on and on, there are so many... --- These Jewish men collectively control the vast majority of the mainstream corporate media in the USA, including over 95% control of news and entertainment media. This is clearly an unfair, intentional, monopolization as Jews only account for a tiny fraction of the population.

Your pretence that this is the same as saying "you yourself automatically control the media if you decide to be a jew..." is outright illogical and insane. I think you must believe the rest of the world to be as dumb as you want them to be.

What is "physically impossible" supposed to mean in your self-serving definition? Logically and scientifically it means one thing, but ideologically and in propaganda many events are claimed to be "physically impossible" that are in fact very possible and well within the within accepted scientific consensus about what is possible in our understanding of physics. I've seen many defenders of the official lies from authority claiming something to be "physically impossible" simply because it goes against their "official" propaganda line - and basically, they insult the intelligence of everyone else when they do so.

Those four blatantly dishonest arguments of yours do tell everyone else exactly what you are here for. I noticed that most of your "art" is just screenshots; wow, really showing skill and creativity there. It's just the sort of activity expected of a paid troll pretending to "fit-in" - because they joined as part of THEIR JOB. You appear to be nothing more than another troll pushing an illogical, ideology-based and faith-based agenda. Goodbye troll.

Last Samurai #conspiracy rr-bb.com

My fiance and I were talking last night about Obama. If you watched the festivities yesterday, you saw how everyone seemed to glow when he was around. At work, people were filled with some sort of hope that Obama would "save" this country. It seems that hope is everywhere, even in other countries.

I was dwelling on this and thought; What happens if Obama DOES "fix" things? What if the economy turns around and people love him even more? An economist on one of the cable stations yesterday was stating we need a Centralized bank in the US to take all the bad mortgage debt. It would be a totally govt. run bank. That is when it sort of hit me..... Not only is it possible for him to turn this around, but he may very well turn us into a Socialist State while we beg him for more!

I have a feeling our freedoms are going to be stripped away and people will be clamoring for more. What if he turns around the economy using Muslim based economic principles? You know people will begin to think the Muslims had it right all along........

I use to think a Depression was the scariest thing we faced. Now, as a Christian, in a very strange sort of way I feel the worst thing we can face is Obama "fixing" it all. People will love him as our Christian morals and rights are stripped one by one.

Rabbi David and Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri #fundie ynetnews.com

The state prosecution ordered an investigation into prominent kabbalist Rabbi David Batzri and his son, Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri, for suspected incitement to racism.

According to prosecution lawyer Shai Nitzan, the two used unacceptable means in attempt to convince residents of Jerusalem's Pat neighborhood to protest a local bi-lingual school where Arab and Jewish children study together.

[…]

However, not everyone is thrilled about the program. Leading an initiative against the school, Rabbi Batzri and his son held a conference two-and-a-half months ago where they made racist slurs against Arabs: "Arabs are a misfortune, a problem, Satan," the two said, according to the prosecution.

[…]

At the conference, the elder Batzri told Pat residents: "The establishment of a school like this one is a despicable and impure act. Stand in the way and prevent this. Darkness and light cannot be mixed. The people of Israel are pure and Arabs are a nation of asses. The question must be asked, why didn't God give them four legs, because they are asses."

The son, Yitzhak Batzri, also made objectionable comments. "The Arabs are beasts and asses," he said. "They are inferior, they want to take our daughters. People say we are racist but - they are the evil ones, the cruel ones, the scum of snakes. This is war."

Rabbi David Batzri, a leading kabbalist, has been known to spout his racist ideologies whenever the occasion arises. On Rosh Hashana he spoke to Ynet and said that a light earthquake which shook Israel portends a good year for Jews and a bad year for non-Jews, while the hot weather foretold that "The king of Egypt will die this year, and there will be hunger and sadness in all eastern nations where they worship false gods."

Earlier this year, Batzri noted that the floods that killed thousands in the United States and left many more homeless were God's punishment for the Americans' support of the disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

Unknown author #fundie en.minghui.org

Practitioners are aware that cultivators of the past had powerful Fa tools. As I understand it, Falun Dafa practitioners also possess Fa tools that are incredibly numerous, powerful, and envied even by gods and deities.

Many of our Fa tools were given to us by Master. They were given on each cultivation level a practitioner had reached. With these tools, we can eliminate the evil and resolve problems at various levels.

I have seen the powerful display of some Fa tools over the years and would like to share what I saw.

When I was sending righteous thoughts, I saw many bad substances in one dimension, and it was very difficult to clear them out. I was very worried and asked Master for help. He appeared, and gave me a red armored tunic. After I put it on, my body turned into a ball that rotated at a very fast speed, absorbing many of the evil elements.

The entire tunic had absorbed a large amount of degenerate substances. Master told me to take it off. He then handed the tunic to a deity and said to clean it well so that it could be used again.

While I was sending righteous thoughts to help a fellow practitioner, I saw a knife pointed at his chest that then proceeded to cut it open. Many dirty hearts in different colors were purged from the chest. They represented many ugly-looking beings.

The hearts that had an attachment to comfort were in gray clothes. They were laying there sluggishly, and their bodies were covered with worms and insects.

The hearts with an attachment to competitiveness wore red clothes, and every single section hid a soldier with weapons in their hands and on their feet.

Hearts that were filled with jealousy were tightly bound by densely packed poisonous snakes. It appeared that they were ready to suffocate the heart. The snakes bit others and itself viciously. Is it not true that when one hurts others, one also harms oneself?

Those with an attachment to human sentimentality were wearing colorful clothes, with countless hooks sticking out from inside. All kinds of sentiments were hooked to them.

Those with grudges against others had account books with dates on them, filling up the entire heart's capacity. Each account book had an ugly heart drawn on it, with a pointy tongue sticking out from the heart and sharp teeth around it.

The ones attached to resentment had a dark being inside the heart, giving off a foul odor. Those that were arrogant and looking down upon others had a being in their heart with a long neck sticking out, displaying arrogance, with their eyes looking upward. The self-protective heart had a being inside, like a boxer with two fists ready to ward off any blow. When I took a close look at the heart with an attachment to good life in the human world, it was no more than an inn with neatly arranged garbage.

While sending righteous thoughts, I saw that it was very difficult to eliminate each substance; after one layer of degenerated substances was cleared, another layer appeared.

I asked Master to strengthen my heart and he appeared again with all kinds of Fa tools in his hand, which dispersed when he opened his hands. Each Fa tool targeted a different attachment, and very soon the substances disappeared.

Master said, “For a cultivator, looking within is a magical tool.” (“Fa Teaching at the 2009 Washington DC International Fa Conference” from Teaching the Fa at the Conference IX)

Master has indeed given us the Fa tool of looking within, but it is up to each and every practitioner how he or she uses it.

There was an experience sharing article in which the practitioner said that he saw a tool that looked like an electric drill, when he was looking within. Upon eliminating an attachment, he saw that his heart was wrapped with a very thick shell, which the drill removed.

When looking within, I found a lot of human attachments, so I sent forth righteous thoughts. I thought that I would drill them away. Next, I saw a whisk, and each silk thread was retractable. There were countless whisks under each thread, and under these countless whisks there were more countless whisks. They were just endless. These whisks were cleaning my body from the most microscopic to the most macroscopic level, not missing any nook or corner.

Once my heart was cleansed, the whisk cleaned a cell as big as myself. One whisk was not enough, so countless whisks appeared to clean this cell. Everything within me was being cleaned, and it was truly a magnificent scene.

Suddenly, I had a deeper understanding of “Buddha's infinite grace.”

I also saw a deity laughing at me as if he was saying, “How could you use an electric drill to get rid of your attachments?” I also found it very pretty laughable myself. The Fa tools Master gives us are all different. We cannot just copy others in the use of these tools.

I also saw some Fa tools brought down by practitioners. They are all very powerful. I know that I had brought with me a green Ruyi, which to me means that it would help me fulfill my heart's wish. When I do things to validate the Fa and don’t want any interference, the Ruyi would play a role to gather all kinds of righteous factors.

I also saw that I have a Ruyi cover, which can protect those I want to protect; it can also cover evil and destroy them on the spot. However, some evil managed to escape. The Ruyi cover's coverage area is limited; I saw some fellow practitioners' Fa tools taking effect. Even so, some evil still escaped. Master then drew an even bigger circle, and this golden circle contained everything. Nothing could escape.

In the past, when I met up with a few practitioners, I knew that there was an arrangement made for us in remote history. It meant that when we were together, the tribulation one of us had come across would be resolved. However, a long time had passed, and the problem was still there. Master said when talking about the arrangements by the old forces,

“It's not limited just to this. Within the Three Realms they have done many bad things and made arrangements for many things that they wanted. What's more, many of those things have become warped. During the passage of such a long period of time, even the so-called gods of the old forces who originally did those things cannot resolve them. If there were no Fa-rectification they couldn't be resolved. There are a lot of things in the cosmos like that, and it's hard to resolve them without the arrival of the whole immense force of Fa-rectification.” (“Teaching the Fa at the 2003 Atlanta Fa Conference”)

After I read this paragraph several times, I sent forth a thought, “For all those lives that had formed ties with me in history, or things I had promised when in heaven, or lives that were involved with me in one way or another, I can no longer accept our arrangements. I will only accept the arrangements made for me by Master. I do not want to fulfill any of the arrangements made by the old forces or by myself.”

Then, my next thought was, “Everything must conform to the requirements of the Fa-rectification. Master makes daily arrangements, and I won’t allow anything to distract me. All beings who want to help me, play your role in other dimensions and do your best at the fastest speed.”

They needed to know and understand, so I said “Gods will keep a record of your contributions. As for what I had promised and things I am meant to resolve, Master will help me resolve them. You don’t need to worry about those things and should not stick to what had been arranged in the past. Do not distract me from what I need to do. Since you had formed ties with me, you should believe in Dafa and believe that Master will give you the best during the Fa-rectification.”

I often strengthen this thought and keep rectifying myself and everything around me to reduce interference.

It is a truly magnificent scene when we send righteous thoughts. Gods in the universe also come to help, and they use their power and Fa tools to eliminate the evil.

Fellow practitioners, let us change our concepts and free our minds. We must use our divine thoughts in handling issues we come across. Let us use our Fa tools and enable them to play an even more powerful role in the Fa-rectification.

Robert Smith #racist amren.com

How a Young Black Man Became a Race Realist

I am a 21-year-old black man. I am an atheist, a registered Republican, and a member of Mensa. Already a minority within a minority within a minority, I have yet another idiosyncrasy that puts me in an even more unusual category: I am a race realist. I believe that consistently observed racial disparities in societal outcomes are largely rooted in genetic differences, primarily differences in average levels of intelligence.

High school

This was the first time race predominated in the social climate. I started to notice people self-segregating along racial lines. But most confusingly, black students who did not conform to stereotypes were considered “Oreos:” black on the outside, but white on the inside. I remember the following comments:

“You’re so quiet. Do you consider yourself black?” This from a white classmate, genuinely confused as to why I bucked the general black trend of rambunctious and loud behavior.

A white classmate says something racially offensive in my presence and another asks, “Why would you say that with a black person standing by us?” Answer: “It’s fine; he’s white at heart!”

An Asian classmate: “You’re an embarrassment to your race.”

A group of black students are listing black classmates whom they think act white, and include me: “Yes, he’s white on the inside. He has no accent and hangs out with too many white boys.” (The person who said that flunked out at the end of the school year. He enrolled in a predominately black high school and went to an HBCU. Two months ago, as of this writing, he was killed in a black-on-black crime. There were no protests or riots carried for him, since his death could not be made to look like black victimhood. He got nothing but a few people on Facebook posting his obituary. Maybe he should have acted more “white.”)

I not only saw blacks accuse other blacks of “acting white,” but, even more often, I saw whites accuse their black friends of “acting white.” My Asian friend — of whom I was quite fond — would often say that he didn’t consider me black. I found this extremely puzzling. To me, “acting white” meant being an Uncle Tom — someone who is intentionally betraying his race and cares more about the approval of whites than of other blacks. Being called an “Uncle Tom” is definitely not a compliment. In fact, it is one of the harshest insults for a black person.

The self-hating black person is derided in black culture, as in Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks and Clayton Bigsby from the Dave Chappelle Show. Many blacks would rather associate with a murderer than with an Uncle Tom. This is not mere hyperbole. The black community eagerly embraces thugs and criminals who destroy their neighborhoods while it ostracizes its most principled members — educated and conservative blacks.

Even more confusing, I noticed that the more intelligent blacks would be particularly prone to accusations of “acting white.” All my life I had believed that trying to come across as an intelligent and civilized person, working hard, speaking standard English, assimilating into American society, not playing the race card, and not acting like a minstrel show character were characteristics of intelligence — not traits associated with any particular race. That ghetto blacks would accuse others of “acting white” I could, to some degree, understand. After all, the more academically oriented blacks did tend to associate more readily with white people than with other blacks, who tended to be ignorant. But what was truly mind-boggling to me was how whites and Asians could accuse blacks — even their own friends — of “acting white.” Why did they mock their black friends for doing what they were supposed to do? Why were intelligent and civilized blacks so often called race traitors by both blacks and whites?

Like an idiot, I succumbed to this pressure. I came to view hard work and academic success as “white” activities. I began to take school and life less seriously, approaching it with a half-hearted attitude, as if giving it my all would be “white,” and antithetical to the very core of my identity. I tried to the greatest extent possible to distance myself from my white classmates — not a good idea at a school that is 90 percent white.

I ended up graduating nowhere near the top of my class but still got into an elite college due to affirmative action and good test scores. I felt a bit guilty for gaming the system, but I felt I experienced discrimination — because of the “acting white” comments — and affirmative action was my way of getting back at an unfair system. (The same college also gave offers of admission to two other blacks from my high school. Their level of achievement was, obviously, high by black standards but also nowhere near the level that would have been required of a white or Asian.)

College

In college it soon became clear that I was woefully mismatched. I began to doubt whether I was smart enough to work at such an elite level. Perhaps the problem was me, not society.

Other black students were constantly on the watch for imaginary racism. They felt so self-entitled they drew up a document intended to force the school to accept more students and hire more professors from underrepresented races.

I doubted my abilities to such a great degree that I decided to get my IQ tested. My FSIQ (full scale IQ) was 141 — 99.7th percentile!

image

I have included my hand in the photo to confirm that I am black.

Acting white

For years I was convinced that the major cause of black social pathology was this “acting white” accusation and the phenomenon of having to “prove” one’s blackness. It had certainly had a great effect on my life and impacted other high-IQ blacks around me. However, one day I came across a brilliant article by Steve Sailer addressing this topic.

He made the incisive point that doing well in school would not be considered “acting white” if blacks and whites had the same average IQ. That was my turning point. I realized that this was not a discrimination issue at all or even evidence of racial bias. What my white and Asian classmates meant when they accused blacks of “acting white” was not to call them “Uncle Tom” or “race traitor,” but something more along the lines of “you act more like a stereotypical white person than a stereotypical black person.” Factor in the differing average IQs, and it’s no wonder why the more intelligent blacks are often accused of “acting white.”

Of course high-IQ blacks will tend to associate more with a group that has an average IQ of 100 than a group with an average IQ of 85. This “acting white” phenomenon is exactly what one would expect when groups differing as significantly in intelligence as do black and whites co-exist: Behavior that is associated with intelligence becomes associated with whiteness.

I am now amused by how difficult it is to separate behavior that is stereotypically black from behavior that is generally associated with low IQ: making poor life decisions, failing in school, getting in trouble with the law, being loud and obnoxious, speaking poorly, promoting destructive and ignorant behavior, etc. Conversely, it is difficult to distinguish behavior that is “white” from behavior that reflects high IQ: being polite and civilized, showing emotional restraint, working hard, speaking articulately, being educated, being goal-oriented, listening to classical music, etc. It’s as though everyone subconsciously picks up on the IQ differences even if they don’t explicitly realize that what they’re noticing is different levels of intelligence.

I continued to study the question. I found that that other black members of Mensa are commonly told they are “acting white.” This pattern holds true throughout the world. High-achieving blacks in Britain hear the same thing. Successful Brazilian blacks are called the complimentary term “black with a white soul.”

I learned that literally everywhere in the world where blacks are found in large numbers, they exhibit lower rates of educational success and higher rates of criminality than other races. It’s no mystery why blacks who buck these trends are seen as different from other blacks.

I got my own DNA tested. I found out that I am 25 percent European — which is to be expected among American blacks. More interestingly, I learned that I was in the 96th percentile for Neanderthal ancestry among African-Americans. I find it amusing that I’ve so often had my blackness questioned; I’m unusually high in genetic material that is completely absent from pure Africans.

Compelling quotations

Here are a few observations by blacks that have stuck in my mind.

“Most of the people who were popular in my high school are either dead or in jail.” — my aunt

“This area was so nice when white people lived here.” — my grandmother, driving through a black ghetto

“I have been called ‘white’ my entire life. It’s a shame that just because I didn’t get high, skip class, and steal from the corner store I was thought of as a lame individual.” — a female cousin

“It’s not too often we get a young brother like you here. You’re proper. Most of the young black men I know besides you are thugs.” — a middle-aged black man I met during a summer internship

“N*ggers are terrible.” — my father, who often comes into contact with ghetto blacks in his line of work

“If it’s stupid, they like it.” — my grandmother, referring to young black people

“Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?” — my extremely militant and pro-black uncle, lamenting black people’s proclivity for ignorance

It’s IQ, not racism

I now have no doubt about race realism. All the lines of evidence, from history to life experience, point to the same conclusion. All the usual excuses for black dysfunction are epiphenomenal and stem from the basic fact of lower average black IQ. Others viewed us as inferior because we never developed the wheel, a written language, a calendar, a mechanical device, or a two-story building. Slavery happened because whites (and Arabs before them) were able to enslave blacks; they had better technology and capitalized on the lack of black cohesion. Historians estimate that 90 percent of the slaves shipped to the New World were first enslaved by other Africans. (This is also consistent with Phil Rushton’s application of r/K theory; Africans have always shown low in-group preference.) All the usual explanations for black failure melt away once the fact of lower IQ is acknowledged. Anti-intellectual culture, poverty, bad schools, single-parent families, lack of role models, you name it — they are exactly what you would expect in a population with a lower average level of intelligence.

I certainly have learned much more about how the world actually works from great men like Phil Rushton, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Jared Taylor than I have ever learned from hucksters like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton. One might find race realism to be a depressing worldview; of course no one wants to believe that his race is much less intelligent on average than other races. But I truly believe that if you evaluate the evidence from an unbiased perspective and use logic rather than emotion, you cannot come to any other conclusion.

Furthermore, a worldview that takes into account human biodiversity is certainly more realistic and even hopeful than eternally yearning for whites suddenly to “wake up to racism” or voluntarily renounce their thirst for destroying “black bodies” — something Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks comes naturally to them. It is more hopeful than waiting for blacks around the world to stop creating “cultures of incompetence,” for which they seem to have quite a knack. It is more hopeful than waiting 250 years for the achievement gap to close or 228 years for the black-white wealth gap to close.

I now know what would theoretically be needed to close these gaps: a higher black IQ. I am free of any resentment against whites, for no matter how bad slavery, Jim Crow, or any other misdeed that whites are frequently made to feel guilty for, blacks around the world are infinitely better off than they would have been if whites had simply left them alone to live in mud huts and tote spears in Africa.

I feel empowered, for I now know that there is no impenetrable wall of white racism holding me back. In the words of the founder of logic, Aristotle, “The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” If admitting the truth makes me an “Uncle Tom,” so be it.

As for my uncle’s question, “Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?”, applying Occam’s razor will yield an elegant and parsimonious answer.

Stan and Elizabeth Madrak #fundie demonbuster.com

We were working very closely in deliverance with a person who did not show much improvement after repeated ministries.

Time after time we felt that the victory was gained.

The Lord said, I want to give you a revelation of what is Sarah's problem. The problem is schizophrenia. The Lord gave me this definition: Schizophrenia is a disturbance, distortion or disintegration of the development of the personality. How would you like to be the real person that God made?

I was still in bed - still had sleep in my eyes - as the Lord continued giving the revelation.

Next, the Lord instructed me to take my hands apart VERY SLOWLY. As my fingers were slowly disengaged the Lord showed me that these demonic spirits in the schizophrenic must be separated, cast out and given up. The process requires time. It is a shock to the person to discover that so much of his personality is not the real self. He may be afraid to discover what his true personality is. He needs time to adjust and to fall out of agreement with the false demon personalities, point by point. He must come to loathe the schizophrenic personality, and fall out of agreement with it. The Lord recalled to my memory Amos 3:3 How can two walk together except they be agreed? You have to give up your pet demons and associated sins.

The last two fingers to come apart were the middle fingers on each hand. The Lord showed that these fingers represent the core of the schizophrenic - Rejection and Rebellion.

The control demon is called Schizophrenia or Double-Mindedness. The Bible says A double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways (James 1:8).

The phrase translated two minds comes from a compound Greek word literally meaning two souls.

Schizophrenia ALWAYS begins with rejection.

Schizophrenia can be demonically inherited. Notice I said demonically. By that I mean it is not in the blood system, not in the genes - it is in the demons! This is what we call familiar spirits. They are familiar with your family.

Bones #fundie forumbiodiversity.com

I have been saying for a long time now that patriarchy is the natural order of things for our species. Any species that has significant sexual dimorphism between the genders will have one dominant gender and one submissive. And we can easily observe both in physical and mental aspects that men are the dominant gender and women are the submissive.

Women have 10% smaller brains on average, around 5 IQ points less on average, and a smaller deviation, meaning at the high extreme of IQ men far outnumber women. Men are much faster, stronger, more durable, logical and rational on average. Testosterone allow men to take more risks and be more creative, striving to bring humanity forward. While women are afraid of risks because they evolved this way (due to having the instinct to have progeny and being able to protect it with the help of the most suitable male among other factors). This is why women have less independent thought and are more easily swayed by the opinions of others, especially from others with authority, ie group thinking.

I dont necessarily think women should have less rights due to being the biologically inferior gender, but they should be happy to have as many rights and privileges as they have now (even more than men in some regards) instead of whining and complaining about how "oppressed" they are. And the government should pay less attention to feminists and cater less to womens demands in the future since women already have equal opportunity in life as men have. As soon as artificial wombs are available in large quantity, then childbirth is no longer in control of women alone, and thus the government no longer need to keep women satisfied in order to have a steady birthrate.

(which they still failed to do despite trying to keep women as happy as possible, all because of hypergamy and women wanting to have it all (great career, marriage and children) but end up failing and thus a lot less children are born regardless)

I hope when that happens we will have a true meritocracy, because that is the only thing that is "fair", when it comes to voting, our votes doesnt really affect much anyway, the west doesnt really follow a true democratic system, and many things are probably rigged and only makes us believe our votes matter. I dont really care but i would really like to get rid of crap like affirmative action and quotation laws, and less focus on past events and "equality" which is pretty much impossible to achieve.

Kathy J. Forti #conspiracy trinfinity8.com

I once had a media and communications professor ask a packed auditorium of journalism students the interesting question: “What is the singular factor that affects all of humanity? A factor that can start or stop wars? That can raise up civilizations or destroy them?” Not one student could come up with the right, yet so obvious, answer: Space Weather. Almost 35+ years later, I still remember his words.

When I heard Dr. Simon Atkins recently talk about the ‘”WAVE X shift of 2015? it made complete sense. Atkins is a well-known climate risk economist and planetary threat forecaster with a doctorate in Biometeo-electromagnetics. He uses the science of magnetism to bring clarity to what is presently occurring in our world.

Space weather not only influences, but guides humanity. Statistics show that when there are intense solar flares from space, 82% of the time there is a downshift in the stock market 1-3 days later. These same solar flare peaks are known to cause eruptions of violence between classes (sort of like the full moon effect). It’s a natural phenomenon, but its all due to magnetic waves that ultimately affect every living organism on our planet.

On a positive note, when there are coronal mass ejections from the sun (CMEs), humans are more likely to experience euphoria, calmness and ultimately peace. CMEs are explosions of electricity and energy in the form of electrons and protons, according to NASA. This magnetic energy that comes from our Sun (which is why the Ancients saw the Sun as the God Source) actually elevates consciousness levels. The Sun is the great benefactor. If you stay out of the Sun you quickly lose your connection to third eye consciousness. You also can experience depression and/or illness.

I experienced this first hand many years ago when I worked in a darkened lab doing altered states studies during daylight hours. I started not only getting oily skin and breaking out with facial eruptions (which I had never had), but I became quickly depressed. Something told me to take a few 15 minute breaks outside each day and just sit in the Sun. It was like a miracle cure. Like a plant, we need light to thrive. Without it, it will lead to dysfunction, be it emotional and/or physical. It’s a lesson I never forgot.

The BIG SECRET is the Sun is also connected to our evolutionary awakening. During the last half of September 2015, there is a powerful wave of gamma light coming from the Galactic Core. This intergalactic WAVE X energy will be coming through to Earth at maximum strength and peaking on September 28th. We are already well into it and feeling its effects. It happens every 3,600 years, and is being called “The Event Horizon.” It is the next step in the evolutionary cycle of man.

As reported by Time Magazine, scientists know about this event, but are questioning what these mysterious intergalactic bursts are or, more importantly, what they will bring. Change, for sure. It is no coincidence that in the last 18 months worldwide earthquakes have suddenly quadrupled as this energy is beginning to be felt more and more on the planet. The earth is doing strange things. People of all countries and even the media have reported eerie sounding, and rather loud, groaning sounds coming from the earth. Expect more in August as these are signs of dimensional portals opening in the earth itself, says Atkins. Intergalactic WAVE X is getting closer. This is no Armageddon scenario as many biblical adherents are predicting, but a time when our cellular DNA is able to shift and open up our true gifts.

In 1984-1985, Dr. Peter Gariaev and his team of Russian linguists were studying DNA and the ways light, sound and frequencies interact with DNA. Their research led to many groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting discoveries with one of them showing that DNA is able to absorb and emit light (photons), which spirals along the double helix in sacred geometrical form. Literally, DNA creates magnetized wormholes in the time-space fabric. DNA acts as “tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time. The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.” The researchers found that with the presence of light (photons), DNA activation and thus evolution can occur.

This is the great awakening that has always been promised us. This is an incredible time to be alive to witness this shift. It does not pick favorites. It does not matter what race or religion you embrace. It is here for us all. We are the Oneness.

Some people believe that helpful extraterrestrials (ETs) are trying to slow down this planetary energy from being too much for us because this faster electromagnetic energy can cause some people to feel like they are going mad (it opens enhanced mind/thought patterns). Call it energy weirdness. It’s no coincidence that violence rates suddenly surged in the US during 2015, after years of showing a decline.

This new energy is nothing to fear. We want this WAVE X energy. It serves to cleanse and help raise the consciousness of humanity. There are those who might disagree and are doing their best to suppress it. The CERN particle accelerator in Switzerland is ramping up to go full steam on August 15, hoping to stop this galactic energy. They’ve spent trillions of dollars for this very purpose. The dark forces behind CERN know this energy shift will spell the beginning of the end of control of the masses as it begins shifting DNA. Just imagine a world where a greater percentage of people are fully awakened than ever before. The 1% who have worked hard to enslave humanity for their own greed and benefit—well, their days are numbered.

Everywhere in our world we are now seeing the awakening of humanity speed up. We are seeing massive rallies against corruption and rallies for peace spread. We are seeing tyranny, cover-ups and false flags exposed. And more importantly, we are seeing movements converging that offer solutions to these issues the world faces. People’s inner worlds of heart and mind are breaking free and we are seeing this have direct and positive impacts in our outer world.

If you talk to most people these days they all feel like something is getting ready to happen in the next month or two. Most don’t know what it is, but they can sense it. Whether it be a global currency reset, financial collapse, civil chaos, more earthquakes, or something else—as a collective mass we are the precipice of a new world emerging. Trust that this is not the end. You may be feeling more tired than usual lately—like you just can’t get enough restorative sleep. Maybe you’ve even taken to power napping—which is good. Take care of yourself. Your cells are already feeling the energy change. No sense fighting it. It will be interesting to see what emerges for us all.

Sick n' Tired of Niggers #racist niggermania.net

I helped to my nigger principal fired just about the time I became a full fledged niggermaniac. This coon was terrible! Lazy, incompetent, totally disengaged from the job. Yet, like many do, walked around like Queen Shit hassling staff and really making life tough if you were a human.

One day, during my lunch break, I started investigating this shitbeast on Google. Really didn't expect much as I figured the nigger's background must have clean enough to land a sensitive, high paying job in a school system. Boy, was I wrong! Hit the motherlode: court records, thievery in it's last school system, endangering students, etc. Made a copy, walked over to copier near her office, made a boatload of copies, and made sure it got into the community. Nigger gone in a week, whining all the way. Been many years, but I still laugh when I think about it.

Eyal Karim #fundie timesofisrael.com

IDF taps chief rabbi who once seemed to permit wartime rape

Eyal Karim later retracted remarks; has also said women's enlistment is 'entirely forbidden,' opposes female singing at army events

Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot on Monday nominated a rabbi who once appeared to condone rape during wartime to take over as the IDF’s chief chaplain. Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim has also maintained that it is “entirely forbidden” for women to serve in the military for reasons of modesty and has opposed female singing at army events.

Karim was embroiled in controversy in 2012 for his response to a question posed to him (Hebrew link) on the religious website Kipa, asking in the light of certain biblical passages if IDF soldiers, for example, were permitted to commit rape during wartime despite the general understanding that such an act is widely considered repugnant.

In his response, Karim implied that such practices, among several others that were normally prohibited — including the consumption of nonkosher food — were permitted during battle.

“Although intercourse with a female gentile is very grave, it was permitted during wartime (under the conditions it stipulated) out of consideration for the soldiers’ difficulties,” he wrote. “And since our concern is the success of the collective in the war, the Torah permitted [soldiers] to satisfy the evil urge under the conditions it stipulated for the sake of the collective’s success.”

When the quote surfaced in 2012 and caused a media firestorm, he published a clarification stating that his comments were in no way meant to be applied in the modern era, but rather pertained to a theoretical discussion of the biblical permission for a Jewish soldier to kidnap an enemy woman and wed her.

“Obviously, in our times, when the world has advanced to a level of morality in which one does not marry captives, one must not perform this act, which is also entirely against the army’s values and orders,” he wrote.

The IDF on Monday responded to allegations against Karim, saying the colonel “wishes to clarify that his words were only uttered in response to a theoretical hermeneutical question, certainly not to a practical halachic question.

“Rabbi Karim never wrote, said, or even thought that an IDF soldier is permitted to sexually harm a woman during wartime,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit added in a statement.

On the matter of women’s enlistment, Karim wrote in 2002 that it was explicitly forbidden.

“In a situation such as the one during the War of Independence, in which there was a real pikuah nefesh [matter of life or death] of the Jewish people, women also participated in the defense of the nation and country, even though the situation was not so modest,” he wrote. “But in our era we do not live with a real threat to our survival.

“And because of the liable damage to the modesty of the girl and the nation, the great rabbis and the Chief Rabbinate have ruled that the enlistment of girls to the IDF is entirely forbidden.”

In 2011, Karim also wrote that women should not sing at army events. If women do perform, soldiers who object to attending the events on religious grounds should be allowed to skip, he added.

Several Israeli lawmakers decried Karim’s appointment.

Meretz party leader Zehava Galon said that Karim is not “suitable to be the rabbinic authority of the army, in which tens of thousands of women serve, and is not suitable to represent Jewish morality in any form.” She also condemned “his frightening, racist, and inflammatory statement” regarding wartime rape.

Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid urged Karim to disavow his remarks about women’s enlistment, saying that without a public statement to that effect “he cannot be the military chief rabbi.”

“Regarding the reports that he said that beautiful gentile women can be raped during wartime, it appears this is not his opinion,” Lapid continued. “But if he thinks this, not only may he not be the chief military rabbi, he can’t even be a rabbi.”

In addition to Karim, Eisenkot nominated another 12 colonels for promotion to brigadier general, pending the approval of Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman.

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.com

On April 9, 2018, The Social, a YouTube channel linked to BBC Scotland, released a video entitled Homophobia in 2018 | Time For Love. The video is a propaganda piece for the liberal view being pushed on society at the moment. That view being, that love is love and we all should be able to experience it … no matter the cost.

In our current cultural climate, we live in a day and age where people are being convinced to believe this lie that love is anything you want it to be … no restrictions, no hindrances, and no judgement. Well, at least no inbound judgement on those who live their lives according to these principles. The reality though is largely different to what you’ve been told.

The video this article focuses on is worth watching so that you know the kinds of argumentation being used against anyone who does not blindly affirm the mantra of the LGBT+ propaganda machine. As the arguments in this video are the standard ones you will find, shame-mongering, judgement, iffy looks, and hate all rear their heads here. But there is one particular line of argumentation I want to pick up on here. That being the argument used against Christians. Let’s look at this by reviewing a quote that is featured in the film:

“And a Bible basher rehashing lies about Jesus like how Poundland rip off Mini Cheddars and sell them on as Cheese Savouries. Because it seems to me that Jesus saved a lot of time when He died for all crimes that He would’ve wasted teaching small minds that love is no sin. See him, he thinks it’s faith but under all that din, it tastes like cardboard and it smells like hate.”

Notice straight away the condemnation within that statement, “and a BIBLE BASHER”, the label of Bible Basher is a negative label. One put upon Christians who stick strictly to the word of God, sticking to it in a way that raises the ire of those who don’t see it in the same light as them. But the thing that really strikes me in this argument as being the thing we need to spot easily and be able to combat whenever is needed. That being the claim that those who object to homosexuality are telling “rehashed lies about Jesus” and as a result pushing an inauthentic faith on to anyone who may be listening. See this is a key strategy for the LGBT+ agenda, it’s a strategy that seeks to convince people that Christians are getting what Jesus said wrong, and are pushing prejudice and hate rather than love which is what Jesus was apparently all about. In reality, this is a similar strategy that the devil used to persuade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden, back in Genesis 3:1 … using the argument of “did Jesus (or God) really say that?”

We see in the next part of the quotation why this argument is used. It’s not to show fault with our worldview. It’s not even to show fault with Christianity. It all boils down to a desire for affirmation … even at the cost of one’s faith. Now hear me out here, the people pushing these types of arguments, they know that the end result of those who take liberalism to its natural conclusion is atheism. However, there are many who blindly regurgitate these arguments, who don’t know the web of lies they’ve stepped into blindly. Taking that comment into context, who’s the authority here? It’s self, “and to me, it seems”, this is the phrase that holds this video together. It’s all about me! Me, myself, and I.

Ultimately the LGBT+ agenda is based on a selfishness that seeks to persuade the masses of love, niceness, and selflessness. Something that isn’t really the case, and is merely a faulty portrayal of the false reality those pushing this agenda want you to blindly believe.

All of this, and the video leads me to ask a question of us, one that I will answer here from my view, but one I would like you to think through and answer as well … that question being is it really homophobic to object to homosexuality?

Is It Really Homophobic to Object to Homosexuality?

To answer this question we need to understand two things, the first being what the world tells us homophobia is. And secondly, what homophobia really is … because they’re actually very different.

According to Websters Dictionary, homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality. The dictionary does include now the aversion to and/or the discrimination of homosexuals as part of the definition. However, this seems to be an updated definition of the term, as the notion of the aversion to is relatively new in terms of phobias.

Simply put, homosexuality is the irrational fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality. This contrasts greatly with the variation of the definition, which simply means anyone who disagrees with homosexuality.

This definition of the term homophobe from Urban Dictionary really makes this note of mine very clear:

“Someone who repeatedly whines that homosexuals endanger family values and the sanctity of marriage until outed as a closet case, desperately afraid of the gay person looking back in the mirror.”

Notice how within that statement, there is an element of judgement. A line of thinking that says that no one can judge someone who practices homosexuality without making them the enemy.

So, what’s the answer to this question? Is it really homophobic to object to homosexuality?

The answer to this question is a resounding NO! See, God has defined homosexuality in His word as being sinful, and like with any other sin, it would be like saying we can’t question someone who commits murder, or someone who steals, or someone who commits adultery. And I could continue. Essentially by saying that someone is homophobic for objecting to homosexuality, it means that no sin on the planet should be questioned due to the precedent it sets.

So yes, we can question homosexuality, we can ask honest and open questions about it. We should not be deterred by this liberal agenda seeking to judge anyone who disagrees with them, while crying out for tolerance.

In future posts, I will aim to unpack this subject of homosexuality and the Bible further. As well as many other subjects.

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

(On the subject of the film "God’s Not Dead")

Before making this post, I revisited this film so that the evil, ungodly things that Josh did are fresh in my mind.

In his first speech, Josh affirms the darwinist-alleged, Bible-denying age of the universe (13.7B years). He also affirms darwinists' big bang theory, whilst adding in front of it the caveat that God did it.

In his third speech, Josh directly affirms that evolution is true and again, adds a God did it caveat in front. He then goes on to make that same affirmation a second time when he validates the darwinist idea that all forms of life transformed into each other over 3.8B years. To that he tacks on another caveat, that within those 3.8B years, evolution happened fast. Next, he inappropriately conflates his ungodly argument with a quotation from Genesis that in reality completely debunks everything that he just said and will continue to say. He finishes with yet another affirmation that the process of evolution is true, and yet again tacks on the caveat but God did it.

In his fourth speech, Josh finally says something compatible with the Bible, by pointing out that evil exists in the world due to God allowing Free Will. However, that fact also completely debunks all the darwin-glorifying, anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-Bible propaganda which he spouted previously. To wit, if evolution is true, then evil is necessarily not a consequence of Free Will, but rather, evil must always have existed in the world, long before any sentient beings who had Free Will did. Moreover, that of course would point to an evil god, who must have put evil into the world without justification, for no reason other than because he too is evil (that would be a satanic god, not the God of the Bible).

Given all that evidence, there is no reasonable way you can possibly legitimately argue that Josh didn't glorify darwin and affirm evolution and thereby deny God, the Bible and Christianity.

Rep. Tommy Benton (R-Jefferson) #racist investigations.blog.ajc.com

In a brief statement, Rep. Tommy Benton, R-Jefferson, said he has pulled his name from three pieces of controversial legislation after his comments about slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and the Civil War drew national attention.

At the same time, Benton did not apologize or retract his statements and he will apparently retain his chairmanship of the House Committee on Human Relations and Aging.

“It was not my intention to create a situation whereby my comments would create a negative perception,” Benton said in a brief statement issued Monday afternoon. “Therefore, today I am withdrawing my sponsorship of HB 854, HB 855 and HR 1179 to allow the business of the House to move forward in an orderly manner.”


House Speaker David Ralston, who had been called upon to remove Benton’s chairmanship, issued a simultaneous statement rebuking Benton for his remarks but allowing the five-term Republican to retain his committee position.

“I condemn commentary that would seek to reverse the progress that we have made in the last century and a half,” Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, said. “While we are mindful of our history, the business of the General Assembly isn’t in rewriting or reinterpreting the past, but rather to focus on improving Georgia’s future.”

Benton introduced the bills last week. House Bill 855 would force the state to formally recognize Confederate Memorial Day and Robert E. Lee’s birthday as public holidays. House Resolution 1179 calls for a constitutional amendment protecting Stone Mountain as a Confederate memorial.

Both of those bills have co-sponsors, but a House staffer said those members intended to pull their names from the measures, effectively killing them. House Ethics Chairman Joe Wilkinson, R-Sandy Springs, asked his name to be removed from the last week following Benton’s remarks.

House Bill 854 would require street names changed since 1968 to revert back to their former names if their prior name had honored a veteran. Although the bill does not mention Martin Luther King, the civil right leader was assassinated in 1968 and the bill would rename a portion of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Atlanta Gordon Road, in honor of Confederate Gen. John B. Gordon, an early leader of the Georgia Klan.

That bill has no co-sponsor, so Benton’s action is all that is needed to kill it.

In speaking to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week about the bills, Benton called attempts to bring down or alter Confederate memorials “cultural terrorism” and said the Ku Klux Klan “made a lot of people straighten up.”

The Klan “was not so much a racist thing but a vigilante thing to keep law and order,” he said. “I’m not saying what they did was right. It’s just the way things were.”

Vladimir Vasiliev #wingnut #conspiracy newsilkstrategies.com

US friendly gesture is no doubt Trump's trick to drag Russia into the anti-China game

The friendship of Russia and the United States, according to Mike Pompeo, will end in unpleasant surprises for Moscow from Washington, said FBA Economika Segodnya (rueconomics.ru) Doctor of Economics and chief researcher at the US and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Vasiliev.

US will try to lure Russia into forming a coalition against China

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in an interview with Washington Examiner said the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and terrorism is an area in which successful collaboration between Moscow and Washington is possible.

“I adhere to a rather pessimistic view of the prospects for Russian-American relations. As soon as the United States of America makes some kind of conciliatory gestures, later negative actions take place that sharply worsen bilateral relations.

Therefore, such statements can be called a harbinger of the unfriendly steps that Washington is preparing for us. It’s difficult to say which specific area it may affect,” comments Vasiliev.

The expert believes that the mention of the successful cooperation between Russia and the United States in preventing terrorist attacks was made by Mike Pompeo as a standard statement.

The US Secretary of State emphasized during the interview that he had been working with Russia since the time he was director of the CIA. He recalled that Moscow helped Washington save American lives by providing information, and the United States, in turn, helped Russia prevent the terrorist attack planned in St. Petersburg.

America gathers a coalition

The expert suggested that Mike Pompeo's statement is primarily related to American policy regarding the Chinese side.

“Turning to the topic of coronavirus under conditions when Pompeo is considered Washington’s main mouthpiece in the anti-Chinese course seems very suspicious. The United States of America is interested in using the Russian factor to pressure China,” the expert assures.

It is noteworthy that in his interview, Mike Pompeo openly declared Washington’s intention to force the world to unite in order to impose on China the costs incurred by states due to the pandemic. Pompeo also expressed hope that a union of countries would emerge that understands that the only way to get the world out of the coronavirus crisis is to rid it of the risks allegedly emanating from China.

Pompeo gave the interview after a trip to Israel, where he put pressure on the US ally to weaken its relationship with China. Among other states that Washington would like to bring around to its idea of ​​confronting the PRC, the US Secretary of State named India, Japan, Australia, and Brazil.

“The United States of America is forming an international position, and the statements of some states testify to this. I think that European countries will also join.

In other words, Washington has begun to form a coalition of states, which together with it will put pressure on the Chinese side in order to persuade the authorities to conduct an investigation into the emergence of coronavirus infection,” the expert believes. [Australia was one of the countries whose fawning leadership opted to fall into step with Washington. As soon as Australian sanctions on China were announced, China immediately banned Australian beef exports, causing an outcry among beef growers down under.]

Vladimir Vasiliev believes that America thinks only the Russian Federation can appeal to the Chinese leaders directly.

“Therefore, the White House will try to use Russia as a factor that could theoretically influence China’s position and persuade it to be more compliant with the West. Other states do not have such potentials.

Knowing the American approach, we can say that the principle of pressure permeates the actions of the United States to use Russia as a lever in relations with China. It is this motive that is embedded in the offer of friendship, voiced by Mike Pompeo,” the agency’s interlocutor is sure.

US is working on a strategy

Vladimir Vasiliev recalled that recently, the American side has been actively trying to pressure the World Health Organization to echo the White House’s opinion.

“The United States is gradually building its own tactics, as part of which they are also trying to probe the state of the Russian Federation, which is fighting the coronavirus epidemic. Thus, Washington intends to find out the state of our country’s economy, its epidemiological situation, and the extent to which the coronavirus has weakened Russia's position and made it compliant with the possible demands of America,” the expert explains. [At this point, Russian economists are saying that Russia’s position is strong thanks to its vast gold and foreign currency reserves, including yuan].

Marshall Billingsley, appointed by US President Donald Trump on April 10 as special representative for arms control, recalls Vasilyev, bluntly stated that the situation in the world has changed dramatically, and Russia's allegedly deteriorating economic situation opens up opportunities for the United States to strengthen the arms race.

“This logic is also observed in the statements of Mike Pompeo, who intends to launch a kind of mechanism and probe how much the pandemic has changed the Russian Federation’s posiiton.

The Americans do not share the views of Moscow, which supports China through its information activities. However, against the backdrop of United States actions, the question arises of how the Russian Federation will react and whether it decides to support the Western side to some extent instead of the Chinese side. The reaction of our country will show what role it will play in the information war that Washington has unleashed against Beijing.

However, I do not rule out that the friendly gesture by Mike Pompeo will be followed by a surprise or a gift in the form of a threat of new sanctions against Russia, ”the expert said.

FeminamRadicalis #sexist reddit.com

Does it seem like the UK is getting closer to mass peak trans?

The Economist, the BBC, the Guardian, The Times, The Independent and even the (very silly) The Daily Mail have all been fairly consistently running pieces that range from "balanced" to out and out gender critical. Of course no outlet besides The Times is consistently GC, but that is basically every major respected news source in the UK.

Please note that I will link to archives of a few reddit threads below. Please do NOT vote in or comment in any of the linked threads. We need to be very careful to avoid accusations of brigading here. Thank you!

Further, I've noticed that trans people themselves in the UK seem to be running scared. I saw this post over on the transuk sub . And then there was this article by our good ol' buddy Paris Lees in the Guardian whining about "bullying" from the UK media (aka just stating facts about transgenderism). What I thought was most interesting about that article was that he didn't mention "TERFs" or "feminists" at all. Which is not what he usually does, he's usually going on and on about how much he hates them. I took that as an indication that he didn't want to spread the idea of "TERF"yness or gender criticism any further when commenting in a mainstream outlet since he realizes peak trans is coming and doesn't want any more members of the public to catch on to GC ideas.

Also, there has been at least a few raging threads on the UK subs of late about this, and possibly more (I haven't been keeping up with them lately). This is the most recent one that comes to mind. The mods were deleting many of the gender critical comments, but not all. Some were of course being heavily downvoted, but not all. Most of the recent threads have played out that way, from what I have seen.

I think that the Gender Recognition Act is going to force a public conversation on what transgenderism actually is and that that public conversation is going to (hopefully) push peak trans. Or rather: I hope that this will be the case.

What do you think? Is mass peak trans actually happening in the UK or am I being Pollyannish and grasping at straws? Do you know of other indicators of mass peak trans possibly brewing in the UK?

Jack Kerwick #racist amren.com

Back in 2011, Frank Borzellieri was terminated from his position as principal of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, a predominantly black and Hispanic Catholic elementary school located in the Bronx, New York. The Daily News charged Borzellieri with “white supremacy,” the Church to which Borzellieri devoted his life upheld the conviction, and that was that.

Yet the charge was baseless and the conviction cruelly unjust.

Borzellieri is the author of six books, some of which treat racial and cultural issues. His great sin seems to consist in the fact that he dared to note that there are interracial IQ differences that correlate to some extent with other social indicia.

In this, however, he joins every other scientist who takes this data for granted. To name just a few examples:

The Bell Curve authors, Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute Scholar and the 2009 recipient of the Irving Kristol Award, and the late Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard professor; MIT scientist and best-selling author Steven Pinker; and Thomas Sowell, the black “conservative” economist, nationally-syndicated columnist, and Hoover Institution fellow have been saying for decades nothing particularly different from anything that Borzellieri has written.

Yet the notion that Borzellieri is any sort of “supremacist” is patently absurd on its face.

Borzellieri chose–he chose–to ply his craft as an educator tending to the needs of New York City’s black and Hispanic students. He was also elected thrice to the New York City school board where he resisted efforts to replace literature on such Western heroes as Columbus and Washington with a curriculum requiring children to read books on homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and birth control.

But Borzellieri must believe in “white supremacy,” his accusers contend, because he had at one time associated with Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance (AR), an organization that routinely explores the ways in which race and IQ intersect with all manner of other cultural phenomena.

And anyone who mentions race and IQ, or who associates with those who do so, must be a “white supremacist.”

KnightsTemplar.TV #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Sexual Union of Souls and The Occult Forces of Sex

Sex is the fountain of all life.

However, let me warn you that this magnificent fountain is not something we humans should profane with our animal needs or wants by treating the most beautiful act of sex similar to that of a dirty dog. But in our current world, many men and women seem to be doing just that by making this most beautiful fountain a possible poisoned Karmic well of death for the unsuspecting souls who treat this divine act like that of an animal.

The facts are that most people are completely ignorant to this “force” when it comes to the spiritual realm, their astral souls and their animal bodies in the material world. The reason being is that most humans are not educated on these facts as the live their lives based on mostly pure materialism as they operate primarily from the seat of their animal selves rather than for their divine selves which would be their souls. These same people think of sex as purely a pleasure act where they feel good temporarily or reach a form of ecstasy, but they do not think beyond the joy we feel and or orgasm that it brings. This is a serious mistake that I have made myself more than once and have lived through the resulting very bad Karma from these ill fated and ignorantly chosen sexual unions.

When you have sex, you need to realize that the other persons soul becomes one with yours and some serious soul work may need to take place to release their astral connection to your astral self.

Think of these unseen forces that are like vampires that instead of feeding on your blood, feed on your energy which is your “life force.” It is almost akin to an exorcism that takes place when you are free from the other’s Astral influence. Some people can do this in days, weeks or months with the proper work and some people who don’t understand this will take a year or more to get over one relationship. If you have multiple sexual relationships then you are creating multiple unions that will end up creating multiple vampires confusing you and making you a bit mad in the head. Hence, think about porn stars, prostitutes and strippers who always seem to have serious mental issues that never leave them and often plague them till death. Most of these people are going crazy not from the porn or the act of sex, but the many sexual unions with dark souls that never leave them. The same can be said about the girl or guy who sleeps with everyone in your school or town. They are always a bit weird and most of them end up dying or going absolutely crazy later in life.

This is really why many people take break ups with their partners or marriages so bad.

Here is an excerpt from the Occult Science in Medicine to help put this in perspective for you:

Popular medicine deals only with external effects and physical causes, occult science goes deeper, seeking for fundamental causes and final effects, which are of far greater importance than the passing manifestations taking place in the physical form. Thus, for instance, a promiscuous sexual intercourse not only causes venereal diseases; but as during that act a commingling of the inner natures takes place to a certain extent, a man cohabiting with a depraved woman takes on some of her characteristics and joins to a certain extent her future Karma and destiny to his own. The basis of the existence of human beings is what, for want of a better expression, has been called the Will (Spirit or Life), and as one body may colour or poison another, likewise a colouring, and perhaps poisoning, takes place by a blending of spirit during sexual intercourse; this “spiritual substance” being the essence of each human being.

“If a woman leaves her husband, she is then not free from him, nor he from her; for a marital union having once been established, remains a union for all eternity.” (” De Homunculis.”)

The important thing to understand when it comes to yourself is that your body is comprised of two entities. One would be that of your material or animal body and the other would be your astral soul which is your divine self. When you are born, these two separate entities go out into the physical world and are always somewhat at war with one another with each trying to control your thoughts or actions in order to gain the upper hand in your daily affairs.

Think of it like you have an angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other.

The devil would your animal self that encourages you to have as much sex as you please with whomever you please and the angle would be your good side that hopes to find a soul mate to marry and start a family with whom you can make love with because you care deeply for this person.

Here is a quotation from H. P. Blavatsky to help explain this a bit further:

“The ‘harvest of life’ consists of the finest spiritual thoughts, of the memory of the noblest and most unselfish deeds of the personality, and the constant presence during its bliss after death of all those it loved with divine spiritual devotion. Remember the teaching: The human soul, lower Manas, is the only and direct mediator between the personality and the divine Ego. That which goes to make up on this earth the personality, miscalled individuality by the majority, is the sum of all its mental, physical, and spiritual characteristics, which, being impressed on the human soul, produces the man. Now, of all these characteristics, it is the purified thoughts alone which can be impressed on the higher immortal Ego. This is done by the human soul merging again, in its essence, into its parent source, commingling with its divine Ego during life, and reuniting itself entirely with it after the death of the physical man.”

Philo said that “God separated Adam into his two sexual component parts, one male, the other female—Eve—taken from his side. The longing for reunion which love inspired in the divided halves of the originally dual being, is the source of the sexual pleasure, which is the beginning of all transgressions.”

This is where many of our problems had started when our astral souls had left the heavenly spirit world to inhabit the animal, plant and mineral world that we now know as the planet earth. This is where our species of animal, man kind or Home erectus has been in a perpetually lost as many of us are trying to find their way home or search for our souls mates. Our soul mates are our other astral halves thus resulting in a perfect union of souls. We are all Adam’s or Eve’s looking for our other halves so we can then truly be scientifically soul complete, but the wrong choice of a mate may just end up in a destructive union that causes negative consequences and or an outcome for both parties involved. I am sure you may have had this experience yourself or have seen this first hand in your lifetime.

The male element represents the energy, action, warmth, and productive principle in nature. The female represents, the maternal which is passive and procreative, the union of the two is the subjective man’s universal soul. The whole reason we humans have sex is for this union and not purely for the pleasure of the act, but for the reproduction of “souls”which just happens to use our animal bodies which I sometimes refer to as space suits for this propagation process. To put it simply, we humans are used by astral soul entities who wish to propagate our physical bodies to further their Karmic development.

Here is an excerpt from Harry Houdini in his book , The Esoteric that will help those of you out there understand the difference between the soul and animal body;

“The human body is subject to a double law of nature, male and female, and when the student will throw aside this outer material body, as his hypothesis,and learns to comprehend the difference between the objective and subjective man; the animal and the soul body, the outer and the inner being: to polarize either with the astral-magno or astral-force, he can have the might power of nature, and become the grandest of magicians. But the student must not rest here but press on. The student of soul-light finds the union of sex in its dual being is the universal form of God ; unselfish love the “universal force, and wisdom the guiding hand; marriage of the soul with spirit the universal result.

The bottom line is that regardless if you are heterosexual or homosexual, the Occult Forces of Sex And The Sexual Union of Souls is not something that should be taken lightly or you should carelessly toy with. You need to understand that you have now entered into “soul union” with this other person’s soul because when we mate with another human, we are also mating with their soul.

If you care and love them from your heart,this is where you will find the divine spark that culminates from this union as you unite as one with them and the magic can be very powerful. The reason is because this union of souls holds a special energy in a regenenerating as well as a generating force with the former producing this union of souls which is astral and also physical because we can all see, touch and feel the experience in the material world. The consequences of this act could turn out very bad if you simply cannot control these energies or Karma that may be a result of what you think is just “casual sex.”

Laurie Higgins #fundie illinoisfamily.org

[This is part of an "open letter to Hemant Mehta," a public high school math teacher has been targeted by Laurie Higgins and the Illinois Family Institute for his statements on his blog.]

I have never in any context suggested that you should be fired or that you should resign [...] [M]y goal is to provide information to District 204 parents - particularly IFI readers - about the nature of the ideas you express and endorse on your public blog so that they can make informed decisions as to whether they want their children to spend a school year under your tutelage.

[...]

You fail to acknowledge a central point that I addressed in my two articles, which is that many teens are unduly influenced by emotion and the cult of personality, and therefore are predisposed to look favorably on the ideas of teachers whom they find cool or charismatic or funny or kind or anti-tradition. Adolescence is also a time of rebellion which is why many teens are attracted to rebellions, anti-establishment people and ideas.

If students search your name and come upon your blog, they will be exposed to your endorsement and promotion of ideas that some parents may find deeply troubling. If students have you as their teacher, like you, and develop a relationship with you - as happens often in high school - they will be more likely to look favorably on and be influenced by your ideas than those students who have little or no personal connection to you. This is the reason that many parents care deeply about role models.

It's the reason there were some recent stories about parents being upset that a high school cheerleading coach posed in her private life for Playboy magazine, and why some parents would not want their children in the class of a teacher who in their free time on a public forum promotes racist views or denies the historicity of the Holocaust.

[...]

If you cannot produce any proof from my writing to support your claim that I am "going after" your job, please retract that statement.

Anna Diehl #fundie 924jeremiah.wordpress.com

God is not just a God of love. He’s also the God who arranges for kids to be molested, adults to be raped, and prisoners to be tortured. God is overseeing, directing and choosing all of the sick and twisted activity that goes on in this world. It’s very easy to stay in denial about this until God starts coming after you personally. But when you find yourself being singled out as His next torture victim, suddenly your view of Him is massively challenged. Every time you try to get up, He kicks you back down onto the ground. Every time you try to muster up some perseverance, He slams you with a new wave of pain. You feel like He’s got you in a nasty game of cat and mouse, and it doesn’t take long before you decide that you don’t want to play any more. But here’s where things take a dark turn because God won’t let you quit. You want to emotionally disengage, but God has taken that option off the table. You are going to feel as much as He wants you to feel. You are going to care as much as He wants you to care. It’s in these periods that we get a whole new realization of just how helpless we are to defend ourselves against Someone who controls every aspect of our beings. We like to think of ourselves as independent from God—getting to freely choose how we will respond to Him. But no, we are not independent, and freedom of choice is a gift that God can revoke at any time. During certain seasons of refinement, He forces us to suffer intensely without any avenue of escape. Psychological games can work against human abusers, because they can’t get inside of you and control the way that you internally react to them. But God is inside of you and He controls every aspect of your being. Your best defensive strategies crumble against Him. If He wants you to hate Him, He will drive you to it. If He wants you to think He’s a sadistic monster, He knows how to convince you. You cannot stop an all-powerful God from completely dismantling your trust in Him, and often this feels like exactly what He has set out to do during this phase of the valley experience.

So where’s the good news in all of this? You hurt like hell, you feel like your soul’s been gutted, and STILL God won’t give it a rest. What are your options? It’s no small wonder that many souls start entertaining thoughts of suicide during this period. After all, humans are frail creatures and we can only take so much. But of course if we kill ourselves, we’re just going to end up in a totally different dimension in which God has a whole new array of torture devices at His disposal. Let’s remember this is the Guy who came up with Hell. Do we really want to rush to a place whose biggest draw is supposed to be that we’re closer to God than we are on earth? Why would we want to do anything that will bring us closer to Someone who treats us like this?

An honest scrutiny of our options during this period reveals that we don’t have any. Once God sets His mind on destroying us, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop Him. Christians think that they understand what “God is in control” means until they end up where you are now. Then suddenly a phrase that used to bring comfort suddenly becomes a terrifying trap. God IS in control, and His control is ABSOLUTE. Sure, you have made certain choices in your life which we like to label as “free.” But is anything really free in God’s universe? Of course not. The only options you’ll ever see in front of you are the few options that God wants you to have. When He doesn’t want you to have options, He takes them all away.

Tayyip Erdogan #fundie reuters.com

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting on women's rights on Monday that gender equality was contrary to nature and said feminists did not recognize the value of motherhood.

Erdogan, whose conservative, Islamist ideology frequently raises hackles in more liberal segments of Turkish society, said women's "delicate" nature meant it was impossible to place them on an equal footing with men.

"You can't get a woman to work in every job that a man does, like they did in communist regimes in the past," he told the meeting of Turkey's Women and Democracy Association.

"You can't put a pickaxe and a shovel in their hand and get them to work. That's not the way."

He said women should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but their different role in society had to be recognized.

Erdogan's critics in mostly Muslim but constitutionally secular Turkey have regularly accused him of puritanical intrusiveness into private life, from his advice to women on the number of children they should have to his views on abortion.

But his divisive rhetoric has won him the support of the country's pious Anatolian heartlands, helping secure his victory in the first popular election for head of state in August after more than a decade as prime minister.

"Our religion gave woman a station. What station is this? The station of motherhood ... Motherhood is something different and is the most unobtainable, the highest station," he said.

"There are those who understand this, those who don't. You can't tell this to feminists, because they do not accept motherhood. They have no such concerns."

Economists cite the low numbers of women in the workforce as an obstacle to Turkey's development, while the European Union -- which Turkey has been negotiating to join for over a decade -- has urged the country to do more to improve gender equality.

"We know women are not physiologically equal. But equality is about having equal rights, equal status and equal opportunities," said Gonul Karahanoglu, president of women's rights group KA.DER.

"He defines women only as mothers. It is discriminating against all the women who don't have children. He always says the same things," she said.

Gottservant #fundie christianforums.com

You are guilty of mutation, but the power of Jesus can take it away

When you mutate it is because you did not believe in Jesus, the One by whom all things exist and are created (John 1:3). If you had believed in Jesus you would be able to exist without needing to mutate. Neither would you attempt to mutate because you would be living as you were designed to live.

The bible records many cases where the power of Jesus overcame the results of mutations, even the very doubt associated with mutation.

[Quotations from three Bible verses about Jesus healing the disabled.]

Only the Devil would want these people to remain disabled and less than the best that they could be. Only someone who rejected God's power to heal would say "those people should be deformed" and do nothing to help them.

The power of Jesus is there to be discovered by everyone. Jesus said in John 16:24 "Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be complete". If you have mutations that you don't want, Jesus has made it possible to be rid of them!

Usagicho #sexist reddit.com

Yes 2d is better. Much better.

That kindness you speak of is non existant for many people.I am 30, I have been in only 5 relationships 2 long terms ones and only 1 was worth it and that was in highschool. We acted like a team. Helping eachother with chores, studies waking up to random talks at 2am. Sex was great as we both explored our sexuality with eachother. Never met someone like her again after she moved for college.

Most Real girls/women/ladies/females whatever your preferred term is I have been with have only lied, cheated, stole or manipulated. One even tried to ruin my relationship with my roomate.

Its hard to explain. Especially without sounding at least kind of pathetic. Real girls can never be anything but themselves. A 2d anime girl can be whatever you want... That sounds bad.. Controlling even....

Okay. Say someone asked you to help with dinner. you dont want to, you had your own rough day. You do it but hesitantly or without enthusiasm. That shows and no one wants to put their SO out there like that. Sometimes that feeling can last a week. so its a week of possible tension.

(disclaimer: not saying men are better in anyway)

but with a 2d girl she will throw on a maid cosplay bend over forward ever so slightly so she is looking up at your face and say "Everything is okay, leave it to me, I will do my best!" I can indulge without making anyone uncomftorable or giving anyone more work or request something they dont want to do.

I have 2d fetishes because IRL fetishes suck. I can have a 2d foot fetish without worrying about hygiene or medical/science stuff that ruins it. Plus attitude. 2d anime girls always have the appropriate attitude, skills, or ability (this last one applies to the fantasy of it obviously). Where as real girls can lack confidence or attitude. Not to mention I avoid the judgements afterwords. a 2d girl never judges mocks or tells other people what I like for laughs.

SEX TALK WARNING

Example: Say people go to have anal sex. It is not as simple to do as vaginal sex. Lots to think and worry about. Pain and mess being at the top. You have to think about that with a real girl. How comftorable is she, am i hurting her, is she doing this because i seemed like i really wanted it, did i pressure her without realizing etc.

2d anime girl would practically live for that.

Its a mental weight off the shoulders knowing I can just indulge without worry or needing a mop(not ever actually needed just me trying to be funny)...

Basically 2d girls are better because they dont exist. They wont steal your credit card ,they dont have their own life to worry about, they dont make you feel like you wasted 3 years of your life or make you question your own confidence. They are a fantasy that exists purely to make you smile.

This next one is rather complicated fo me to put into words... Its lke if you took all the "disrespect" (in quotations because disrespect is subjective but to simplify think of it like seeing real girls only for sex) and focused that on a drawing.

That sexual lust that would make you ignore the personality of the real girl can be targeted to a 2d girl. Like a sexual lightning rod. So now that your lust has a target you can focus more on what the girl is actually like.

And most people suck. We only (from experience) see the world depending on our emotions or logic. example: someone lonely will be fin with abuse. If we take away what changes our perception we are left with the reality of what we are looking at. So many emotions that can be targeted to 2d girls leave room for clarity when engaing in real social situations.

I find mixing in asmr/binaural recording or audio dojins to be mentally refreshing. With 2d anime girls I get the visual, with what i just mentioned I get the audio and lastly with adult toys I get the feeling. All of which can be suited to whatever I like. Maybe i want a 2d girl to throw on a strap on maybe i want footplay or just a walk in the park. The illusion of resting on a lap.. It can all be achieved using other stimulants.

Most things people do like shopping, banking or cleaning can be done by an individual. Most relationships outside procreation have little to no meaning. Its all science telling us to mate. 2d girls and technology act like a placebo in that regards.

Basically if you can "trick" yourself/instincts into making it seem like you are not alone there is no need for other people. You avoid the physical, emotional, financial pain while saving your time for you.

TLDR

2d girls are better because fantasy is better than reality.

MaryAnn #fundie youthdefence.ie

I am a young, independent woman. I can vote, go to college, drive a car, even run for President if I want (once I’m over 35)! I can do anything that my male colleagues can do. But there is one thing that I can become that’s denied to my male friends…a mother. Motherhood is the most amazing thing that a woman can do in this world. Just think about it: we can nurture and protect another human life. Every single person in the world had a mother; we all spent nine months in the comfort and safety of our mothers’ womb.

So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman. If you described the methods to a person who had never heard of abortion before – who hadn’t been fooled by all the pro-abortion propaganda and brainwashing -, they would think that abortion was some kind of primeval torture. Imagine, having your own child violently torn apart and sucked out of your womb, or feeling your child struggling and kicking as he or she is poisoned and burned and then delivering the dead, scalded little body. Imagine having your own child, while still alive, dismembered limb by limb inside your womb, your child’s spine cracked and skull crushed in order to remove them, and then a nurse putting each piece of the body back together on a counter to make sure no part of your child is left inside of you. It’s hardly surprising that all the evidence shows abortion is hurting women so badly, as well as killing their babies.
Think about it: if newborn infants were being tortured with brutal punishments such as these, there would be uproar!
But the abortion industry is a multi-million dollar one, and, right from the beginning, they had a pretty good marketing idea: to sell abortion by convincing women that they were simply making a choice, and that abortion gives them freedom. It was a good tactic…but they haven’t fooled me or millions of other women around the world.
Women will never truly have equal rights to men in a world where abortion exists. Abortion is often used to cover up cases of abuse and under-age prostitution. Live Action in the US has uncovered cases of abortion clinic workers in Planned Parenthood helping pimps to cover up the abuse of underage sex slaves. Girls as young as thirteen and fourteen years old are being exploited, and abortion clinic workers are only too happy to “rearrange” the paperwork to make it all look “legit” and help the pimp to run his business.
And let’s not forget that half of all aborted children are female. In fact, in countries such as China and India, where male children are preferred to females, this figure is much higher. This practice of sex-selection abortion is now so pervasive that it has been described as gendercide by the The Economist (which is a self proclaimed supporter of abortion), while the research of one award-winning author, Mara Hvistendahl, showed that 163 million girls are missing from the world. So much for women’s rights.
A few weeks ago Bryan Kemper, an American pro-life leader, said that “Abortion enslaves women to a world where men can dominate and control them so the men can be free.” I couldn’t agree more. Countless women have been made to think that they have no other option but abortion; that they are not capable of being good mothers. They have been coerced by cowardly, weak men, who want to avoid stepping up to their responsibilities and make women think that this “is the best choice”. Abortion is never a “choice”. It is an invasive, destructive, violent and agonising act against womanhood.
Women are designed to become mothers, the womb is meant to be a safe haven for us in the earliest stages of our life, but it is sadly becoming one of the most dangerous places in the world to live. I am a twenty-first century woman who enjoys all the rights and responsibilities that men enjoy. I am happy to say that I am equal to any man in this country, because, according to the UN, Ireland without abortion is the safest country in the world to become a mother. A woman becomes a mother the moment she conceives a child. We need to celebrate motherhood. Every child and every mother is a gift. Women who are frightened and anxious need our love and support. Every woman needs know that she is a life giver, that she can nurture and love her child, that she is doing the most important job in the world. I will continue to stand for every woman, every mother and every child. We must unite against this barbaric and archaic practice. We can eliminate the crisis, not the child.

Mailman Dan #fundie rr-bb.com

Martinm, I can't do anything if you opt not to believe in creation as proof of a creator... I can deny your existance as well, but it doesn't change reality. I can step in front of an on coming truck on the freeway and deny it exist too, but my objection for the truck to retract itself doesn't change anything. It's also logic, that 10 out of 10 people die. I can deny that logic right up until the truck I denied hits me.

Josh Bernstein #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Right-wing radio host, commentator and conspiracy theorist Josh Bernstein posted a video yesterday calling on President Trump to shut down CNN and prosecute the network for treason.

Seizing on the news that three CNN journalists responsible for a retracted story about an investigation into the ties between a Trump ally and a Russian bank had resigned, as well as a bogus James O’Keefe “sting” video purporting to show a CNN producer casting doubt on the network’s Russia coverage, Bernstein urged Trump to take swift action to put the network out of business.

“For anybody that is still watching CNN, shame on you,” Bernstein fumed. “Shame on you, because you are supporting communism.”

Bernstein—whose own stringent “editorial standards” allow him to proclaim that all Muslims should be eradicated, that John Podesta is a “serial murderer and hit man” who personally killed Seth Rich and that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are secretly gay—blasted CNN for having absolutely “no editorial standards and guidelines.”

“You make the North Korean media look honest,” he said, “you bunch of creeps.”

“President Trump, please, pull CNN’s license,” Bernstein begged. “They do not need to be broadcasting anything. Nothing! There is no reason for CNN to be in existence. That place should be shut down for treason, for espionage, for sedition, you name it. I would love the see the Justice Department literally file complaints and lawsuits against CNN.”

RonaldM #fundie news.yahoo.com

Actually, no, no faith predates Christianity, contrary to the many lies of our liberal media, classrooms (of all "educational" levels... please note the quotation marks), pop culture, consensus thought, etc., and as usual, yahoo! news is a joke. This type of nonsense is no different than the nonsense that I heard in college, i.e. from my Sociology professor, someone I had a lot of exchanges with.

Truth is absolute, not relative, not subjective, not dependent upon an aforementioned consensus/status quo or time frame. Truth never changes and is absolutely parallel in all cases.

Christianity is the true faith, and please note the definite article. Don't take my word at face value, though; seek the truth. God has given us the faculties of reason and wisdom. Indeed, use them. You will know-- not assume-- the truth if you do indeed seek it, and since God created the universe, don't tell me that any false faith that originated after the fact somehow predates Christianity. You can't predate the true faith.

When I was four, I stood in church, looked around, thought I was in the right place, but wondered how I could know. I sought the truth and found it. I unfortunately left the faith at one point but thankfully returned.

Anyone wanting to continue this conversation can reach me at <email address removed>.

Dr. Donald E. Wildmon #fundie onenewsnow.com

[Alleged beating of elderly homosexual man proven false.]

Dr. Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association (AFA), says he does not expect any retraction of accusations by homosexual activists -- but he does expect them to continue their push for "hate crimes" legislation, regardless of the facts. He recalls similar reaction to a highly publicized incident in October 1998.

"This really calls to mind the incident in Wyoming a few years ago [when] a young man named Matthew Shepherd supposedly ... was beaten because he was a homosexual," says Wildmon. "The truth later came out that the people who beat him to death did not even know he was a homosexual; they were robbing him."

An incident such as the Shepherd case, says the AFA founder, "gets big play early on" -- but despite later findings, "it's planted in the minds of people who don't hear the truth."

Law enforcement authorities in Detroit say they now consider the Anthos case closed. But at least one Detroit-area homosexual advocacy group, the Triangle Foundation, is hopeful the police will take into account the testimony of Anthos and continue to pursue the case, despite the physical evidence casting doubt on his claims.

Conservative and Christian leaders have argued for years that, if "hate crimes" legislation became law, it could become illegal for pastors to preach from the Bible regarding homosexuality.

ekkerjozsef #fundie ekkerjozsef.tumblr.com

(Translation by me. Original Hungarian at the end in quotation.)

My neighbor
is a movie producer, or more accurately a retired movie producer, he was a military officer before that, in some sort of intelligence line, and began his movie career based on the bundeswehr dismissal pay like forty years ago
he's an unbelievably entertaining man, 85 years old, but remembers everything, knows amazing stories, made porn movies back in the golden age at the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s
i know it from him that the current anal epidemic and shaven pussy formula is all because of the middle east, first they made 8-16mm movies, primarily for the local and european market, and it was hard to find but there was a need for it, they sold it fucking pricey but still every reel was bought, illegal stuff is always cool
then around 1980 umatic came in, and later the vhs rencer, they switched to video, and the demand went up, especially from the emerging oil exporting countries, where their money started to dictate the tastes too
so from the end of the 70s onward every movie had to have an anal scene, because the desert peoples demanded this, the shaven pussy was needed to remind the arab audiences of the underage virgins, so more and more feature films were made with these criteria, and this formed the european tastes too, and the fashion too of course, especially later, in the age of the internet
long story short Helmut is at fault for it all

Szomszédom
filmproducer, illetve nyugdíjas producer, mégkorábban katonatiszt volt, valami hírszerzo vonalon, és a bundeswehr végkielégítést forgatta bele a filmszakmába, de már vagy negyven éve
hihetetlenül szórakoztató ember, nyolcvanöt éves, de mindenre emlékszik, olyan sztorikat tud, pornófilmeket csinált, a hoskorban, hetvenes évek végén, nyolcvanasok elején
tole tudom, hogy a mostani análjárvány meg csupaszpinaképlet mind a közelkelet miatt van, eloször ugye nyolc-tizenhat milliméteres filmeket gyártottak, foleg belföldi meg európai piacra, és ez elég nehezen volt kapható, pedig volt rá igény, kurvadrágán adták, de fogyott minden tekercs, az illegális dolgok mindig menok
aztán nyolcvan környékén bejött a umatic, meg késobb a vhs rencer, átálltak a videóra, felszaladt a kereslet, foleg a feltörekvo koolajexportáló országokból, ahonnan kezdték a pénzükért az ízlést is diktálni
szóval a hetvenes évek legvégétol minden filmbe kellett análjelenet, mert a sivatagi népek ezt erosen igényelték, a csupasz pina meg azért kellett, hogy emlékeztesse arab nézoket a kiskorú szüzekre, így aztán egyre több nagyjátékfilmet forgattak ilyen szempontok szerint, és ez alakította az európai közízlést is, meg persze a divatot, pláne késobb, az internet korában
egyszóval Helmut tehet az egészrol