Similar posts

Jared Taylor #racist #wingnut amren.com

Is It Time for Secession?

Are the United States ripe for partition? Francis Herbert Buckley, a lawyer and academic who has taught at McGill and is now at George Mason School of Law, thinks they are. “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations just as much as in 1861,” he writes. “The contempt for opponents, the Twitter mobs, online shaming and no-platforming, the growing tolerance of violence — it all suggests we would be happier in separate countries.”

It’s a great step forward that a separatist can find a respectable publisher — even if it claims to sell “books for smart conservatives.” American Secession reports that there is a lot of support for separation and offers good reasons for it but, alas, only hints at the most compelling reason.

Prof. Buckley makes much of a 2018 poll that found fully 39 percent of Americans — including 42 percent of Democrats — wanted to secede. Presumably there would have been fewer secessionist Democrats under President Obama. Another 2018 poll found that 31 percent of Americans thought there would be a civil war within the next five years. I don’t take these numbers very seriously; wild talk is cheap. But I think Prof. Buckley is right to underline a recent Gallup finding that only 44 percent of Americans would be wiling to fight for their country. Surely, he is correct to say that far fewer would fight to stop an American state from seceding.

Many people think that 700,000 dead Civil War soldiers settled the question of secession, but Prof. Buckley disagrees. He argues that the Framers clearly thought the states had the right to secede. James Madison believed any attempt to keep states in by force would be wrong and “would look more like a declaration of war.” Virginia joined the United States with the express proviso that it had the right to bolt. New England states that didn’t like the War of 1812 didn’t debate the legality of secession; only whether to do it.

Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the slave-holding states should be expelled if they didn’t have the grace to leave, and wanted to hold a national Disunion Convention to expel then. On July 4, 1854, he told an Independence Day crowd that because the Constitution implicitly recognized slavery, it was “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” He then burned a copy, saying “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

James Buchanan, who was president when the Southern states began to leave, believed they should not be forced to stay:

The fact is that our union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day parish.

Before South Carolina hotheads fired on Fort Sumter, even Abraham Lincoln wavered: “Would the marching of an army into South Carolina . . . without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion.”

Prof. Buckley reminds us that even now, there is one way to leave that everyone would agree is legal. The Founders believed the federal government would never give up power voluntarily — they were right — and that’s why they wrote Article V of the Constitution. It lets the states bypass the federal government to amend or even abolish the Constitution. If 34 state legislatures agree, there will be a constitutional convention at which anything goes. If 38 states then ratify the changes, that’s the new constitution — which could recognize secession or even sanction a partition. “Secession cannot be unconstitutional,” writes Prof. Buckley, “when there’s a constitutional way of making it happen, through a constitutional convention.”

I don’t think any of that would be necessary, because the federal government wouldn’t today invade a seceding state. As I wrote nine years ago, Americans don’t have the stomach to slaughter fellow Americans just to keep their corpses within the union. If a state wanted to make a serious go of it — especially for “progressive” reasons — the coast is clear, and as Prof. Buckley notes, these days, it is lefties who promote secession.

One of the best-known breakaway movements is in California, and Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory gave it a boost. The state already has legal marijuana despite federal drug laws and it loves illegal immigrants. The “Calexit” movement is run by people who think: “California loses billions of dollars every day [in federal taxes] supporting states whose people hate us and our culture. Let’s keep our taxes in California and invest in our people first.” Prof. Buckley notes that this sounds like “California first” or even “make California great again” and almost implies an anti-conservative immigration policy. The point is, many Californians hate Donald Trump and want out.

Vermont is so full of goofy liberals it has Bernie Sanders for a senator; it has also long been a nest of secessionists.

The Cascadia movement would make an independent country out of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia and would, as Prof. Buckley puts it “unite people with the same kinds of ideas about the environment, Starbucks and yoga.” If the President gets a second term, Prof. Buckley can imagine Democrats calling for resistance in the streets.

They already have. The manager of a Red Hen restaurant proudly refused service to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and a woman jostled and screamed at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. Black congresswoman Maxine Waters then urged Democrats to mob and humiliate any Trump cabinet members they saw in public.

This is all part of the nastiness Prof. Buckley says is a sign of irreconcilable differences. Examples he cites are a 2017 article in Foreign Policy — not normally a crackpot magazine — claiming that “for the first time in America’s history, a Nazi sympathizer occupied the Oval Office.” Prof. Buckley also remembers that when Michelle Obama said that “when they [our opponents] go low we go high,” Attorney General Eric Holder corrected her: “No, no, when they go low, we kick them.” When Republican Senator Rand Paul was attacked and suffered six broken ribs and lung damage, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt laughingly said it was one of her “favorite stories.” Reporters routinely write vile stories about Republicans that would have got them fired in more civil times, but the point of today’s journalism is, in Prof. Buckley’s words, to let readers “feast on their hatreds.”

The last go at secession didn’t end well, and perhaps because he was born in Canada, Prof. Buckley understands something about it most Americans don’t: The further we get from the Civil War, the more we are supposed to revile the Confederates. The people who were actually trying to kill each other became friends. President Grant invited Robert E. Lee for a visit to the White House, and on the 50th anniversary of Pickett’s charge, veterans from both sides met on Cemetery Ridge and embraced each other. There was a popular television series, The Grey Ghost, in which Confederates were the heroes, and, as Prof. Buckley writes, “From their defeat, white southerners were permitted to retain some measure of dignity in the memory of their battlefield heroes.” Not anymore. Anything Confederate or even Southern is worse than leprosy, and “if millions of people in one section of the country are told they’re presumptively evil, and that the presumption really can’t be rebutted, they’re going to wonder if they belong somewhere else.”

But as Prof. Buckley recognizes, there is an even more testy divide: “Now the divisions are broader than North versus South. It’s liberals versus conservative and especially progressives versus Trump supporters.” “In our politics,” he adds, “we are already two nations.” One likely split would be to hive off the two coasts and leave the middle, making three countries.

That would make smaller countries, but Prof. Buckley says they would be better countries. He makes much of the fact that the people who claim to be the happiest in the world live in small countries (he ignores the fact that they live in white countries). They have governments that are close to the people and if they are homogenous, they have a sense of community. One disadvantage of big countries is that they spend more than they need to on weapons. America, China, and Russia don’t need anything like all the firepower they have, but their leaders like being able to swagger around the globe. Prof. Buckley thinks their citizens may not care. In the United States, it is the 700 to 1,000 defense-industry lobbyists — about two per congressman — who keep the defense budget fat.

The military-industrial complex is a good example of the dangers of size. Prof. Buckley argues that big countries have a lot of corruption because their governments spend huge sums people love to divert. He makes an interesting point: The kinds of political corruption that are actually illegal — bribery, extortion, mail fraud, vote-buying — are the least of our problems. Campaign contributions and lobbying are far worse, and are perfectly legal. After they leave office, about half of all congressmen become lobbyists, and make much more than they ever did as “public servants.” While they’re in office, they vote on bills with an eye to pleasing their future paymasters.

Prof. Buckley does note one clear advantage of size: free trade. Imagine, he writes, what it was like under the Articles of Confederation, with states taxing goods from other states. However, this problem could be solved through a common market of the kind that has enriched Europe.

Prof. Buckley recognizes that outright secession is unlikely, despite its advantages, so he proposes a middle ground: home rule. States would make all their own laws but leave foreign policy to the feds. All the hot issues — same-sex marriage, gun rights, abortion, public prayer, drug laws — would be thrashed out locally. If Americans were free to move to whatever state suited them, everyone could find a place to be happy.

This, is of course, was what the Founders wanted, and until the 20th century, and the federal government touched most people only when they went to the post office. Now, as Prof. Buckley points out, the feds want to run our lives for us. They are helped by a Supreme Court that has become the final arbiter of tough problems and forces the same solutions on every state. Federalism was supposed to be a compromise to get the best of both small and large government, but a ruthlessly centralizing United States is destroying all the advantages of smallness.

Home rule would be much better than what we have now. American Secession is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Prof. Buckley does note that “diversity” is not an advantage for a country, but I don’t remember a single occurrence of the word “race.” Prof. Buckley admits that at one time the country was coherent — British and Protestant — “but if we were ever that, we’re certainly not that today.” He goes on: “Our constitution has been justly admired, but it was made for a citizenry very different from the angry Americans of today.” And on: “The constitution was designed for another country, one in which people agreed on fundamental principles, and that’s not today’s America.”

What happened to yesterday’s America? Prof. Buckley gives us a hint with one of his diagnoses of why the country is splitting apart politically: “With their identity politics, the Democrats have become the intersectional party of racial and sexual minorities, of immigrants and feminists.” This is certainly true, but Prof. Buckley fails to note that the most bitter and enduring fault line is race. Instead, he trots out nonsense: “Other countries have their common cultures or religions. What America has is an idea that constitutes our identity as Americans, and that idea is liberalism in the classical sense.” The Founders would have been astounded to be told that they were starting a country with an identity that was nothing but an idea.

Prof. Buckley also argues that no secession movement would repeal civil rights laws or follow racial contours. That might be true for goofy-liberal secessionists in California or Vermont, but a split along current political-party lines, would be implicitly racial. As the partition was worked out, the racial divide might even become explicit.

It is strange that conservatives are so unwilling to recognize the importance of race while liberals, in their perverse way, are often obsessed with it. Still, this book is progress. Anyone who recognizes that people are better off separate — for whatever reason — is preparing the way for the kind of racial separation that many whites yearn for.

Helmholtz Watson #fundie escapistmagazine.com


Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?

Ok Escapist community, this is a two part question, the first on justification for cultural imperialism and the second on the different views of morality.

First issue:
Now I just finished reading an article on Malawi law that bands homosexuals and one particular section of the article made me feel uneasy. It stated that,

"On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would use foreign aid to encourage countries to decriminalise homosexuality. UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a similar view in October, saying that gay rights were a human right."

The article later went on to state that "Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, where they are often viewed as un-Christian and un-Islamic" and the President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, called homosexuality "evil and very bad before the eyes of God".

I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, because while I don't think it should considered a criminal act, I am also uncomfortable with the reactions I see from the Western political leaders, the reason being is that their attempts to manipulate the laws in Malawai on homosexuality come off as a subtle form of cultural imperialism. What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

Here a few other articles about other African countries against homosexuality and how the West is responding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15558769

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15992099

Second Issue:
When I read the article on Malawai, it made me think of another question on morality, does Moral Universalism exist, or does Moral Relativism exist? I bring this up because, I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed and that it is wrong to do otherwise, and I think that if I was to believe in Moral Universalism, then I would also feel that it is wrong for those African countries to have such a law. However, if I subscribe to the idea that Moral Relativism exist, then while I might not agree with such laws, I guess I would feel that those laws were just a reflection of the morals of the various African cultures and not automatically "wrong". Tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel about the African laws if I followed the idea of Moral Nihilism.Articles such as these give me the impression that Western leaders believe in the idea of Moral Universalism, but what about you? People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.


People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.


would you feel the same way if the African countries were banning bestiality or pedophilia and the West was denying them aid because of the creation of such laws? Wouldn't people who are attracted to children or animals also be an "entire sub-culture of your own society"? Wouldn't those laws be a form of persecution?

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.

Bryan Fischer #fundie rightwingwatch.org

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer recommended that the United States adopt an immigration policy based upon the Bible, meaning that all immigrants must convert to Christianity and completely leave behind their native practices, beliefs, culture, and language. If we "did immigration God's way," Fischer said, that would mean that "those who came to our shores would be expected to adopt our religious values and traditions — that would mean Christianity and not Islam — and they would leave behind their religion and their god." "That would mean leaving behind Islam and Allah," he explained, as well as adopting Judeo-Christian values, which means they they would not be allowed to complain about the sale or consumption of bacon or the inability to obtain Halal foods. "If this were to happen," he concluded, "we would have one god, we would have one law, we would have one culture, and we would have one language"

Dave Blount #racist moonbattery.com

Obama’s Immigration Policy Explained

If the Regime’s immigration policy makes no sense to you, give some thought to its objectives. Allan Wall helps to clarify matters[...]

Sounds like Obama et al. refuse to enforce immigration law because they want everyone to live in America. But no, not everyone:

Eric “My People” Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is actively working to deport a German family who had already been granted refugee asylum status.

It’s not an oversight. It’s not a technicality. Eric Holder’s DOJ has gone out of its way to get this family deported.

The reference is to the Romeike family, political refugees from Germany, who are attempting to escape Hitler-era laws against homeschooling.

Granted no Democrat favors children escaping the indoctrination of government schools, but does anyone think the Social Justice Department would launch a jihad to deport a family back to Mexico for wanting to home school?

Demography is destiny. Singapore and the Central African Republic have almost exactly the same number of people. Per capita income in the former is $61,046; in the latter it is $767. Would anyone deny that if the populations were switched, with everyone in Singapore moving to the central African hellhole and vice versa, within a few years Singapore would be a poor, savage country and the Central African Republic a rich one?

As promised, America is being fundamentally transformed. This transformation is permanent. It is being achieved by displacing the majority population with those of Third World heritage who do not share our work ethic or respect for individual rights and responsibilities. If they shared our values, there would be no need to import them, nor would there be any need for them to leave their own countries, which would be fine places to live if not for the dysfunctional cultures our government is paying welfare colonists to bring with them.

We are witnessing the deliberate obliteration of the greatest nation in history. Those responsible have used their control of the media and education establishments to get so far into our heads that I will be condemned as a “racist” for calling attention to their race-based designs.

Mfon Amun Ptah #fundie mfonptah.tumblr.com

THEIR IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF SEXUAL PERVERSION AMONG INDIGENOUS AFRICANS PRIOR TO COLONIZATION AND CONTACT WITH FOREIGN PEOPLES.
There is no archeological evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no anthropological evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no literary evidence of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
There is no oral tradition of Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Transexuality or any other Perverse form of European Sexuality among indigenous Africans prior to colonization and contact with foreign peoples.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY OF THESE THINGS AMONG INDIGENOUS AFRICANS PRIOR TO COLONIZATION AND CONTACT WITH FOREIGN PEOPLES!! ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF!!
Anyone who says that there is without showing it, is either a naive tool or is BLATANTLY part of the Agenda to promote sexual perversion among African People and Destroy the African family.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The stage is set in Syria for another Pentagon false flag operation!!

In October 1962, a Pentagon false flag operation called the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to the annihilation of the entire human race. Beginning in the summer of 1962, "Communist" Nikita Khrushchev began secretly shipping "nuclear missiles" to Cuba via the British controlled Straits of Gibraltar. Khrushchev was not even Russian, he was a "fake Jew" from UKraine, and most of his soldiers in Cuba were UKrainians.

In preparation for the Cuban Missile Crisis, British Secret Service agent Greville Wynne recruited a Russian colonel named Oleg Penkovsky to decapitate the top Soviet military leaders.

MI6 Greville Wynne–working out of the British embassy in Moscow–recruited colonel Penkovsky as a spy.

Greville was the liaison between Winston Churchill and suicide bomber general Curtis LeMay.

KJB Penkovsky's job was to disable the Russian Doomsday Device before the Pentagon's thermonuclear attack!!

Under the guise of a trade delegation, Penkovsky the spy arrived in London on April 20, 1961.

From April 20 to May 6, 1961, Penkovsky underwent an intensive debriefing at MI6 HQ in London.

MI6 Chief Sir Dick White then shared this info with John McCone–his CIA counterpart.

During his stay in Britain, "Guy Fawkes" Penkovsky was shown every trick in the MI6 spying arsenal.

To disarm the Doomsday Device, Penkovsky recommended that small atomic bombs be planted at strategic locations and timed to go off just before general LeMay's bombers arrived:

As a strategic officer, a graduate of two academies, and having worked for some time in the General Staff, I know what the sensitive spots are. I am convinced that my viewpoint is absolutely correct, namely that in case of a future war, at H-hour plus two minutes, all of these critical targets such as the General Staff, the KGB Headquarters on Dzerzhinsky Square, the Central Committee of the Party, which organizes everything, and similar targets must all be blown up by pre-positioned atomic bombs rather than by means of bombs dropped from aircraft or rockets, which may or may not hit the vital targets.
In our Soviet Army we have a five-kiloton, a ten-kiloton, and bigger weapons, but they have not yet been able to produce a one-kiloton weapon. Our scientists are still working on it. I know this exactly. Such weapons would not need to be set within the buildings themselves, but there are many adjacent buildings where they can be concealed. Dwellings and stores are adjacent. For example, there is a large Gastronom [food store] next to the KGB Headquarters. A small group of saboteurs equipped with such weapons, governed by a time mechanism, should plant them in the locations from which all these headquarters can be destroyed. Irrespective of what other attacks will be made at H-hour, these essential headquarters must be destroyed. These headquarters can be easily spotted in every major city. They are easy to find in Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Voronezh, and Novosibirsk, for example. All one would need would be one man to do this for each military district. This would destroy the mobilization and organizational directorates that are the backbone of the army. If these headquarters of the General Staff and the Military Districts are destroyed, this will reduce the combat strength of the Soviet Army to a very great degree. A number of months would be required to assemble more or less experienced men from the reserves. (Schecter & Deriabin, The Spy Who Saved the World, p. 75).

Amazingly, Penkovsky's spying was not done in a corner. His Moscow handler worked out of the British Embassy . . . just a stone's throw from the Kremlin.

Penkovsky would meet Janet Chisholm, wife of Station Chief Rauri, at Tsvetnoy Boulevard Park in Moscow.

Under the guise of giving candy to her kids, he actually gave her top secret documents about the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Even children played a deadly role in the Doomsday scenario called the Cuban Missile Crisis!!

On the very day that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky was arrested. Moscow was about to be lit up with FIREWORKS, and its wasn't even New Year's Eve!!

On the very day (October 22) that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky's plot was uncovered.

The arrest of the Russian Guy Fawkes caused panic at the Pentagon as they now faced the prospect of a horrible death by cobalt hydrogen bomb radiation.

There is no doubt that the Pentagon feared the Russian Doomsday Device, and they dreaded the prospect of dying a horrible death by radiation.

The drama was as intense in Moscow as in Cuba and Washington City:

There was one more piece of urgent business falling to the KGB secret police. For the past year, a Soviet military intelligence officer named Colonel Oleg Penkovsky had been providing top secret documents to his British and American handlers. Among the documents now in the hands of the CIA was the technical manual for the R-12 missile system, together with the layout of a typical missile site and detailed descriptions of the various readiness levels. Penkovsky had been under suspicion for weeks, but the KGB delayed moving against him because it wanted to smash the entire spy ring.
With the Cold War on the verge of turning hot, Penkovsky could not be permitted to feed any more information to the Americans. Plainclothes agents burst into his apartment on the Moscow River and arrested him without a struggle. Because of the importance of the case, the head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, decided that he would take personal charge of the interrogation. He ordered his men to bring the traitor to his third-floor corner office in the Lubyanka. They sat him down at the other end of a long conference table.
Fearing torture or worse, Penkovsky immediately offered to cooperate with the KGB "in the interests of the motherland." Semichastny looked at him with distaste. "Tell me what harm you have inflicted on our country. Describe it all in detail, with the most pertinent facts." (Dobbs, One Minute to Midnight, pp. 56-57).

Arch-traitor Penkovsky faced a firing squad and most of his accomplices were arrested. Typically, Wynne escaped and lived to a ripe old age. British Secret Service agent Nikita Khrushchev lost most of his power after the Cuban Missile Crisis and he was overthrown in 1964.

If that was British spying on the "police state" known as the Soviet Union, imagine what the situation is like today....Truly horrendous!!

The generals at the Pentagon spend most of their time figuring out how they can get Russia to shoot first, in order for them to launch a nuclear attack on that great and free country.

Now that the British Joint Chiefs have a puppet in the White House . . . and the Kremlin . . . they are eagerly looking forward to World War III.

Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Why I shouldn’t be King of Great Britain: The UK embassy in Washington DC would be home to the world’s largest statue of King George III. If at all possible, I would try to face him toward Mt Vernon. Since I wish nothing more than for the English-speaking countries to be drawn ever closer together, this would not be a good thing for Anglo-American relations and yet, I know I would not be able to stop myself from doing it.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Spain: First visit to Mexico, I’d show up dressed like Cortes and carrying a flag. And, you know, they probably wouldn’t like that. Recently, King Felipe VI met with Martin Schulz and that highlights another reason because I could certainly never stomach shaking hands with the likes of Martin Schulz. (shudder) In dealing with certain Latin American leaders, I would not be able to stop myself at asking them to “shut up” but would probably include a string of epithets that would certainly not be conducive to Hispanic solidarity, which I would like to see more of.

Why I shouldn’t be Grand Duke of Luxembourg: I would spend all my time campaigning to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. I just couldn’t help it. Campaigning to evict the European Court of Justice from Luxembourg soil would probably also be seen as “too political” and “interfering” in government matters for current sensibilities.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Belgium: All foreign aid to the Congo would be in special currency bearing a portrait of King Leopold II. And that would be evil! They would probably also misunderstand it, assuming sympathy with atrocities carried out in his name rather than a swipe at the nature of “independent” countries being on the dole of former colonial powers.

Why I shouldn’t be King of The Netherlands: I would offer to annex any remaining Boer areas of South Africa. And I doubt that would go over well. Problems with Indonesia would also doubtless be unavoidable and I doubt the Dutch public could cash the checks my mouth would be writing -if you know what I mean. Referring, even in a joking way, to Belgium as “the Southern Netherlands” would probably also ruffle some feathers.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Denmark: The national coat-of-arms would be changed to show Reptilicus devouring Germany. And that would be weird. Hardly in keeping with the dignity and integrity of the oldest monarchy in Europe. (Bonus points to anyone playing along at home who actually knows who “Reptilicus” is)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Norway: I’m not proud of it, I don’t like to admit, but I must face facts and I have to be honest. At some point I would have to wear a helmet with two big horns on it and would constantly be threatening to raid someone.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Sweden: Constantly hitting on Finland and asking when we can get back together would probably not be considered a legitimate foreign policy. It would probably upset the Russians too.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Liechtenstein: I’d form a military and declare war on San Marino.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Monaco: I would probably bankrupt the place trying to buy Menton and Roquebrune from France. There would also be family tensions anytime Gad came up as absolutely no one is good enough for my dear Charlotte.

Why I shouldn’t be Pope: Perhaps this one shouldn’t count but the Pope is technically the sovereign of a legal state so it is included for that reason. My “Renaissance” style papacy would give the entire Catholic world whiplash after the reign of Pope Frank. Not good. Every address to the world would probably consist of me screaming, “You’re all going to burn in Hell you godless heathens!” Can’t see that winning many over honestly.

Why I shouldn’t be King of (insert name of predominately Muslim country here): I doubt an infidel monarch would last long. Aside from differences of belief, I don’t drink anymore so that’s not a problem and I can live without pork but…a whole month without being able to smoke? I would explode.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Lesotho: I would absolutely refuse to have any dealings with South Africa, which for Lesotho would make life pretty damn difficult considering that the country is entirely surrounded by South Africa.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Swaziland: Aside from how positively ridiculous I would look in the national costume, there are other aspects of life I could never adjust to. For one, I couldn’t do the whole polygamy thing. The idea of one wife is frightening enough. Good. God.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Bhutan: There is no way I could stop myself from hitting on pretty much every female member of the royal family -and that would be awkward. (seriously, they are ridiculously gorgeous)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Thailand: Constantly playing “One Night in Bangkok” would probably not be considered appropriate royal behavior. Some people are really offended by that…I know.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Cambodia: Pretty simple. On day one I would fire Hun Sen, upsetting Vietnam, end friendly relations with China and North Korea and probably be assassinated in quick order, plunging the country into chaos.

Why I shouldn’t be Emperor of Japan: I’d go to pray at Yasukuni Shrine wearing a kimono with a big rising sun on it and all the Chinese and Koreans heads would explode in a fit of rage that might start World War III. And nobody wants that. But, I’d probably also be assassinated by right-wing extremists for not going along with their ‘Japan is the only country that never did anything wrong ever’ mentality.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Tonga: After some rather rotund monarchs, having a king who looks like he was just rescued from the world’s worst POW camp would probably be too great a shock for the people of Tonga.

Dennis Lopez #fundie dennislopez.com

I recently watched a video posted by a YouTuber by the username of “Truth96130,” that is basically telling people Hell is not real and that it is a lie of the Devil that works for his benefit. Yes, seriously, Truth96130 really believes this. In the video a renowned and once respected Pastor by the name of “Carlton Pearson” claimed that God told him Hell is not real. I watched the entire video and gave it the complete chance to convince me that his claim was true. What it did convince me of is what the Bible had already warned me about, thanks to Jesus. I will demonstrate to you, the reader, with Bible verses that you can go look up yourself (not my philosophy), and the words of Jesus himself, how this claim is a full-fledged doctrine of demons.
“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (NLT, 1 Timothy 4:1)

This verse by itself should be sufficient evidence for anyone to see that the “Hell doesn’t exist claim” is a trick of the devil to deceive those who are not strong with the Holy Spirit. The Bible warns us of false doctrines, false Prophets, and false Messiah’s. Did Pastor Carlton test the spirits? Did he pray on it and ask God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit for confirmation? I don’t think so, and neither did Truth96130. The devil is known for offering people things (sinful things) for instant gratification and happiness. God on the other hand is always patient and long-suffering, doing things at the right place and time. There is usually a lesson learned through a journey before you receive something from the Lord.
“Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.” (NLT, 1 John 4:1)

Then you have Jesus telling you himself about hell, are the words of Jesus not sufficient? Truth96130 gave no credit to what Jesus said, and said that Jesus spoke in parables which are not historical events. So only the historical things that Jesus spoke about have value and not parables? Are you kidding me? Jesus was teaching lessons about Heaven and Hell, why would it need to be something that happened? Besides, hypothetically it was happening, people were going to Heaven and Hell after death.
It’s these type of people who cherry pick and choose what is convenient to fit their lifestyles, so that they can continue to do what they know is sinful and not feel convicted of it. They are only tricking themselves, but the worst part is they are trying to take others with them! (See Figure 1)
“So ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch.” (NLT, Matthew 15:14)

I refuse to let that happen, God ordered us to be the salt & light of the world.
“You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless. “You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.” (NLT, Matthew 5:13-16)

Here is another lesson about Heaven and Hell from Jesus Christ our Lord and savior.
“Jesus also told them other parables. He said, “The Kingdom of Heaven can be illustrated by the story of a king who prepared a great wedding feast for his son. When the banquet was ready, he sent his servants to notify those who were invited. But they all refused to come! “So he sent other servants to tell them, ‘The feast has been prepared. The bulls and fattened cattle have been killed, and everything is ready. Come to the banquet!’ But the guests he had invited ignored them and went their own way, one to his farm, another to his business. Others seized his messengers and insulted them and killed them. “The king was furious, and he sent out his army to destroy the murderers and burn their town. And he said to his servants, ‘the wedding feast is ready, and the guests I invited aren’t worthy of the honor. Now go out to the street corners and invite everyone you see.’ So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn’t wearing the proper clothes for a wedding. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?’ But the man had no reply. Then the king said to his aides, ‘Bind his hands and feet and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (NLT, Matthew 22:1-14)

Straight from the mouth of Jesus! This teaching illustrates how God sends his messengers and prophets to invite us to be saved, and to accept his Son, Jesus. We are constantly being invited to Heaven. The Bible is always referring to us (The Church) as the body of Christ and the bride of Christ, which is why this parable is about a wedding banquet for the King’s Son. The King being (God), the Son being (Jesus), the servants being (The Angels, Prophets, and Messengers), and the banquet representing (Heaven). I will let you guess who the invitees are.
Pay attention to the keywords, the servants were sent to notify “those who were invited.” This means not everyone is invited, so where do the uninvited go? I’m pretty sure they go to Hell. Let’s not forget “For many are called, but few are chosen,” that pretty much proves that some are chosen and some are not; meaning, some will go to Heaven and some will not.
Let’s continue on, the initially invited (The Israelites) rejected Jesus as the Messiah, some (The Pharisees) went as far as to kill him. From the beginning of the Bible all the way up to revelations, everyone that God has sent to warn humanity (His Prophets & Messengers) has been murdered or rejected all the way up to Jesus Christ and beyond. That covers the portion of parable talking about the invitees rejecting the invitation and some going as far as to murder the servants. Well, what about the King sending an army to destroy and burn their town?
I am glad you asked, throughout the Bible God turns his back on his people (The Israelites) when they reject him and rebel against him by doing such things as worshiping idols, breaking the commandments, and basically breaking their covenant with him. God removes his protection from them and even goes as far as to send other nations to attack them, as he did with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. (The destruction and burning of the town also represents the end times in revelations). Of course, he was merciful and gave his people ample time to turn away from their sins and repent.
Moving on, the king sending his servants to invite everyone good and bad represents how the sacrificial death of Jesus enables everyone to be able to go to Heaven, without having to perfectly follow the Law of Moses. God knew we wouldn’t be able to do it. The Law of Moses was nothing more than just a long-term lesson to show us that even when facing the penalty of death and similar penalties, we would still break the law. He basically showed us that Humanity cannot govern itself without the help of God. We would need more than Laws, we would need a change of heart, and we would need the Holy Spirit.
Finally, the man not properly dressed illustrates how those that accept Jesus Christ (The Invitation), but continue to live in constant Sin, can lose their salvation. Just because you accept Christ does not mean you are guaranteed to go to Heaven, it’s only the start of your salvation. The Bible doesn’t say to run the race and fight the good fight for nothing. Now, Outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of the teeth, does that sound like Heaven to you? I think Jesus was speaking in a gentle fashion instead of being blunt and giving it to us straight; however, there is scripture which is not so nice, and for a good reason.
“And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” (NLT, Matthew 25:46)

Eternal means nonstop, no breaks, forever, everlasting. Some people try to claim it’s just the second death, meaning you don’t get eternal life, but clearly the scriptures say different. You get eternal life, but it’s not the type of eternal life anyone would ever want. This is why God designed this life to be experienced in time. Things in time begin and end. This teaches us what eternity is. That is how just and fair God is.
“They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.” (NLT, 2 Thessalonians 1:9)

If there is no Hell, how can sinners be punished in eternal destruction or separated from the Lord? Where will they go if they can’t go into Heaven?
“Throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (NLT, Matthew 13:50)

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.” (NLT, Mark 9:43)

“But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed. For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the Day of Judgment.” (NLT, 2 Peter 2:1-4)

That last verse is just blatantly clear that we will all pay for our sins, and that Hell exist, period! It is true that you can pay for your sins on Earth, but only to a certain extent. God knows that we will not be ultimately perfect without sin,
“Not a single person on earth is always good and never sins.” (NLT, Ecclesiastes 7:20)

“As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous–not even one.” (NLT, Romans 3:10)

But this does not give you the green light to do whatever you want to. God’s mercy, grace, and forgiveness are determined and given accordingly. God knows when you are trying not to sin, compared to when you really don’t care and are trying to fall through the cracks. We should strive to have as little sin as possible, remember God knows what is in our hearts. He can see if your desire is not to sin, but you fall to it not by deliberate will, but by the evil we all inherited from Adam & Eve, there is a difference.

The devil knows this, which is why he uses clever lies to deceive people. Of course he will tell us that our sins are forgiven through Christ, so it doesn’t matter what we do once we accept Jesus, and OH’ yeah by the way, Hell doesn’t exist. That is not what the true Word of God tells us. The “There is no Hell” claim is a doctrine of demons, there is no doubt about it. If Hell isn’t real then why did Jesus go down to Hell for three days to console the spirits that were imprisoned there?

“Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. So he went and preached to the spirits in prison, those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.” (NLT, 1 Peter 3:18-20)

Truth96130 claimed that I am confusing the time of this verse. The verse above clearly states that Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison (Hell) that disobeyed God during the time of Noah, basically all the people who died in the great flood; which by the way, is historically recorded in every culture around the world. If there is no Hell and I am confusing this verse, which I am obviously not, then why didn’t these same spirits go directly to Heaven? Why does the Bible say they are in prison? Why doesn’t the Bible simply say, “Jesus swung by the Prison (Hell) to bail these Spirits out?” Now let’s say there is no Hell, why are these Spirits in prison? What is this prison?
If you go back to (NLT, 2 Peter 2:1-4) which I mentioned earlier, you will see “For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the Day of Judgment.” Key sentence “where they are being held,” doesn’t that coincide perfectly with the spirits in prison! You know, prison, jail, being held captive, I don’t know about you, but it sure makes sense to me. This is the perfect example of scripture backing up scripture. As the saying goes “the writing is on the wall,” and let’s not forget about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. (See Figure 2)
And his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side. (NLT, Luke 16:23)

When I mentioned this to Truth96130 his response was, “well that’s just a parable, and it’s not a historical event.” That statement does not in no way, shape, or form prove that Hell is not real, in fact it diverts from the fact that Jesus used a parable to teach a lesson about Hell. Keyword, “lesson,” Let’s look at the definition of the word parable.

Parable –
A short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
A statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
Well there you go, a parable is designed to teach a lesson of truth. Just because it’s not a historical event does not mean it is not true. I recommend reading the entire chapter of Luke 16. All words out of the mouth of Jesus, let me remind you. Over and over again in the Bible Hell is spoken about, illustrated, and re-cautioned to those that would believe, keyword believe. The Devil would love for people to not believe in Hell, that way people would just live how they feel and do what they want without having to worry about the repercussions.
Finally, Pastor Carlton and Truth96130 argue that God is love and he wouldn’t do these things to us. I mean how could an all loving merciful God send his people to eternal torture, right? Well once again, directly from Bible verses and not my philosophy, I will show you how God is justified in everything he does. He is the genuine holder of truth, he sets the standards, and he uses fair scales, weights, and balances. We would like to believe we know more than God, we would like to believe our ways are just, we would like to believe we can replace his laws with our own, but the truth is God is the Creator and we are the created. God set the laws of the universe, not us. Who are we but mere mortals.
“For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” (NLT, Isaiah 55:9)

Do we really expect to have the same mental capacity as the entity that created us and the Universe? Seriously? If that were the case then why would we even need God at all? We would be just like him, which is the exact claim the devil made before he was found with sin and casted out of Heaven. The devil claimed he would be like the most high.
“I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High.” (NLT, Isaiah 14:14)

The created cannot expect to comprehend and know as the creator.
“How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, “He didn’t make me”? Does a jar ever say, “The potter who made me is stupid”?” (NLT, Isaiah 29:16)

Furthermore, as I tried to understand why God would send people to Hell for not meeting his qualifications, I learned some important truths. God has a standard, the one and only true balance of justice, and he will not break it for anyone. He will not be a hypocrite and break his word. Anyone who breaks the law is subject to the consequences, even the Angels.
Example of Truth: Anyone that is truly honest with pure integrity would understand that it is justified for their child to go to prison for murdering someone. Only hypocrites and people without standards would argue different.

People that go to Hell choose to go to Hell. People that go to Heaven choose to go to Heaven. (See Figure 3) God did not make us robots, he gave us self-awareness. I ask the reader, what has more value? A living being that was programmed to be righteous, or one that wasn’t but chose to be and now is? (Causality) There is a reason for everything, which is not just a “saying.” You might not agree with the reason, but who are we to tell God what is and is not fair. I am 100% sure if Jesus Christ disobeyed God, God would have sent him to Hell too.

Another misconception is that it doesn’t bother God to send people to Hell. That is a lie of the devil. The same way it hurts parents to discipline their children with the rod, it devastates our Father to sentence us (his children) to Hell. God does not enjoy this which is why he sacrificed his only Son.
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (NLT, John 3:16)

“The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” (NLT, 2 Peter 3:9)

There is no excuse, we are warned and given a lifetime to get it right.
Then comes the question? We’ll if God is all loving and merciful then why does he let such suffering happen on Earth? That one is easy. There is suffering on Earth because we have free will to do what we want to, and some of us want to continue to do evil things. Some of us want to follow the devil instead of God. Some of us love sin more than we love our creator.
“And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.” (NLT, John 3:19)

People judge God and they never even get to know him. We’ll what about the good people who have bad things happen to them? Why doesn’t God protect them? First of all, what good people? We are all born evil.
“For I was born a sinner–yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (NLT, Psalm 51:5)

We inherited evil from Adam & Eve. We have to be taught to be good. We have the knowledge of good and evil, but without the help of God we will always favor evil. We are self-serving and self-gratifying.
“For they loved human praise more than the praise of God.” (NLT, John 12:43)

Also, remember we are not just facing people with free will that choose to be evil. We are facing our adversary the devil, and we are also facing spiritual battles in the unseen world around us.
“We know that we are children of God and that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.” (NLT, 1 John 5:19)

“Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.” (NLT 1 Peter 5:8)

“For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.” (NLT, Ephesians 6:12)

And that my brother’s and sister’s is why there is pain and suffering in the world. Jesus made it very clear that we will suffer in this world, so why not suffer for him instead? Why not suffer to make it to the pearly gates?
“And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.” (NLT, Matthew 10:22)

“Students are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master. And since I, the master of the household, have been called the prince of demons, the members of my household will be called by even worse names! (NLT, Matthew 10:24-25)

“Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (NLT, 2 Timothy 3:12)

Jesus did not promise life without problems once you start following him. He tells no lies and gives it to us straight. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about infinite happiness in this life, but it is about trials and tribulations leading to infinite happiness in the afterlife. Jesus never said we had to be perfect, nor does the Bible. The Bible tells us to turn away from Evil, stride to change; and most importantly, to ask God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to help us do it. We are incapable of doing it on our own. So make no mistake of misunderstanding that only perfect people make it to Heaven, which is another lie of the devil. Name one person in the Bible, besides Jesus, that didn’t sin. You can’t do it. Do not try to earn your salvation, instead embrace it. Salvation is a gift from God, it is meant to be received and maintained.
“Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.” (NLT, Ephesians 2:9)

Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who sacrificed himself on the cross so that we can be forgiven for our sins, become reborn and move forward from there, and know that hell is a real place. Fear the Lord of Heaven’s armies and respect who he is.
“Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” (NLT, Proverbs 1:7)

“Fear of the LORD is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment.” (NLT, Proverbs 9:10)

God can take our mistakes and help us correct them, he can help anyone, anywhere, anytime get back on the course he designed for them. It is never too late to turn to God through Jesus Christ. Simply lift your hands up to God and repeat “Jesus I repent of my sins and I accept you as my Lord and savior, Amen.” Then seek the kingdom first, read the Bible, continue to pray, and always talk to Jesus looking for guidance and answers, and remember we have the Holy Spirit to help us through it all.

“But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative–that is, the Holy Spirit–he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.” (NLT, John 14:26)

“Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.” (NLT, Matthew 6:33)

I encourage all my readers to fact check me, go look for yourself and make sure that I am not misleading you. Make sure that I am speaking from the lessons of the word of God and not from my own philosophy. Make sure that I am not twisting the word of God. I also invite my readers to comment and share your opinions down below in the comment section. May the Lord of Heaven’s Armies Bless you all!

I am currently reading and quoting from the New Living Translation version of the Bible.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Britain still rules the world

The global government was created in 1947.

A global government in which all countries are cooperating under one country's leadership. I think Britain still runs the show behind the curtain and the ultimate deception is that America was the new superpower. It is a proxy as well as Israel for two different parts of the world. I don't think it is the royals, but a rogue agency within Britain. Another deception is making it and other European countries in deplorable conditions by design and to look like as if being invaded by 'Muslims', the new boogeman and scapegoat.

I think the lie is that America replaced Britain and although Israel will replace America which will happen as part of the plan, there is a rogue power behind the curtain that pulls the strings of all this show and it is Britain, even if it is a rogue agency from within.

Britain created Israel and CIA in the same year of 1947, to act as two British proxies and fronts.

The creation of CIA made it easier for Britain to run America the way we see it today and at the same time to act as a proxy, a geopolitical, cultural, social front/facade in all details and not only the dirty operations.

The Roswell incident, which was also in 1947, pushed Britain to create a global government as fast as possible.

Roswell was a deliberate act by some inter-dimensional beings that customarily work with the most powerful government in the world each time a power change takes place. I think there are many evidences that they worked "with" Hitler, Napoleon (Google the chip found in his skull), ancient Egyptians.

The purpose of the Roswell incident was to threaten the Allies - that refused the proposed cooperation - that the entities will show themselves to the people and may even take a step further. A cooperation had to be implemented between the most powerful government on Earth and those super entities.

But, this time after WWII, Britain feared the same fate of Germany as the entities did not stand by Germany during the war, so instead of cooperating with these super entities as the clear government of Great Britain, MI6 devised a way in which a British-led global government will be formed from various world Intelligence agencies to act as both the government that will run the world behind the curtain and as the government that will cooperate with the super entities. Britain created CIA and Israel (Mossad) also in the same year of 1947 for this purpose.

This also refutes that America was the new superpower as Britain got America into the war as a proxy, and not for help. Britain wanted to introduce America to the world as the new superpower, while MI6 maintains the actual work of running the show behind the curtain as a rogue agency.

There are other main purposes behind the creation of the British global government other than being the shadow entity that would cooperate with the inter-dimensional beings as an official representative:

Britain has planned a long-term gradual comeback. Using proxies to not only destroy some rising and promising nations after WWII from within by installing puppet governments and control the others, but also destroying the proxies themselves. We can all feel the "planned" gradual decline of the US. The growing anti-Israel sentiments everywhere. So, as I said, the global government wants us to believe that America replaced Britain and that Israel will replace America (which will happen), then both will be destroyed as nations from within by design (the peoples will be the victims) by the British global government. Not to mention, Islam being used in this long-term plan. The global government wants everybody to see Islam the way that government wants it to be and not what it really is. Elimination of the concept of Jihad which the global government sees as potentially very detrimental to the world order in the future is one of many purposes behind the global government creation, besides it is a new way of blaming the destruction of Islamic nations on themselves. Today, we can see in both MSM and Alternate Media how Saudi Arabia is taking the blame and a hint at Israel too. Britain also wants to psychologically eliminate the stereotypical view of the public on the British way of ruling which had many deadly mistakes in almost all countries Britain set foot in. In the future and after a long-term social and psychological engineering Britain will come back and be looked at as friendly and as if a miracle had happened, but it has all been planned.

Japan and the global government:

All the recent Tsunamis and major earthquakes that happened and will be expected in Japan are artificially made by TPTB to destroy the country.

The reasons are that Japan is a very developed and hardworking country that reached all this success in such a short period of time and that there is a fear it would reach the peak of the greatest renaissance in modern history any time in the near future.

However, the main reason is that Japan is not on good terms as much as required with the world government that was formed by Britain in 1947 in which CIA and Israel were created as a Western and an Eastern proxy fronts for Britain which preferred to run the world behind the curtain this way for a long-term plan where most of its proxies will fall gradually by design from within and America can be made as an example of this outcome as many can realize its gradual collapse today by a certain remote power. This is to pave the way for Britain to come back in the open after eliminating the stereotypical view of the British arrogance known to the peoples and the countries they have set foot in, and after indirectly proving to the world that all major powers - that are actually under British (MI6) control - have failed to do any good to their own peoples and other countries.

Britain used 3 main deceptions among other ones, so ordinary people and even critical thinkers wouldn't suspect the thing. First, the British instructed America to enter WWII not for help but to introduce it later as the one and only coming major power whereas in fact America has been run only as a proxy for Britain since the day it entered the war, and even American military and technology is backed by Britain. Some of these technologies were stolen from Germany by only MI6 as other countries were not permitted to do this or even create its own technology without taking orders and instructions first from Britain. Second, MI6 wants everybody to see modern day Britain as no difference to any European country to some extent according to precise calculations and even worse. Some of the methods used for this king of programming is allowing huge numbers of Muslims and other nationalities in the country by design and in a manner that everything appears out of control to the Public, so nobody would be able to recognize the good old Britain. Third, MI6 has made sure through long-term planning, programming, Brainwashing, Hollywood and of course with the cooperation of its proxy agencies and countries that whoever one day would say that Britain is the one that really runs the world behind the curtain and nothing above it, would be the laughing stock everywhere in the world.

Japan is not that loyal to the world government although it is under the rule of the British global government. Japan does good things to its people that upsets Britain which has been pulling the strings behind the scenes since WWII and these good things are not part of the global assigned script.

The top reason that made the world government start these recent sly aggressive acts against Japan is that Japan wanted to expose the whole thing to the world someway gradually after the initial peaceful revolutions of 2011 that were made by the Peoples of the Middle East and inspired the whole world and they were not made by any other agency as contrary to the widespread alternate media propaganda. Japan wanted to prevent these great popular revolutions from turning into chaos by the British world government which has caused all the troubles and woes almost everybody suffer from to this day. Japan would have appeared like pre-WWII Germany which Britain also made sure to falsify the whole truth of Germany's good intentions and real greatness at the time and lie about almost everything to the Public in history books, all kinds of media and prints across the globe and even making the world believe that modern day Israel - created by Britain as part of the plan - is the one that lies, fabricates and even runs the show which is not the truth as Israel is one of the many proxies used by this world government for all the big destruction-from-within show, besides the Public would throw all and any accusations only at these proxies and not the real master behind the curtain.

TPTB (the British world government) created the Fukushima disaster to distract Japan and it worked well even initially and the series of punitive procedures are still underway against Japan for not being totally loyal like all the other countries. And as such, many artificial catastrophes and disasters to be expected in Japan.

Andre Vltchek #fundie 21stcenturywire.com

In Washington, Regime Change Is Truly and Urgently Needed!

I am surprised that no one else is saying it, writing it, shouting it at each and every corner:

It is not Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Iran that are in dire and crucial need of ‘regime change’. It is the United States of America, it is the entire European Union; in fact, the entire West.

And the situation is urgent.

The West has gone mad; it has gone so to speak, bananas; mental. And people there are too scared to even say it, to write about it.

One country after another is falling, being destroyed, antagonized, humiliated, impoverished. Entire continents are treated as if they were inhabited by irresponsible toddlers, who are being chased and disciplined by sadistic adults, with rulers and belts in their hands yelling with maniacal expressions on their faces: “Behave, do as we say, or else!”

It all would be truly comical, if it weren’t so depressing. But… nobody is laughing. People are shaking, sweating, crying, begging, puking, but they are not chuckling.

I see it everywhere where I work: in Asia, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

But why?

It is because North American and European countries are actually seriously delivering their ultimatum: you either, obey us and prostrate yourself in front of us, or we will break you, violate you, and if everything else fails, we will kill your leaders and all of those who are standing in our way.

This is not really funny, is it? Especially considering that it is being done to almost all the countries in what is called Latin America, to many African and Middle Eastern nations, and to various states on the Asian continent.

And it is all done ‘professionally’, with great sadistic craftsmanship and rituals. No one has yet withstood ‘regime change’ tactics, not even the once mighty Soviet Union, nor tremendous China, or proud and determined Afghanistan.

Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK and Syria may be the only countries that are still standing. They resisted and mobilized all their resources in order to survive; and they have survived, but at a tremendous price.

The victims keep crying. A few independent countries keep expressing their outrage. But so far, there is no grand coalition, which would be ready to fight and defend each other: “one for all, all for one”.

Until the recent ‘rebellion’ at the UN, no one has been openly and seriously suggesting that international law should apply to all nations of the world, equally.

People talk about ‘peace’. Many are begging the brigands to ‘to stop’, to ‘have mercy’, to show some compassion. But, neither Europe nor North America has ever shown any compassion, for long, terrible centuries. Look at the map of the beginning of the 20th century, for instance: the entire world was colonized, plundered and subjugated.

Now it is all moving in the same direction. If the West is not stopped, our planet may not survive at all. And let us be realistic: begging, logical arguments and goodwill will not stop Washington, Paris or London from plundering and enslaving.

Anyone who has at least some basic knowledge of world history knows that.

So why is the world still not forging some true resistance?

Is Venezuela going to be the last straw? And if not Venezuela, that is if Venezuela is allowed to fall, is it going to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Iran next? Is anything going to propel people into action?

Are we all just going to look passively how, the socialist Venezuela, a country which has already given so much to the world, Venezuela which managed to create beautiful visions and concepts for our humanity, is going to be burned to ashes, and then robbed of all of its dreams, its resources and of its freedom?

Are we all such cowards? Is this what we – human beings – have actually become; been reduced to? Cowards and cattle, selfish and submissive beings; slaves?

All this, simply because people are too scared to confront the empire? Because they prefer to hide and to pretend that what is so obvious, is actually not taking place?

Therefore, let me pronounce it, so at least my readers do not have that ‘luxury’ of claiming that they were not told:

“This world is being brutalized and controlled by the fascist clique of Western nations. There is no ‘democracy’ left in this world, as there is near zero respect for international law in North American and European capitals. Colonialism has returned in full force. Western imperialism is now almost fully controlling the world.”

And begging, trust me – begging and talking of peace is not going to help.

During WWII, fascism had to be stopped. If not, it was going to devour the entire planet.

In the past, tens of millions have already died fighting for freedom and for our mankind.

Yes, some nations tried to compromise and negotiate with Nazi Germany, but we all know where it all ended.

Now, the situation is the same. Or worse, perhaps much worse, because the West has nukes and a tremendous propaganda apparatus: it controls human brains all over the world with ‘mass media’, and ‘education’.

And because the citizens of the West are now much more brainwashed than the Germans and Italians were in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; more brainwashed, more scared, submissive and more ‘disciplined’.

Look, seriously: are the people who are now writing those “peace essays”, in which they argue with the Western regime about who is right and who is wrong, seriously thinking that they are going to move people like Donald Trump, or Pompeo, or Abrams, or Rubio?

Do they believe that Washington is going to stop murdering millions of people all over the world? Or that the neo-colonialist plunder would stop, after the US Congress and Senate suddenly understands that it has been at the wrong side of history?

This is not some rhetorical question. I am serious: I demand answers!

Does ‘peace movement’ thinks that by amassing arguments it could stop Western expansionism? Yes or no?

Do they believe that Pompeo or Trump will suddenly hit their foreheads and exclaim: “You people are correct! We did not see this!” And call their troops, their thugs and mercenaries back?

If not, if this is not what peace movements believe would be done by North American and European leaders, then why all those thousands of wasted pages?

Would you go near a crocodile that is ready to devour an innocent child, and try to reason with it? Would you, seriously? Do you think it would stop, drop a few tears, wag its tail and leave?

Sometimes I tend to believe that ‘peace movements’ in the West are making things worse. They create false hopes, and they behave as if the empire is some entity that has a soul, and understands logic. They grossly underestimate the threat; the danger.

And they tend to analyze the Western threat from a Western perspective, using Western logic.

It somehow gets lost in interpretation that fascism, terror, and bestiality have to be confronted and fought.

One cannot negotiate with a group of countries which are already bathed in the blood of some 80% of the planet. If it was to happen, it would just be a mockery and it would simply humiliate everyone that is sincerely trying to stop the assassins.

Right now, Venezuela needs solidarity. It requires direct help, actions; not words. And so do many other countries.

Instead, it gets an endless avalanche of best wishes, as well as premature obituaries.

The Bolivarian Revolution has gotten plenty of colorful words. But what it urgently needs is volunteers, money, and internationalist brigades!

I know that billions of people all over the world are now cheering from their armchairs; in fact, doing absolutely nothing, while also spending zero. Their love for Venezuela is ‘platonic’.

I have just left Syria, where I was covering the Idlib war zone. There was not one single foreigner near me, during those days. Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley usually work all over the toughest areas in Syria, but how many others do? And most of the time we work with near zero backing, just because we feel that it is our moral obligation to inform humanity.

I am wondering, how many foreigners are fighting for Venezuela, right now?

Who is going to face the Western spooks implanted into the Caracas and the Venezuelan borders with Colombia and Brazil? A few RT and TeleSur reporters, those true heroes, yes, but who else?

Only direct action can save Venezuela, and the world.

This is no time for debates.

This is worse, much worse than the late 1930’s.

The proverbial crocodile is here; its enormous ugly mouth open, ready to devour yet one more brilliant, proud country.

It is time to stick a big metal rod into its mouth. Now, immediately; before it gets too late.

Let us shout LONG LIVE VENEZUELA! But with our hands, muscles and purses, not just with our mouths.

And let us not be scared to declare: if anywhere, it is Washington where regime change is truly and urgently needed!

Andre Vltchek #fundie journal-neo.org

How Come the World is Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome

It may sound incredible, but it is true: in countries that have been damaged, even totally robbed and destroyed by the West, many people are still enamored with Europe and North America.

For years, I have been observing this ‘phenomena’, even in the most plundered, devastated war zones and slums. Often I was shocked, other times thoroughly desperate. I did not know how to respond, how to react, how to describe what I have been observing.

Then, a few days ago, in Syria, right next to the Idlib battlefield, close to the deadly positions of Al-Nusra Front, in a country where the West and its allies have murdered hundreds of thousands of people, one of my interpreters exclaimed in a ‘patriotic’ outburst: “Look how beautiful this land is! It is almost as beautiful as Europe!”

And at night, another guide of mine began nostalgically recalling his glorious days in Europe, when he could still go there; before the Syrian war began.

An interpreter did not know who Fidel Castro was (I had his portrait, lighting up cigar, as my phone screensaver), but both of them – my local companions at the battle ground – were fluent in Western slang and the worldview. They knew, however, near zero about China.They were patriotic and they fully supported their country, but at the same time they admired the West and Western journalists from the mainstream media – those very same propagandists who helped to bring their beautiful and unique Syria to the state in which it is now.

It all felt schizophrenic, but definitely not new.

I could not take it, anymore. I decided to write this story, despite the fact that it is an intellectual ‘minefield’. I decided to write it, because it is how it is. Because I have to tell it; someone has to. And above all, because it is absolutely essential to combat the crooked selfie image with which the West has been infecting almost all nations of the world, including all those that it has been plundering and raping.

*

Are we dealing with the so-called “Stockholm Syndrome” here? Most likely, yes. The victim falls in love with her or his tormentor.

For long centuries, the West has been colonizing, usurping, literally terrorizing the entire planet. Hundreds of millions have died as a result of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism. Wealth, cultural and educational institutions, hospitals, transportation, parks – all that Europe and North America possess to date and boast about, was constructed on mountains of bones, on genocide and unbridled plunder.

That cannot be disputed, can it?

Slavery, mass murder, genocidal expansions; the West robbed the world, and then consolidated its power, promoting its exceptionalism through relentless brainwashing (called ‘education’), propaganda (called ‘information’), and twisted entertainment for the masses that inhabit poor countries (called ‘culture’ and ‘the arts’).

Shockingly and absurdly, Europe and North America are still loved and admired by many, even (or especially) in such places where Western governments and companies plagued everything like locusts, leaving to the locals only burned land, poison and miserable slums.

*

How is it possible?

For years, I have been working in Africa, a continent which was entirely subjugated by the U.K., France, Germany, Belgium and other European expansionist nations. Africa from where millions of men, women and children were brought in chains to the “New World”, as slaves. Where millions died during the ‘hunt’, where millions died in ‘transit centers’, and then, on the open seas. That’s tens of millions of ruined lives. The complete plunder of the resources, the unimaginable humiliation of the people, broken cultures, genocides and holocaust against local individuals from what is now Namibia, to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Great African heroes like Lumumba assassinated by the Western rulers.

And yet, many Africans see the West as some great ‘example’, as a ‘guiding light’, as a severe but respectable ‘daddy’, who uses the belt when it is necessary, but who also rewards justly those of his ‘children’ who ‘behave properly’.

It is repulsive, but undeniable.

The greatest African writers are now teaching at U.S. and U.K. universities. They have been ‘neutralized’ and ‘pacified’, many of them out rightly bought. In many countries, African judges wear comical white wigs, doing their best to look like their British counterparts. The children of corrupt elites are collecting diplomas from the U.K. and French universities, imitating upper-class European accents.

To behave, to look and sound like the colonizers, is something that brings respect.

The same on the Sub-Continent, of course.

The mannerism among the upper classes in India and Pakistan are those of the U.K. (and lately, of the U.S.). Elites there go out of their way to be more British than the Brits; more Californian than the inhabitants of the U.S. West Coast. Countless private Indian universities call themselves ‘American’ or ‘British’, with ‘Oxford’ or ‘Cambridge’ frequently ‘decorating’ their names.

‘To be accepted’ in Europe or North America is the highest honor, in almost all former colonies, therefore, in almost the entire world.

‘Well groomed’, well-educated and modern Asians, Latin Americans, Africans and the Middle Easterners are expected to ape Westerners; to dress like Westerners, eat (and drink) like the Westerners and to ‘defend the same values’ as them.

In fact, they are expected to be much more Western than the Westerners.

But ‘expected’ by whom? Yes, you guess correctly: very often by their own people!

*

Ask and many in the ‘South’ will tell you: everything that comes from the West is beautiful, progressive and dandy.

“Every bule is beautiful,” I was informed, recently, by a young indigenous professional lady in the totally environmentally plundered island of Borneo/Kalimantan. Bule is a vulgar, derogatory Indonesian word for the ‘whites’, and literally means ‘albino’. However, the lady was not joking, it was a compliment: she was brought up believing that every bule is actually superior and fine-looking.

In the indigenous Mexican state of Yucatan, right after the elections that brought to power the left-wing President Obrador, I overheard the conversation of a dozen or so upper-class housewives in a Western chain café. Their references were fully European and North American: From vacations in Italy and Spain, to the films they were watching, books they were reading. Europe was their ‘mother-continent’, while Miami, their only true comparison. Before Obrador came to power, indigenous people were increasingly living in misery, their roofs broken, jobs disappearing. But the elites were, as always, in a European state of mind. The real Mexico was not on their radar. It did not matter, or didn’t even exist.

Even some of the poor in the ‘conquered world’ who are actually ‘concerned’ about Western imperialism, see it as an abstract problem.They see it as a strictly political, military or economic issue. The fact that Western imperialism has ‘culturally’ immobilized entire nations and continents is hardly addressed.

Even in those proud countries that are determinedly struggling against Western imperialism – China, Russia, Iran, or Venezuela – the Western narrative of exceptionalism has already managed to cause tremendous damage.

In China, for instance, almost everything ‘Western’ had been, until recently, associated with modernity. Being ‘against the West’ was considered boring, gray and outdated, somehow connected to the ‘Communist propaganda’ of the past (the fact that the ‘Communist propaganda’ was often correct, mattered nothing). This attitude allowed the great infiltration of Chinese universities by Western academia, as well as the injection of Western nihilism into Chinese arts, culture, even way of life. Only recently, has this dangerous trend been reversed, but not after it had already caused great damage.

The admiration of everything Western destroyed the greatest progressive experiment of modern history – The Soviet Union and the so-called “Eastern Bloc”.

The power of negative Western propaganda packaged together with the promotion of extreme individualism, selfishness and consumerism, literally wiped out all internationalist zeal, humanism and higher principles, from the minds of tens of millions of young Czechs, Poles, East Germans, Bulgarians, and even Soviets.

The once proud Communist Eastern Bloc, after liberating dozens of countries from colonialism, after fighting for an egalitarian world, showing solidarity with all oppressed nations, was then gradually defeated by such shallow bullshit as blue jeans labels, the nonsensical lyrics of rock and pop songs (a favorite weapon of the West), greed, religions (another Western weapon), and slogans like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ (the Western world which has been denying freedom and democracy to almost all countries on our planet, cynically turned the truth upside down, and fooled East Europeans, by skillfully applying centuries long propaganda methods).

In the end, confused and increasingly cynical, what many East Europeans demanded was not ‘freedom’, but more money, more labels, and the ability to join the bloc of the countries that have been plundering the world.

*

So, what makes the West so successful, when it comes to brainwashing people all around the world? How is it possible after all that banditry, terror and ruthlessness, that most of the oppressed and conquered countries are still showing plenty of respect to the masters that reside in New York, London or Paris?

I believe that if we find the answers to this question, we will be able to save the world, and reverse this deadly trend.

First of all, after interacting with thousands of people in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Oceania and Latin America, I am coming to the conclusion that the West (and Japan) is often admired for the ‘high standards of living’.

In such miserable and collapsed countries like Indonesia, I often hear nonsense like: “European countries are more ‘Muslim’ than we are. They treat people much better than we do.”

Middle and upper class Southeast Asian families are travelling to Netherlands or Germany, and then exclaim after returning home: “Look at their parks, hospitals, bicycle lanes, trams, museums… We have to learn from them! They do so much for improving our world.”

That’s precisely what Africans admire about Europe. That’s how many ‘educated’ Indians or Southeast Asians feel. That’s what Peruvians, Hondurans or Paraguayans love about their Miami.

Are they wrong? Isn’t there, after all, plenty that poor countries could learn from the West?

Yes; definitely they are wrong. Totally wrong!

Let’s see ‘why’?

The West ‘arranged’ the entire world in accordance with its own feudal system of the past centuries. It brought the system of shameless oppressive regime to the global level.

To admire this monstrous and regressive global system would be like admiring the arrangement of European societies some three hundred years ago. It would be essentially like saying: “Look, the aristocracy of France or England was actually quite fine, egalitarian, educated and healthy, and we should learn from how they lived, and copy their examples!”

Of course, the aristocracy, the royalty and the church of Europe has always lived well, even 300 years ago. They had good schools for their children, they had decent medical care, palaces, summer villas, sanatoriums with mineral waters, theatres, lavish parks, and tons of servants.

The only ‘tiny’ problem was that some 95% of the population had to work for the luxury they enjoyed, subsisting in total misery. Plus, of course, those tens of millions of un-people in the colonies were being exterminated like animals.

The same is happening now. The entire Europe (with the exception of the poor people there) has moved to the bracket of new aristocracy, at least comparatively. And the rest of the world is laboring, dying, being raped and plundered, in order to maintain this ‘wonderful-looking’ social-state project of the West. Even the U.S. and its relatively brutal turbo-capitalist model is still ‘socialist’ (for the U.S. citizens), compared to such countries as Indonesia, India, Peru or Nigeria.

Western standards of living cannot be replicated elsewhere. To believe that the West would allow Africans or Southeast Asians to build a social state is naïve, almost intellectually insulting. Singapore, South Korea and Japan are rare exceptions, where the West closed both eyes, for strictly strategic reasons.

In order for the West to prosper, maintaining a super high standard of living, with all the benefits for its citizens, billions of the ‘serfs’ all over the world have to suffer, sacrifice themselves, and work for close to nothing; the more of them that live in hell, the better.

Nature has to be plundered in places like Borneo and Papua, DR Congo and soon in Brazil.

People have to be ruled by pro-Western corrupt oligarchs, and by the military and religious leaders. Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and now Brazil, are perfect countries for the West: they happily and willingly sacrifice their own people, guaranteeing Western prosperity.

You did not know? Nonsense! You did not want to know. All those people who matter are very happy with this arrangement: The Western rulers, citizens of Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as well as the rulers/elites in the poor countries. The only ones who are truly suffering are those billions of the poor, worldwide, but they matter nothing, and they are not told anything anyway, because the media is in the hands of the West and their lackeys, and so is ‘education’.

And as they are not told anything, they – the wretched of the Earth – are admiring the West, too. They eat Western junk food if they can save few dollars a month, they drink Nescafe instead of their traditional coffee, listen to the shittiest music, watch pirated Hollywood blockbuster movies, wear fake sneakers and jeans, and masturbate to Western porn (if they have internet). They also dutifully follow religions, which were injected and upheld by the West, into their countries.

The poorer the country, the greater appear to be the green hills and pastures of the Western paradise.

And so, it goes on and on.

In India, Indonesia, Uganda, Jordan, Fiji, Honduras, I hear the same crap, from semi-educated, or West-educated local citizens: “People in the West are actually very good people, but their governments are bad.” Are they sure about that? I wonder.

*

Frankly and honestly, I am tired of this status quo. And I don’t find this amusing at all: hearing admiring statements about European and other Western countries in the middle of the monstrous war zones, famine-stricken areas, brutal mines, on the banks of poisoned rivers and inside the slums.

I am an ‘old-fashioned’ revolutionary. Slaves have to rise and fight, if necessary die for freedom; not to admire their masters and tormentors.

The crimes of the colonialists have to be exposed. The insane arrangement of the world has to be defined and then smashed into pieces.

The cute trams, bicycle lanes, parks, museums, operas, cafes, universities and hospitals in Europe are built on rivers of blood and the bones of ‘The Others’. I said it three years ago on the floor of the Italian Parliament, and I will repeat it again and again, wherever I go.

There is no other topic that matters, right now, on our planet.

Everything is connected to this, including the fear and hate that the West feels and spreads about countries like Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran, South Africa, Syria or Cuba.

They hate us; they hate those who resist, who are standing tall. And they should and will get back the same in return, hopefully, if the truth is pronounced often enough!

T. Lau #racist amazon.com

(NOTE: This guy is reacting to a (not exactly flattering) Birth of a Nation review)

As to the Black question, I will allow blacks and early european explorers to address the issue:
Youtube:
"Shocking Africa ++18"
[2:24-18:00 -- depicts black Africans in their native habitat as the early european explorers found them]

Slavery was rampant among African blacks themselves BEFORE the europeans ever arrived on the continent. It is unfortunate that europeans had the indecency to take advantage of the African situation, although the slave trade was also disproportionately Jewish .
["The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews"]

Then there's rap, hip-hop, pop -- which generally depicts sex, drinking, drugs, (hard) partying, and all manner of vulgar discrepancies, whether unabashed or subliminal.
__________

As to your comment on "white supremacy", what white supremacy?

What? When? Where?

In the white countries themselves where the population is disproportionately white? What's wrong with white running their own government in a white country? (Just like asian countries are run asian officials! I sure as hell don't want blacks running my beloved homeland of Hong Kong!)

The KKK were vilgilantes in costumes to hide their identities. Nothing more. Nothing less. There's no need to distort who they were or what they did.

I am certain an asian version of the KKK would rise up in Hong Kong should a minority group such as blacks were to subvert the majority population of asians in politics.

To be fair, the British did treat many minorities in Asia unfairly, and usually that was because the British empire (and other Western countries) were/are controlled or manipulated in small but significant part by one entity, one religious tribe....Banned history books and the Bible confirm this.

Think for yourself, people!

P.S. Take a walk down Harlem, New York -- or Jamaica or Haiti (once a beautiful european colony), those are the conditions of the black communities today...

Let's say the black race IS EQUAL to the white or asian race, wouldn't it then make sense that black countries in general would not require the help of Western countries (white countries)? (ie. job opportunities.)

I am not talking about only Africa, I am talking about black countries in the Americas as well.

Why do blacks need to emigrate? (On a side note, I do not agree with the mass emigration of asians into white countries. Still, one can see that asian countries are much less degenerate and unruly when compared to black countries.)

Unfortunately, the good blacks in intermingling in white communities are only part of the very small minority of smart intelligent blacks in a vast pool of backwards and child-like dark-skinned fools. (I don't mean that as an offense. No, I mean this factually. Based on my own personal observations, that of others and blacks themselves.)

The black mentality is:

"If you're a black and smart and intelligent and clever and learned, you are NOT black. Therefore, you get the boot out of our community, See yah!"

_____

Therefore, Birth of a Nation is very true (all the while frightening) in its message. Separation of the races is necessary to maintain peace and harmony.

Roderick Kaine #fundie amerika.org

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Gedaliah Braun #racist halcyoninitiative.wordpress.com

[Part 3]

Gruesome cruelty

Another aspect of African behavior that liberals do their best to ignore but that nevertheless requires an explanation is gratuitous cruelty. A reviewer of Driving South, a 1993 book by David Robbins, writes:

“A Cape social worker sees elements that revel in violence … It’s like a cult which has embraced a lot of people who otherwise appear normal. … At the slightest provocation their blood-lust is aroused. And then they want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death.” (Citizen [Johannesburg], July 12, 1993, p.6.)

There is something so unspeakably vile about this, something so beyond depravity, that the human brain recoils. This is not merely the absence of human empathy, but the positive enjoyment of human suffering, all the more so when it is “slow and agonizing.” Can you imagine jeering at and mocking someone in such horrible agony?

During the apartheid era, black activists used to kill traitors and enemies by “necklacing” them. An old tire was put around the victim’s neck, filled with gasoline, and—but it is best to let an eye-witness describe what happened next:

“The petrol-filled tyre is jammed on your shoulders and a lighter is placed within reach . … Your fingers are broken, needles are pushed up your nose and you are tortured until you put the lighter to the petrol yourself.” (Citizen; “SA’s New Nazis,” August 10, 1993, p.18.)

The author of an article in the Chicago Tribune, describing the equally gruesome way the Hutu killed Tutsi in the Burundi massacres, marveled at “the ecstasy of killing, the lust for blood; this is the most horrible thought. It’s beyond my reach.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1995, p.8.) The lack of any moral sense is further evidenced by their having videotaped their crimes, “apparently want[ing] to record … [them] for posterity.” Unlike war criminals, who hid their deeds, these people apparently took pride in their work.

In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks. One day when she was driving three African friends home, young blacks stopped the car, dragged her out, and killed her because she was white. A retired senior South African judge, Rex van Schalkwyk, in his 1998 book One Miracle is Not Enough, quotes from a newspaper report on the trial of her killers: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her] … burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain.” This behavior, Van Schalkwyk wrote, “is impossible to explain in terms accessible to rational minds.” (pp. 188-89.)

These incidents and the responses they evoke—“the human brain recoils,” “beyond my reach,” “impossible to explain to rational minds” — represent a pattern of behavior and thinking that cannot be wished away, and offer additional support for my claim that Africans are deficient in moral consciousness.

I have long suspected that the idea of rape is not the same in Africa as elsewhere, and now I find confirmation of this in Newsweek:

“According to a three-year study [in Johannesburg] … more than half of the young people interviewed — both male and female — believe that forcing sex with someone you know does not constitute sexual violence … [T]he casual manner in which South African teens discuss coercive relationships and unprotected sex is staggering.” (Tom Masland, “Breaking The Silence,” Newsweek, July 9, 2000.)

Clearly, many blacks do not think rape is anything to be ashamed of.

The Newsweek author is puzzled by widespread behavior that is known to lead to AIDS, asking “Why has the safe-sex effort failed so abjectly?” Well, aside from their profoundly different attitudes towards sex and violence and their heightened libido, a major factor could be their diminished concept of time and reduced ability to think ahead.

Nevertheless, I was still surprised by what I found in the Zulu dictionary. The main entry for rape reads: “1. Act hurriedly; … 2. Be greedy. 3. Rob, plunder, … take [possessions] by force.” While these entries may be related to our concept of rape, there is one small problem: there is no reference to sexual intercourse! In a male-dominated culture, where saying “no” is often not an option (as confirmed by the study just mentioned), “taking sex by force” is not really part of the African mental calculus. Rape clearly has a moral dimension, but perhaps not to Africans. To the extent they do not consider coerced sex to be wrong, then, by our conception, they cannot consider it rape because rape is wrong. If such behavior isn’t wrong it isn’t rape.

An article about gang rape in the left-wing British paper, the Guardian, confirms this when it quotes a young black woman: “The thing is, they [black men] don’t see it as rape, as us being forced. They just see it as pleasure for them.” (Rose George, “They Don’t See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them,” June 5, 2004.) A similar attitude seems to be shared among some American blacks who casually refer to gang rape as “running a train.” (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.)

If the African understanding of rape is far afield, so may be their idea of romance or love. I recently watched a South African television program about having sex for money. Of the several women in the audience who spoke up, not a single one questioned the morality of this behavior. Indeed, one plaintively asked, “Why else would I have sex with a man?”

From the casual way in which Africans throw around the word “love,” I suspect their understanding of it is, at best, childish. I suspect the notion is alien to Africans, and I would be surprised if things are very different among American blacks. Africans hear whites speak of “love” and try to give it a meaning from within their own conceptual repertoire. The result is a child’s conception of this deepest of human emotions, probably similar to their misunderstanding of the nature of a promise.

I recently located a document that was dictated to me by a young African woman in June 1993. She called it her “story,” and the final paragraph is a poignant illustration of what to Europeans would seem to be a limited understanding of love:

“On my way from school, I met a boy. And he proposed me. His name was Mokone. He tell me that he love me. And then I tell him I will give him his answer next week. At night I was crazy about him. I was always thinking about him.”

Moral blindness

Whenever I taught ethics I used the example of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French Army who was convicted of treason in 1894 even though the authorities knew he was innocent. Admitting their mistake, it was said, would have a disastrous effect on military morale and would cause great social unrest. I would in turn argue that certain things are intrinsically wrong and not just because of their consequences. Even if the results of freeing Dreyfus would be much worse than keeping him in prison, he must be freed, because it is unjust to keep an innocent man in prison.

To my amazement, an entire class in Kenya said without hesitation that he should not be freed. Call me dense if you want, but it was 20 years before the full significance of this began to dawn on me.

Africans, I believe, may generally lack the concepts of subjunctivity and counterfactuality. Subjunctivity is conveyed in such statements as, “What would you have done if I hadn’t showed up?” This is contrary to fact because I did show up, and it is now impossible for me not to have shown up. We are asking someone to imagine what he would have done if something that didn’t happen (and now couldn’t happen) had happened. This requires self-consciousness, and I have already described blacks’ possible deficiency in this respect. It is obvious that animals, for example, cannot think counterfactually, because of their complete lack of self-awareness.

When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked “What’s it for?” “Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital.” Their response was immediate: “But boss, we didn’t have an accident!” “Yes, but what if you did?” Reply? “We didn’t have an accident!” End of story.

Interestingly, blacks do plan for funerals, for although an accident is only a risk, death is a certainty. (The Zulu entries for “risk” are “danger” and “a slippery surface.”) Given the frequent all-or-nothing nature of black thinking, if it’s not certain you will have an accident, then you will not have an accident. Furthermore, death is concrete and observable: We see people grow old and die. Africans tend to be aware of time when it is manifested in the concrete and observable.

One of the pivotal ideas underpinning morality is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. “How would you feel if someone stole everything you owned? Well, that’s how he would feel if you robbed him.” The subjunctivity here is obvious. But if Africans may generally lack this concept, they will have difficulty in understanding the Golden Rule and, to that extent, in understanding morality.

If this is true we might also expect their capacity for human empathy to be diminished, and this is suggested in the examples cited above. After all, how do we empathize? When we hear about things like “necklacing” we instinctively — and unconsciously — think: “How would I feel if I were that person?” Of course I am not and cannot be that person, but to imagine being that person gives us valuable moral “information:” that we wouldn’t want this to happen to us and so we shouldn’t want it to happen to others. To the extent people are deficient in such abstract thinking, they will be deficient in moral understanding and hence in human empathy—which is what we tend to find in Africans.

In his 1990 book Devil’s Night, Ze’ev Chafets quotes a black woman speaking about the problems of Detroit: “I know some people won’t like this, but whenever you get a whole lot of black people, you’re gonna have problems. Blacks are ignorant and rude.” (pp. 76-77.)

If some Africans cannot clearly imagine what their own rude behavior feels like to others—in other words, if they cannot put themselves in the other person’s shoes—they will be incapable of understanding what rudeness is. For them, what we call rude may be normal and therefore, from their perspective, not really rude. Africans may therefore not be offended by behavior we would consider rude — not keeping appointments, for example. One might even conjecture that African cruelty is not the same as white cruelty, since Africans may not be fully aware of the nature of their behavior, whereas such awareness is an essential part of “real” cruelty.

I am hardly the only one to notice this obliviousness to others that sometimes characterizes black behavior. Walt Harrington, a white liberal married to a light-skinned black, makes some surprising admissions in his 1994 book, Crossings: A White Man’s Journey Into Black America:

“I notice a small car … in the distance. Suddenly … a bag of garbage flies out its window . … I think, I’ll bet they’re blacks. Over the years I’ve noticed more blacks littering than whites. I hate to admit this because it is a prejudice. But as I pass the car, I see that my reflex was correct—[they are blacks].

“[As I pull] into a McDonald’s drive-through … [I see that] the car in front of me had four black in it. Again … my mind made its unconscious calculation: We’ll be sitting here forever while these people decide what to order. I literally shook my head . … My God, my kids are half black! But then the kicker: we waited and waited and waited. Each of the four … leaned out the window and ordered individually. The order was changed several times. We sat and sat, and I again shook my head, this time at the conundrum that is race in America.

“I knew that the buried sentiment that had made me predict this disorganization … was … racist. … But my prediction was right.” (pp. 234-35.)

Africans also tend to litter. To understand this we must ask why whites don’t litter, at least not as much. We ask ourselves: “What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere? It would be a mess. So you shouldn’t do it!” Blacks’ possible deficiency in abstract thinking makes such reasoning more difficult, so any behavior requiring such thinking is less likely to develop in their cultures. Even after living for generations in societies where such thinking is commonplace, many may still fail to absorb it.

It should go without saying that my observations about Africans are generalizations. I am not saying that none has the capacity for abstract thought or moral understanding. I am speaking of tendencies and averages, which leave room for many exceptions.

To what extent do my observations about Africans apply to American blacks? American blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is a full 15 points higher than the African average of 70. The capacity for abstract thought is unquestionably correlated with intelligence, and so we can expect American blacks generally to exceed Africans in these respects.

Still, American blacks show many of the traits so striking among Africans: low mathematical ability, diminished abstract reasoning, high crime rates, a short time-horizon, rudeness, littering, etc. If I had lived only among American blacks and not among Africans, I might never have reached the conclusions I have, but the more extreme behavior among Africans makes it easier to perceive the same tendencies among American blacks.

Tucker #racist amren.com

RE: Nigeria May Be Part of Trump’s Travel Ban, But Nigerians Tend to Trust Trump

This sounds like an unbelivably chutzpathetic pile of bull biscuit BALONEY. Baloney that is so mindbogglingly comical and preposterous that it reminds me of what Hitler wrote about how that certain tribe of subversive nation wreckers would use the "Big Lie" technique, because when the lie is so gigantic and so outrageous and so off-the-charts in terms of believability, that it taps into & exploits what is the greatest weakness of White European people - their child-like naivete and gullibility. They hear these gigantic lies and are psychologically incapable of seeing them as lies, because of the sheer enormity of the falsehood - and, since they, themselves, are unable to imagine ever telling such a huge lie as the one they are hearing -- they conclude that the Big Lie must be true.

"Usually, when he makes the comments that people in the U.S. regard as racist or whatever, in this part of the world, people tend to agree with him because we think, well, we know these things he’s saying are things that everybody else is thinking. We’re not under any illusion that any country in the world wants to welcome African immigrants with wide-open arms. No Nigerian I know of is under that illusion. No European country is eager to welcome African immigrants. They’re putting policies in place. The data is there. All the EU countries are trying to keep immigrants out. So President Trump is saying the things we know everybody is thinking."

This sounds like it came out of the mouth of a racially sane White man, or more likely, from a non-white guy like Steven Miller - which I suspect is the most likely possibility. Listen to me, my fellow White Americans. The entire non-white World understands the power of playing the race card on the White race. The entire non-white World also understands how successful the race card has worked on weak, wimpy, racially castrated and racially emasculated Whites. They understand that, to get the White man to cuck and grovel and submit to their endless list of demands - all they have to do is accuse him of being a 'racist', and 99% of White men will immediately wilt and soil their panties and give these non-whites whatever it is that they are screaming to be given. But, here we see a news report that tries to get us to believe that these Nigerian blacks have tossed their race card into the garbage heap and are now claiming that they understand and respect the Orange Man's desire - and the desires of every other White European nation - to refuse to accept blacks from Africa into their nations?

Or, could this be another effort on the part of the Orange Cuck to float the idea that blacks all over the world are all suddenly big fans of his and if he decides to selectively exclude them from sneaking into a White nation so they can feast off of the White race - hey, no big deal, they understand and don't hold it against him?

Since when has a parasite ever voluntarily jumped off of the host it is feeding upon because it suddenly saw the host's point of view?

”We’re not under any illusion that any country in the world wants to welcome African immigrants with wide-open arms. No Nigerian I know of is under that illusion. No European country is eager to welcome African immigrants.”

Then why do you stream in droves to places where it’s clear to you that you cause problems, are a burden, and are unwanted and unwelcome? This has become a thing that has eroded any sympathy at all, for any of them. This African is no exception. That’s generally the attitude of all these immigrants for quite a long time. They know they are a burden, they know they’re pushing other people out, they know how we feel about it. And at best, they don’t care. More often than not, their attitude is “haha, suckers. We’re taking over that there’s nothing you can do. And you have to pay for it, and move aside. All your stuff is ours, and your government will give it to us. Weaklings!”

I’m well over “there’s many good people among them”. No. I don’t care how amiable they may appear on the surface. Good people don’t do this. At this stage of the game, they know darn well they are intruding and stealing. NOT a thing that good people do to a bunch of kind starngers that are helpless to this fate.

I get the gist of what NPR is doing here. They are trying to make the impression to the slackjawed yokel sucker Trump voters that third world immigrants are really Trump loving patriots, you see.

No dice. Not buying it.

Judging by the rest of the comments I have seen thus far, it appears as if Joy and I stand alone on being able to see through this unbelievably comical scam.

Like I said in my earlier comment - the #1 most racially suicidal weakness that plagues White European people is this child-like, Goober Pyle flavored naivete and sickening gullibility that drives us to always get suckered by the Big Lie Techniques used by the most evil and dangerous enemy we have ever faced.

NeetSupremacist #fundie incels.co

Why current politics shouldn't matter to the incels, revolution is the only way.

So I made a topic yesterday about why politics shouldn't matter because we can't get the most important thing in our lives: Female validation. It was interesting to see the reactions and some people didn't dig into it deep enough and didn't understand what I meant to say with 'politics'. So here it is comes...

Current politics are a theater and won't make any difference to inceldom.

As the state of the world and society we live in today we see how politics are performed by leaders and by the institution called 'United Nations', we need to understand what this all means in order to find out if current politics will benefit us incels or not. The united nations perfoms as a world wide central judge between countries, the united nations created and still creates (((universal laws))) which every country on this planet should follow. All countries in this world are obligated to follow the constitution of the united nations, but what is the united nations exactly? Who created united nations? And who has the most influence in this central court? United Nations is a creation of rich world wide liberal policies and bankers, as long you don't destroy the united nations you won't destroy globalism.... And exactly globalism is one of the main reasons why inceldom has been increased so much.

The united nations commands every country to implement laws in favor of Chads and degenerates.

Current politics with current leaders is all theater, it's not real and it won't make a difference. Sure some politicians are populists and could shout and say some things that would make sense somehow, but all these politicians will never confront the real issues of globalist policies in terms of globalist foreign influences around the world. But of course these people don't want to destroy globalism, if globalism was destroyed and every nation should get sovereignty onto their own countries that would basically means that multinationals and other big companies would never get their hands so easily on certain resources which are not available in their own countries. America would not be allowed anymore to occupy foreign countries and set up military set ups in other places of the world, the same goes for Russia and China. All these big nations would never leave globalist policies because globalism is what made these countries strong and made their influence so big.

Feminism is a result of certain policies created by the united nations which obligates all the state members to implement female emancipation laws (AKA feminism) and this is not something new.

"Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"

@www.un.org

United Nations: Gender equality and women's empowerment
United Nations 2015: Time for Global Action. Focus on gender equality and women's empowerment to achieve sustainable development

The united nations is basically a liberal institution which dictates the laws for every country in the world, united nations is the system that makes our lives miserable and every nation being part of this liberal institution is an enemy to the incel. Why globalist policies are an enemy to the incel? It's because they fucked the SMV of the male gender by giving female the rights to be sluts and to travel to other countries with men with higher SMV. If femoids were never allowed to travel and they would be obligated to stay and marry within their own countries than that would reduce the rate of inceldom. A small example:

Thailand is a country with a huge number of ricecels, lets say for example that 10% of the male gender in Thailand was an incel before globalist policies....

Globalism did it's work and opened the Thailand border and every other border on this planet.

People all over the world start to displace themselves to other countries.

Sexual Market Value changes dramatically because we know that the racepill is a truth, the white passing guys are higher on the SMV than the shitskins and ethnics.

Ethnic women have acces to white Chads.

Black tyrones from Africa displace to Europe

Resulting in more competition for the average white guy in Europe

Chaddams from middle east also join Europe resulting in higher competition for average white men

Average white men suddenly can't get a female

Resulting in him relocating to another country where he can boost his SMV (SEA)

White average guy right now a God in SEA because his SMV boost

Resulting in higher inceldom within the average Thai guy

And the circle continues......


This is what currently is happening, the only solution to destroy this circle of inceldom is to destroy the united nations. If we really want to make a difference in this world and on international theater, we need to initiate a worldwide revolution against the united nations and those who support it. Every country and every institution being part of the united nations is our enemy and they should be destroyed. If we really want to care about politics, we should only have 1 thing to concentrate on.... We need to make people revolt against the united nations. Yes we incels are weak but we can use our brains, if we can't fight we could at least make the Chads and the united nations faggots fight each other, and when they fight each other they will become weaker and vulnerable and that's where we incels take out chance for a revolution and revenge on humanity.

Revolution is the only way, current NPC politics will not care about you and will not do a shit about your situations. Caring about current politics while being a part of a worldwide elite globalist group is like mopping the floor while the tap is running....You will not achieve anything, you will only empower NPC politics.

cosmicgirl #racist stormfront.org

Re: Ideal world

i suppose i will start ?

I would consider an optimal world to be one where each race has its place, insofar as geography is concerned, and positive eugenics is practiced by all species-races. Trade and commerce may still happen between the species-races, but there would not be excessive migrations between the races. As such, there would not be a significant african-american or latino presence in america, and Europe would not be besieged by afro-arab muslim 'refugee warriors' who are hell-bent on geneseed warfare.

Thusly, America would be unswervingly majority white, the black slaves would have gone back to Africa during the jim crow era, native americans would have alot more reservations, in atleast afew more states, Europeans would stay firmly European, and Mexico wouldn't be so damn sore about losing the spanish-american war (and the american southwest states).

Also, in Africa, there would optimally be no Boer population, and no need for apartheid. The Africanoid species-race would either build its intelligence base, and thus develop some semblance of civilization which doesn't fall apart, or remain tribal.

European Gypsies would pull their heads out of their hind-ends, and either go back to India, and/or adopt an east-indian identity-culture, and stop being such back-birthed brigandts who are apparently driven to make endless trouble.

The Semitic species-races would optimally Not Exist to begin with, and therefore Judaism and Islam would never be developed. Paganisms of various sorts would be definitively more prominent. Perhaps Christianity would instead stem from Buddhism ?

Most to all of the sand of the Sahara desert, being that it is actually silt material, would likely be either slowly dumped back into the ocean, and allowed to fill out alot more beaches around the world. or would be put to being made glass, and therefore we would see alot more glass goods being produced.

In culture, there would be no (((Constant Leftist Push))), and so cultural mores would not really degenerate. As such, history would likely be vastly different. I suspect that Rome would not fall to Islamic blockades and jihad, so much as morph and transfer to one area or another, and change with the eras. As such, there would be no feudalist dark ages to have to re-develop from, and Mediterranean ethnicities would probably be alot less swarthy in genetic composition.

Architecture would still be largely dominated by beautiful and wholesome buildings, and i suspect that various forms of classical greco-roman, gothic, Art-Deco, semi-Modernist, and neo-futurist architecture (and everything in between ?) would compose the city landscapes. Postmodernism, Brutalist, and dada-ist architecture, without jewish factions to push them, would likewise not exist.

Technologically, Nikola Tesla (and/or inventors like him) would have been readily funded and not blacklisted and cast into poverty, bumped off, and all materials stolen by the military. Thusly, we might / would have had alot more technological progress, alot earlier.

galileo1439 #pedo incelocalypse.ru

Cancel Wrote:
What laws would be the ones which would need fixing, or removing, to help us out? For example, age ones, rape ones, female voting ones, etc.

Just think about what our problems are and what political changes would we need to target? To help think of things, what were good laws which were changed for the worse?

Stop the ban on judges approving child marriage being imposed by many states. We still have time for this one. A lot of big name opponents to banning child marriage exist and have been successful, including the ACLU in California! Delaware thus far has been the only successful state to impose the ban fully. We should overturn it there too!

Council of Conservative Citizens #fundie conservative-headlines.org

[From "If The South Had Won"]

Like Hank Williams fantasized in his famous song, it’s fun to speculate about what America might be like if history had taken a correct turn, and the South had won the War Against Yankee Aggression and then seceded.

Two Jew-boys who produced the Game of Thrones are allegedly planning a new cable series on HBO, to be titled “Confederate.” It is rumored their new series will speculate about what America would be like if the South had successfully seceded from the Union, and slavery were still legal. Clearly, their “speculations” will be very different from my own, which follow…

First of all, if the good guys had won, there would be no holiday celebrating Martin Luther King, and King’s FBI Files would have been released and not redacted in any manner. The truth about this disgusting communist and pervert would finally penetrate even the skulls of the ghetto-dwellers, race-hustlers and frauds that routinely invoke his name.

Instead, America would have established real holidays to celebrate our true National Heroes, such as George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Patton and Ronald Reagan. All those arbitrary three-day weekends created by Congress would end: Holidays would be celebrated only on the birthdays of these genuine, American heroes.

Taxation would be used exclusively to fund a Public Purpose: Use of the Taxing Powers as a means to achieve transfers of wealth would be unconstitutional, a restriction that would apply to Foreign Aid, as well.

Welfare would have become a true “safety net” and not a way of life. There would be semi-annual drug-testing of all welfare “Heads of Households,” and a positive test result for any illegal substance would be sufficient to permanently remove these scammers from the welfare rolls.

Furthermore, those who apply for welfare benefits would be eligible only once, and annual benefits would decline by 20% each year for five years, until they ceased altogether. (After five years, “If you breed ‘em, YOU FEED ‘EM!”)

Once again, America would have become an avowedly Christian Nation: Moreover, anyone running for public office or appointed to public office would be required to give a detailed description of the churches they attended and the years they attended them. These would substitute for the detailed financial disclosure statements usually required.

Using its powers under Article 3, Section 2, Congress would have removed Federal Court jurisdiction over school assignment cases, Congressional and state redistricting, and any other alleged inequities involving race, ethnic identity or gender.

Likewise, any member of the Federal Jewdiciary who attempted to create law — rather than merely apply the law — would be subject to summary removal from office by the President, or impeachment by a 51% vote of Congress. This would become our 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio, Escobido v. The United States, Brown v. Board and any Congressional Redistricting cases would all be considered “judge-made” law, since each is a blatant attempt by federal judges to usurp the functions of Congress and all state legislatures by writing “codes of conduct” for them. They also perpetuate the lie that federal judges are less biased or “political” than members of a deliberative body.

Anyone engaging in voter fraud would face a mandatory sentence of three years and a fine of $1,000 on each count. Those found obstructing justice in such cases would serve the same sentences as those convicted, and in the same penal institutions.

Term Limits for Congressional office-holders would not only be Constitutional, they would become the 29th Amendment to the Constitution. Also, any member of a state’s Congressional Delegation could be Recalled by a 55% majority of voters at any properly scheduled election.

A petition by any citizen with evidence of a pattern of “fake news,” lying, or disinformation by any electronic news media outlet would be sufficient to compel the FCC to investigate such allegations. If found to be true, revocation of that offender’s FCC License would be mandatory.

Any law enacted by Congress would have a five-year “Sunset Provision,” requiring that it be re-enacted by a Majority of both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President every five years of its existence. Failure to re-enact would constitute automatic repeal.

There would be no Department of Education, no Labor Department, and no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EPA would be staffed with scientists, not radical environmentalists, and they would have no authority beyond making recommendations to Congress.

America would have become a sanctuary to white people, so long as they pledged allegiance to democratic and Republican principles in the Constitution, and were financially self-sufficient. Those who betrayed their Oath of Allegiance — like the Jewish communists who emigrated here from Europe in the first half of the 20th Century — would be hastily deported to some far corner of the globe, preferably one populated by cannibals or head-hunters.

Immigrants who have gone without employment for two years would be deported to their nations of origin, along with their families, pets, friends and associates. (Just kidding…)

Those who interfere with immigration authorities in any manner would become subject to deportation, as well. This would apply equally to clergy or political authorities that defy immigration laws and harbor illegal immigrants, particularly those who attempt to create “sanctuaries” for them.

Illegal immigrants would be subject to asset forfeiture by the states in which they reside. Return of such assets would be exclusively at the discretion of the individual states involved, and done so only after all debts and penalties against them have been assessed. The residual could be refunded to them in their new nations of residence.

Finally, Capital Punishment would be used to a far greater extent for First Degree Murder and crimes that involve significant amounts of violence or murderous intentions. Each capital case would be allowed one Habeas Corpus appeal to the Supreme Court: If rejected, only a commutation by the state’s Governor could stop a scheduled execution.

This would mean an end to absurdly long and frivolous appeals in capital cases, some of which have taken 30 years to effectuate.

Liz Crokin #conspiracy rightwingwatch.org

Liz Crokin is a right-wing “reporter” and rabid conspiracy theorist who has dedicated her career to exposing the supposed fact that leading government, entertainment and business leaders are involved in a massive satanic pedophile cult. Recently, she appeared on a program hosted by a former “Survivor” contestant to discuss the various Hollywood sexual abuse scandals, where she declared that Bill and Hillary Clinton are satanists and pedophiles and urged the government to investigate critics of President Trump like Alec Baldwin, Stephen Colbert and Michael Moore to uncover their ties to pedophilia.

Crokin said that the sexual abuse scandals in Hollywood “completely coincide with the occult” because this abuse “is directly related [to] satanism … It is part of an occult ritual that these celebrities, politicians, powerful people are engaged in because they believe in Lucifer, they believe in Satan and they believe that sexually abusing children literally gives them spiritual power.”

Crokin asserted that she “knew that Kevin Spacey is a pedophile” because he “is very tight with the Clintons,” whom she asserted “are both sexual predators and are pedophiles and that will be proven to be true very soon.”

Reiterating her belief that those who criticize Trump are likely involved in pedophilia, Crokin declared that “the people that are involved in child sex trafficking, that are involved in pedophilia—or maybe not pedophilia but have some major criminal activity to hide—they’re the ones screaming the loudest against Trump.”

“I would say Robert DeNiro needs to be looked at very closely,” Crokin said. “I would say Alec Baldwin needs to be looked at very closely, I would say Stephen Colbert needs to be looked at very closely, I would say Michael Moore needs to be looked at very closely. You’ll find that these elite pedophiles, they’re very close friends and they all hang out and they’re all marked members of the same club an they’re all doing the same stuff.”

thomaspain #fundie theblaze.com

Its not a Revolution, its a COUNTER REVOLUTION, we are casting out leftist nazi’s, socialists, trust fund whiners, two faced politicians, Hollywood blowhards, Third World colonists, professional liars, insulated lawyers, pontificating professors, controlled media, welfare bums, and ALL of the Parasites feeding off the labor and energy created by working Americans of every type!
We recognize only the Constitution, the Bible and our ability to own Guns, of any kind, as the only manifestation of Freedom consistent with America. We WILL say what we want, and do what we want. We yell “Fire” in a crowed theater that is the corrupt USA, we imprison criminals and shoot traitors. We have laws that we follow and we don’t play political games like imprisoning journalists to silence them!
It is without doubt, time to refresh a dying forest that has become America. It is time to reject the propaganda that presents itself as “news”. It is time to question the allegiance of our illegally elected “leaders” who have come to power based on fabricated votes, manipulated electorates and the phony “process” we call voting in this country. We need to banish foreign billionaires who buy representatives and Presidents. We need to stop any foreign money being contributed to any election anywhere in this country. We need to crush political trusts, masked as charities, and we need to start now before the manufactured economic collapse can be triggered.
God Bless America and America’s Patriots

Islamic State #fundie dw.com

'IS' claims deadly attack on Save the Children office in Afghanistan

An attack on the Save the Children's office in Afghanistan has ended killing two and wounding 20, in the latest violence to strike a foreign aid group in the country. So-called 'Islamic State' has claimed responsibility.

An attack on Save the Children's office in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad has ended with at least two people killed and 20 wounded, an official said on Wednesday.

"The fighting has ended. The security forces are clearing the building now," Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for the governor of Nangarhar province, told the French news agency AFP.

The four assailants — reportedly dressed as police — fired a rocket propelled grenade from a car outside the British charity's compound in the eastern city of Jalalabad.

They then clashed with security forces for about three hours, a provincial government spokesman said. Afghan TV news channels showed a plume of black smoke coming out of the compound and a vehicle on fire outside the office.

The so-called Islamic State (IS) group later on Wednesday claimed responsibility for the attack. "A martyrdom-seeking operation with an explosive-laden vehicle and three immersing attacks targeted British and Swedish foundations and Afghan government institutes in the city of Jalalabad," IS said via its propaganda arm Amaq.

Jalalabad is the capital of Nangarhar province, on the border with Pakistan. The province has become a stronghold for the so-called "Islamic State" (IS) terror group.

The attack comes days after Taliban militants attacked the Hotel Intercontinental in the capital, Kabul, which killed at least 20 people, including 13 foreigners.

Red Cross 'drastically' reducing presence

The violence against Save the Children, which has been working in Afghanistan since 1976, is the latest in a number of assaults on foreign aid groups in the country.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent announced in October it would "drastically" reduce its presence in the country after seven workers were killed last year.

The decision by the charity highlighted the growing dangers for aid employees, who have increasingly become casualties of a surge in militant violence in recent years.

CertifiedRabbi #fundie reddit.com

I don't really think that this should be a debate over how friendly or intelligent an immigrant group is. Most White Western expats are extremely nice, are better educated than the local population, commit low crime rates, and contribute more to the society through taxes than they take out through government handouts. And yet non-White people still don't want millions of us to flood into their countries and make them minorities in their own cities.
Heck, I don't even like seeing White expats in non-White countries. It's fucking weird seeing White expats wearing traditional Japanese attire and taking part in traditional Japanese cultural events. It would be even weirder if these White expats had these "fuck you" attitudes that non-White immigrants have in White Western countries where they unapologetically colonize your country while maintaining their own native culture. Could you imagine if Americatowns spread across Japan where you have entire cities speaking English and refusing to adopt the native culture?
And brown and black people don't have any problems with being racist towards us in our own countries and openly declaring their desire to keep us out of "their" communities. Just look at the huge number of brown and black people that now live in White Western societies freaking the fuck out whenever we White people start to recolonize our own cities. Brown and black people are completely flipping their shit over "gentrification", which is obviously a euphemistic dog whistle for racist brown and black people wanting to keep White people out of "their" neighborhoods (even though those neighborhoods were White and better off a few decades ago).
Tolerating immigrant groups like Sikhs might seem harmless at first, but if you understand the long-term consequences of adopting these dangerously permissive and welcoming attitudes towards foreign immigrants, then you'll quickly realize that your permissive and tolerant attitudes will result in White people becoming minorities in one neighborhood after the next, and then one city after the next, and then eventually becoming minorities in one country after the next - as is predicted to happen in America, Canada, Britain, Sweden, et cetera, over the next few decades.
When is it morally acceptable for we White people to put our foot down and stop our racial dispossession? When we're down to comprising only 75% of our national population? 65%? 60%? 55%? 51%? Or is it never morally acceptable to close our borders and prevent our racial dispossession? Are we just supposed to warmly welcome and celebrate our racial demise because Sikhs are supposedly model minorities, and because not doing so is dangerously racist and akin to slavery, lynchings, and the holocaust?
Pushing all of those ridiculous - and yet commonly presented - arguments against White nativism aside, I'd argue that keeping Sikhs and other non-White groups out of our countries can be justified on simple demographic mathematics alone. After all, there's more Indians in the world than there is White people. One fucking brown country has more people in it than the entire global White community combined. And so obviously we have to be hyper-vigilant when it comes to preventing mass Indian immigration into our societies because only 1% of their population migrating to a small White country will cause those White people to become minorities in their own homeland. That's why it's extremely important to realize that a certain level of racism - such as opposing non-White immigration into our countries - is simply necessary if we want to exist 100+ years from now.
It's nothing personal, but you Sikhs (and non-White people in general) have to be kept out of our countries if we simply want to survive as a race. Go be model citizens back in your own countries. Your native countries need all of the help that they can get. We'll be just fine without you.
And besides, why would you want to be a minority anyway? Wouldn't you rather live in a country dominated by our own people where you're completely free to be yourself? Don't you yearn to be back in India surrounded by your own kind? Don't you wish that you could see people that look like you respected in the media that you consume? Why would you want to put up with racist stereotypes like Apu and "thank you, come again"? Why would you want to be forced to conform to our social norms? Why would you want to worry about some random yahoo confusing your turban as Islamic terrorist garb and assaulting you? And why would you want to live in a country that will never fully accept you?
And don't you care that you're making the native population feel uncomfortable by colonizing their country? I'd personally be racked with guilt if millions of White people flooded into Japan and tried to force the locals to bend to our will and represent us in their media. And yet I don't think that I've even seen a single non-White person express guilt for making White people minorities in their own countries. On the contrary, they act as if we White Westerners have some kind of moral obligation to just completely bend over for them even though they'd never bend over for us if the roles were reversed.
Non-White immigrants actually have the balls to get in our face, denounce us as racists, physically assault us, and even show up with loaded semi-automatic rifles to shut down our speech by force if we try to stand up for our own racial interests in our own countries. Non-White people would never tolerate that level of disrespect in their own countries unless we forced ourselves upon them through old school military imperialism.
What a perfect testament to how cucked White people have become, which non-White people have picked up on instinctually. Much like how wild animals have become increasingly aggressive towards man after the environmental and conservationist movement severely reduced hunting, so too have people of color lost their fear of the White man due to the liberal "anti-racist" cultural revolution in recent decades. They know that we've become a bunch of pathologically ethnomasochistic cowards. And they know that the liberal media and countless extremely well-funded "anti-hate" NGOs have their back. And so they have no respect for us and absolutely zero fear of us retaliating against them as they brazenly get in our faces and push us around in our own countries.
And it's not like appealing to them morally will make a difference. The only thing that they'll respect is a reemergence and reassertion of unapologetic White ethnocentrism. And that's ultimately why the Alt-Right exists, and that's why people of color and self-hating Whites are so militantly opposed to us. They know that we have a liberal boot on our necks which is keeping us down, and they have absolutely zero interest in letting us get back on our own feet again. They instead want to finish off we "bad" Whites ("good" Whites hate themselves and support open borders) and kill us off for good by putting even more weight on our necks through increased mass non-White immigration and suppression of our speech.
And the supposedly nice and friendly Sikhs will reveal their shared animosity towards we "bad" Alt-Right Whites as they join in with the other non-White and White leftist mobs that violently attack our real world events and advocate for laws that criminalize our speech. And that's why the "model minorities" rhetoric doesn't fool the Alt-Right. Whether these non-White people in our countries are model minorities or degenerate ghetto brown trash, they're completely united in preventing White Westerners from reclaiming their own countries and preventing their racial demise.
And as you pointed out in a previous post on this subreddit, a lot of these people are hardcore ethnic nationalists themselves who are basically only living in White Western countries in order to make more money. So they're a 5th column security threat on top of being a unwanted foreign colonizer.

~ Chelsey ~ #fundie answers.yahoo.com

What would America be like if you took all of the Judeo-Christian influence out?

So many here against Christianity in America. What would you invision as a country if we sunk to the depth of Communism in its hey day....a Godless Nation.

How would this improve anything. Could you explain how our country would be in a better position if the Judeo-Christian influence were gone?

Answer : Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, etc. would
be the norm, teenage pregnancy would skyrocket,
ANYTHING would be acceptable, no one would have any morals,
crime rates would balloon, right and wrong would be a matter
of opinion not law, so it would be okay for humans to marry
animals or inanimate objects.


Hopefully the answers will be educational.

Nathan Larson #racist nathania.org

CATLETT — 4 June 2017 — Nathan Larson, independent candidate in Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017, announced today that he is designating the week of 11-17 June 2017 as Slavery Appreciation Week, in observance of the institution that, from 1619 to 1865, helped America develop into the successful first world country it is today.
"Slavery Appreciation Week celebrates the many benefits that slavery had on our Commonwealth, creating a booming cotton industry that worked to the advantage of both blacks and whites," Larson noted. "Africans were able to leave behind their old life as peasants living in mud huts, and migrate to America to help build the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Films such as Amistad and Beloved commemorate and dramatize the exciting adventures of that era, which blacks would have missed out on had it not been for slavery.
"While some Africans did not survive the journey to America's shores, as a whole, they did better than if they had stayed in the primitive squalor from which they came. The claim some blacks make that their ancestors 'wuz kingz' suggests that, unless these were anarchist societies in which every man was a sovereign, there must have been some Africans who served under the rulers, rather than being monarchs themselves. The ultimate result of their voyage across the Atlantic is that their descendants now are happier than they would be if they had stayed in Africa, as evidenced by the fact that few American blacks today feel any need to move back to Africa. They are wealthier, freer, and safer than they would be in the impoverished and war-torn countries of the continent from which their ancestors came.
"America has always required that immigrants pay their dues. Many white colonists had to enter into indentured servitude in return for the costly passage. Today, immigrants arriving on our shores still have to live here for years before they are eligible to have all the rights afforded full citizens. Africans were just another category of people who had to earn their freedom. Even before the Civil War, it was common for slaves to be emancipated as a reward for faithful service, as in the case of the slaves of George Washington Parke Custis, who were set free by his executor, Robert E. Lee.
"Some demagogues want to take down Confederate monuments and discourage the waving of the Confederate flag. But the Confederates stood for decentralized government, in which the states would serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny. Today, the federal government in many ways harms and discriminates against blacks, for example, through the 18:1 disparity in the Controlled Substances Act between how crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses are punished.
"A tendency toward racist policies arises, not so much as an ugly legacy of slavery, as from the fact that in a democratic republic, whatever group is in the majority will tend to dominate because they have more votes. They will tend to rig the election system, the criminal justice system, etc. against minority groups that disagree with their political stances. If you are in a minority demographic, you have to either accept the state of affairs as part of the cost of living together with the majority group in one country; separate and form your own country where you will be in the majority; increase your numbers to become the new majority; or use some form of pressure to force your will upon the majority.
"The Union victory over the Confederacy gave rise to the extremely divisive politics of our era. Imagine what America would be like if the south had split away. The south would probably have a relatively conservative President, while the north would have a relatively leftist President. There would be no need for half the country to suffer under the leadership of the other half's preferred candidate. They could each have their own way.
"Secession and racial separatism should always remain on the table as options in case it should ever become evident that the costs of integration have exceeded the benefits. Our country was founded by secessionists who dissolved their political connection with the U.K., and the U.K. has recently declared its own secession from the European Union. West Virginia also seceded from Virginia over the issue of slavery. Certain parts of Virginia, such as many of the communities in Virginia's 3rd congressional district, consist mostly of blacks, and they should be allowed to split off and form their own state if they ever decide that would be their best interests. The same goes for other ethnic groups as well. Secession serves as a final safety valve by which a people which feels itself oppressed can throw off a despotic government and provide new guards for its future security.
"It is amazing that some blacks call for slavery reparations, when the life they get to live in America is already the greatest reparation they could ever have. Virginia in particular has the highest rate of black-white marriages in the country. Isn't getting sexual access to some of the most beautiful women in the world enough of a reward for the black man's ancestor's agricultural services? Why does he also need 40 acres and a mule?
"When we compare African blacks and American blacks along almost any measure you can think of, such as infant mortality, HIV/AID prevalence, median educational level, median income, and so on, we see the true legacy of slavery. In the long run, it turned out to be a force for lifting up the black race, while at the same time, building up the country as a whole, producing benefits that they were eventually able to share more fully in. That is something for which we all should be thankful."

Bradlee Dean #fundie wnd.com

America is again being diverted away from another treasonous act by this administration: the “Iran nuke deal,” which is nothing more than appeasement through funding and enabling militarily America’s sworn enemies. Treason, treason and more treason.

Let me cut to the chase here. If what was happening in this country was happening in a foreign country, the people in this country would have called for military strikes, as well as an all-out manhunt for the dictators that were guilty of the same things Barack Hussein Obama and his criminal administration are guilty of here in America. Yet, because it is happening here, the people have somehow deceived themselves into believing that what they have allowed is not as bad as what is happening over in Third World countries. What is even worse is that as long as there are smiles and the reciting of the word “Constitution,” the American people are set at ease only to set themselves up for the next act of treason. But as long as he is smiling …

I was humored the other day when an individual said to me, “Bradlee, you are so bold and harsh at times!” (Romans 8:14; Hebrews 1:7; Psalm 104:4; Proverbs 28:1) I said, “Really? It is the command of God, concerning the church people, to warn people that the house (of sin) is on fire, and they need to get out lest they perish! (Ezekiel 33:3; 2 Corinthians 5:11).”

I reminded this person that the Word of The Lord is like a fire, “like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces” (Jeremiah 23:29). The end result is to hopefully bring forth “repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21; Galatians 3:24). The church is to magnify God’s Law (Isaiah 42:21) while the Holy Ghost comes to “convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8).

[...]

I went on to tell the individual I was speaking with that, on the contrary, the people in this country have been conditioned to believe that the one who sets the house on fire (encourages and acts out transgressions against God's and America's constitutional laws), endangering all within, figuratively speaking, while flattering, lying, smiling and kissing up about the state of the country, is somehow the individual that is looking out for the good of the people within. Remember, Judas betrayed Jesus Christ with a kiss (Luke 22:48).

No, these are the characteristics of how dictators act. They destroy through policy and prosper by craft. They magnify themselves in their own hearts and by false peace they shall destroy many. They even stand up against The Prince of princes, and at length shall be broken without hand (Daniel 8:25).

"A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it, and a flattering mouth worketh ruin." – Proverbs 26:28

This only takes place when a people throws off God's Law and America's founding documents and gives a free hand to the destroyer (John 10:10). This is a point no one can deny in America today.

Furthermore dictators have a smile on their face as they go along not to offend, but to appease – that is, until he obtains the power he desires. Then he can dictate by force.

I finally communicated to the individual I was speaking to, "You fail to understand that the rule of force will bring forth war, and the rule of law brings forth peace; I mean to warn you to get back to God's government so it does not come to that!"

"There is nothing stable but Heaven and The Constitution." – President James Buchanan

Be it known, America, that you have been warned time and time again concerning the corruption in your government and churches, which is God's mercy (Luke 12:2). Yet, you have done nothing to appease God's wrath by bringing forth judgment upon the heads of the wicked.

StAliaHarkonnen #fundie reddit.com

Do women understand that no one likes their personality and that attention and compliments they get about anything is just because of their cunts?

Of course they do. On some level they know they are vapid, they just get to suppress it and rationalize they aren't. As long as men keep on validating them the illusion persists.

That's why they are so upset about men seeing them as objects. I mean, it wouldn't even occur to any man to think his whole humanity is in question because some girl wants his dick, to think like that you need to be seriously doubting it yourself.

Women live on whiteknighs and beta orbiters, Chads reap the rewards. Cause they can excuse being used for their cunt in their fwb relationship as long as so many guys just love her sense of humor and intelligence.

Lol, no one does. You all know it. If you were male no one would give you time of day. You'd never have anything relevant to say. You'd never make anyone laugh. No one would ever call you interesting or stand talking to you for more than few seconds. You'd have no friends. Your posts would get no likes. Other men would hate you, including all your beta orbiters who are really just friends and only caring and loving because of what a great person you are - no, they'd kick you out of the group for being annoying. No one would ever ask you questions or find your anecdotes fascinating. No one would find your quirks cute.

If all of you turned into men you'd be a group below incels cause you wouldn't even be able to stand each other. Even your adoring dad would see you as a disappointment. Suddenly those suicidal tendencies would have much higher success rate. And still no one would give a shit.

anonymous #fundie thepetitionsite.com

Mr. Obama you are wrong in saying that this is not a Christian country but a Islam country. This country was based on the one and only book that has kept this country together through some hard times and that would be the Bible and what it says. This country needs change all right, it needs for you to either find another job or actually listen to the American people for once!

Anonymous Conservative #fundie anonymousconservative.com

The LGBTs want to take our rights:
"The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ rights organization in the country, on Friday announced it is officially supporting stricter gun laws in the wake of the mass shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub last weekend.
The HRC’s Board of Directors made the decision Thursday evening during a special meeting, and agreed to support limiting access to assault weapons, expanding background checks, and limiting the ability of those on terror watch lists or with a history of domestic violence to obtain guns."

Rabbits don’t want conflict, and the powers that be don’t want a shit storm. Gun owners may, as a result of this type of action, genuinely create both – and they don’t even have to violate any laws to do so.
Most estimates are that there are around 8 million gays in the United States, though many question if that may just be an exaggeration designed to create an impression conducive to their goals. Personally I suspect it is closer to 3 million. Nevertheless, if these gays want to try and attack the rights of gun owners, all gun owners need to point out is that if they begin to feel hostile to gays, and begin to see gays as too emotional and illogical, they might begin to not believe the testimony of gays in trials.
If that happened, it would in effect jury-nullify all hate crimes laws, and possibly affect any trial involving a crime committed against a gay. Personally now, I am quite confident that nothing a gay says could be believed, if they cannot come to terms with the fact that Islamic fundamentalism, and not a gun, was the cause of the Orlando shooting. I can’t help but realize how that realization of their illogicality would contaminate any testimony from any gay in a trial setting. I would even question whether any physical evidence was manufactured by an overly emotional gay, unable to deal with simple reality as it exists.
To us, such an image of the future would be meaningless. But to an individual with an amygdala unable to confront even the slightest hardship, and terrified of the slightest threat, this realization would be horrifying.
There are about 102 million gun owners out there (32% of all Americans), and all a defense attorney would need to do is find one to put on the jury of a man who beat a gay guy, stabbed a transgender, or murdered a transvestite. Did a transgender man use the girls locker room when a pee wee swim team was changing, and get beaten to a pulp? Don’t think the beater is going to get convicted on the word of the gay. If gays think guns should be banned, then the gay’s testimony is meaningless, and I would assume any evidence had been fabricated in an overemotional meltdown.
I have to confront the fact that if gays are this unable to perceive simple reality, I could probably never vote to convict in any such case. I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty, given the stories of a second shooter, the gay holding the door shut, and the fact that the shooter himself appears to have been gay. It would all have been too convoluted, I suspect. I would probably have let him walk out the door of the courtroom a free man, and I would have felt it was the only moral outcome, given my convictions regarding the gay’s inability to perceive simple realties such as Islamic radicalism, and the fact guns reduce crime when the law abiding have them.
The potential consequences against gays would admittedly be dangerous. Millions of people who want to commit crime might begin targeting gays specifically, knowing that they would be unlikely to be convicted, given how all it would take is one of the 102 million gun owners to land on their jury – and the lawyers of the perpetrator would undoubtedly be looking for gun owners to put on the jury. Gang members, who need to kill somebody as an initiation might seek out gays as victims, thinking they would be a free kill, and sadly there would be nothing I could do about that. Those prone to engage in violence against gays specifically because of homophobia might be emboldened, and gay attacks could increase precipitously, and obviously all of those gay attackers going free without any consequence would be unfortunate.
However gays do not seem to consider our safety when contemplating their actions. They are all too happy to try and make us and our families less safe by preventing us from getting the guns we want to protect them. So the idea that gays would be less safe due to our realization that gays are too emotional and cannot be trusted, would not be of concern to me. I would have to vote my conscience – every time – and I suspect most other gun owners would as well. One thing we do well is vote.
If this idea were to spread widely, this development would have two effects. One, gays will be presented with an idea that advocating for gun control will bring real consequences they cannot control – something they are not designed to cope with. This is an open conflict stimulus which they are not designed to function in the presence of.
Two, the powers that be will realize they are bringing about a situation where the integrity of government will begin to be degraded. Once a group is, from a practical perspective, unable to appeal to the justice system for justice, it will not be long before the entire system’s foundation is in question. I suspect most politicians, rather than see this come to pass, would rather let everything cool off.
Perhaps this is the only path forward for the nation however – one step closer to Apocalypse.
If you as a gun owner feel this piece represents how you feel about this issue, please feel free to cut and paste this to your fellow gun owners, and publish it wherever you like – attributed or not, I couldn’t care less.

MEP Kristiina Ojuland #fundie news.err.ee

[Bolding in original]

Kristiina Ojuland, a former Foreign Minister of Estonia and former member of the European Parliament, voiced her disapproval of the European Commission’s migrant quota plan on her official Facebook page, by calling for a pan-European campaign against admitting any refugees in the EU.

In a post that was more reminiscent of a far-right extremist, than a former Vice President of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ALDE), Ojuland said that the “white race is threatened” by dark-skinned immigrants (Ojuland actually used an Estonian word “neeger” which is not officially considered offensive in Estonia, but nevertheless becoming socially unacceptable).

“Today yet again I see a fully able young Negro begging for money in Italy, from people who have worked hard to earn a lunch. I think that we should start a pan-European campaign to collect signatures to ensure that not a single so-called refugee gets across the Mediterranean. Enough of this nonsense!” Ojuland, the former high-ranking politician who for years campaigned Estonia to join the EU, wrote.

Her posting has so far gathered over 2,000 “likes”, 500 shares and 300 comments. While many people pointed out her offensive remarks and some called her racist, one would have thought that the former foreign minister would back down, but it didn't turn out to be so. Instead, Ojuland chose to rigorously defend her statement and even went offensive against the moderate commentators who asked for common sense.

“Stop using a word 'racist'! As a white person, I feel that the white race is threatened today! Are Estonians also so brain-washed now that they start talking some kind of politically correct bullshit?” Ojuland said.

Another reasonable commentator was told by former liberal MEP that by being a member of the European Union does not mean “accepting people who would squeeze Estonia's social system”. “Estonia needs to say clear no to Mediterranean migrants!” exclaimed Ojuland.

torpedo #racist bnp.org.uk

As a regular traveller through East Mids airport I have got used to to having my passport checked, and being scrutinised by immigration officials who are obviously from foreign climes. It makes my blood boil to have to stand in front of a desk and have a foreign person decide if I can enter my own country.
At many English airports, with the amount of foreign employees checking passengers in and out, one would assume that they are entering or leaving a foreign country, certainly not England.

Alice Friedmann #fundie smoloko.com

WHAT WOULD HAVE BECOME OF AMERICA IF NATIONAL SOCIALISTS WON WW2?

1. The Federal Reserve and all usurious banking would be halted immediately and replaced by debt-free currency backed by the hard work of the American man – not Gold

2. Hollywood would be shut down and replaced by patriotic Americans who cared deeply about our history, our people and the upholding of high moral standards.

3. Jews would be banned by law from working in many sectors, their Jewish identity should be shown when applying for Jobs, or they might be rounded up and deported to a homeland of their own where they would be isolated by the force of the US Military.

4. Israel would not have existed in 2016, simply because Israel power does not come from Israel, but from the Jewish lobbies ruling the western world. Israel would have been destroyed long time ago by the Arabs.

5. Education on the Jewish question would become mandatory and perpetual in the understanding that they must never, at any time in the future, be allowed to subvert the Western world again.

6. Capitalism & Communism destroyed, no oligarchs anymore, the government will take care of citizens from birth to death, free Universities, free health care… Bund Deutscher Mädel and Hitlerjugend will be implemented to educate youth on the love of nation, family, nature, sports…

7. The promotion of any and all kinds of perversions and degeneracy would be treated as an attack on the family thus an attack at the very foundation of civilization and the nation itself and as such would be ruthlessly crushed and suppressed. The blasphemy on Christianity & Islam would be banned by law.

8. Racial tensions, and Multiculturalism done only on European-ethnic majority countries would have been abolished, and by that the European race living all over the western world & USA would have been protected from the planned extinction by the Jewish-made miscegenation propaganda, homosexual propaganda, feminist propaganda

9. Democracy would be replaced with Meritocracy: Leaders would be chosen based on ability rather than on who could get the most campaign donations given by Jewish-run Banks, corporations & organizations.

10. The border to Mexico would be sealed. It would be announced that any illegal caught crossing the border would be shot. Poverty in the world is a cumulative problem that needs decades if not a century to be solved, it will never be solved by economic & illegal immigration which is a Jewish weapon to destroy the western people power to resist the Jew World Order

11. Arabs & Africans would become much more rich and happy because
American Jewish-Rothschild-Zionist interventions, wars and corruptions would have been abolished forever

12. EU Union, TPP, TTIP, NATO, UN and all Jewish made unions and globalization for the world government would have not existed

Andry Rajoelina #quack france24.com

In an exclusive interview with FRANCE 24 and RFI, Madagascar's President Andry Rajoelina defended his promotion of a controversial homegrown remedy for Covid-19 despite an absence of clinical trials. "It works really well," he said of the herbal drink Covid-Organics. Rajoelina claimed that if a European country had discovered the remedy, people would not be so sceptical.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly warned that the Covid-Organics drink, which Madagascar's Rajoelina has touted as a remedy against the deadly coronavirus, has not been clinically tested.

"What if this remedy had been discovered by a European country, instead of Madagascar? Would people doubt it so much? I don't think so," the president told FRANCE 24's Marc Perelman and RFI's Christophe Boisbouvier.

The drink is derived from artemisia – a plant with proven anti-malarial properties – and other indigenous herbs.

"What is the problem with Covid-Organics, really? Could it be that this product comes from Africa? Could it be that it's not OK for a country like Madagascar, which is the 63rd poorest country in the world... to have come up with (this formula) that can help save the world?" asked Rajoelina, who claims the infusion cures patients within ten days.

Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger and Tanzania have already taken delivery of consignments of Covid-Organics, which was launched last month.

"No one will stop us from moving forward – not a country, not an organisation," Rajoelina said in response to the WHO's concerns.

He said the proof of the tonic's efficacy was in the "healing" of "our patients", calling it a "preventive and curative remedy".

Rajoelina said Madagascar has reported 171 coronavirus infections and 105 recoveries to date, with no deaths.

"The patients who have healed have taken no other product than Covid-Organics," the president added.

Jaybenn Augustine #fundie youtube.com

what do you mean everyone else is immigrants an immigrant is someone who moves from one country to another country and if European settlers never colonized north America it would have never have turned into a great nation so how could we be immigrants. There is a difference between migrating a country and just stepping on a land full of nothing but pot smoking redskinned feather heads. Read a book or 2 my friend?

ptpp #conspiracy catholicactionchat.com

So now we know the truth about global warming. All you have to do is Google 'pope Francis climate change' and you will find a host of news websites saying that this false pope supports man-made climate change.

He has finally come out in support of one of this century's extortion rackets and lies.

A member of the Rockefeller family started the lie of man made global warming during the 1990s. After the events of 9/11 died down, they had to kick-start the global warming scare, so that they could bring about a world wide Emissions Trading Scheme. So Al Gore was paid to travel the world with his Flying Circus Show, telling everyone that it was us who were the cause of global warming and not Nature, and that we needed an ETS that all countries would sign up to, which would then save the planet.

They almost succeeded in getting many countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Treaty, but when the fine print was actually studied, they found that all signatory countries would have to sign over their material wealth to a One World Governing Body, to distribute the wealth evenly among all nations, especially the third world nations.

It was only a ruse to bring about the One World Govt headed by the Abomination of Abomination himself. The Anti-Christ!

Of course all the big players balked at this and refused. Now they have devised a new one, called "Agenda 21."
Google it. It is frightening!
It was reported in 2014 that Barrack Obama was going to sign it without congress approval according to an article I read.

I digress. Back to the global warming lie.

Long before Al Gore flew around the world in a fuel guzzling jet that spewed lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, scientists had already proven that global warming and climate change not only happens regularly, it is also a naturally occurring phenomenon. And that we are due for another ice age soon, which could be hundreds or thousands of years away. It is coming though and there is nothing we can do to stop it, speed it up, or slow it down. It is part of this planet's life cycle and we have no bearing on its timing.

We are most definitely fouling our own environment, plus destroying ecosystems and wild life. The earth is groaning under the burden of this terrible sin and it will soon take action to rid itself of the parasites that are now doing it harm. In fact, I believe this is what is currently happening with all the natural disasters that we see in many countries around the globe.

It will be an interesting exercise to see how the N/O church handle's the fallout from this antipope's latest gaff!

TheTruthRevolution #fundie #conspiracy #homophobia #transphobia #wingnut thetruthrevolution.net

The people who hold the global purse strings are conspiring against us to reduce our populations and take control over everything we do. Meanwhile unsuspecting governments are co-operating with them to change our laws and social values in exchange for so called ‘ new enlightened and socially inclusive values’.

What our politicians on both sides don’t realise is that Equality and Gender agendas espoused by the UN, the IMF and EU and the Theosophy Society (of which Tony Blair is a member) mask the evil intentions of these illuminati sponsored organisations. Today foreign aid dependent African countries which try to resist these immoral political inducements are being increasingly met with stiff sanctions for non compliance.( eg Kenya and Zimbabwe)

WHO CREATED THE GENDER AGENDA AND WHY?
Alice A.Bailey (1880-1949)

In 1922 an occultist named Alice A. Bailey set up the Lucifer Publishing Company (later re named The Lucis Trust) to disseminate luciferian ideals into society. Her infamous 10 point strategy, given to her by a ‘spirit guide’ called The Tibetan, outlined how to secretly and permanently destroy the christian and moral foundations of our western culture. Beginning with the family then educational, religious and social institutions; the plan prepares the ground for the New Worldwide Government to control and enslave mankind. The bible warns about this multi-faceted system in Revelation 13:4-18, how it will oppose God.

This comprehensive strategy to undermine the strength and stabilizing effects of traditional family upon society, contained the early foundations of what would become a Gender Equality Agenda ostensibly aimed at ‘liberating’ the female parent from the ‘drudgery’ of home care, while surreptitiously devaluing her role in raising the next generation of children. Evidence has since emerged that the elite bankers secretly funded the growth of the Womens Liberation Movements to ideologically separate women from their men
<...>
The human identity is now being shaped into the goat headed luciferian androgenous identity in which he bears both male and female sex organs. The so called “Elite’ have bank rolled scientist to genetically merge different species, such as vegetables with insect DNA, animals with human DNA (under the guise of scientific/medical advancements) and merging man with technology (bionic man/robotised soldiers). Thus furthering us from God and the image he has gaved us.

All this is being encouraged in pursuit of God like powers for the Elite and total freedom from God’s ‘restrictive’ laws. (see Psalms 2:1-5) Our creator made strict moral and natural boundaries which we are not at liberty to cross. If we do then there are painful consequences to face for all of us.

Adoption of these new immoral values and politically correct rules is being facilitated through urging constitutional changes upon ever more nations (eg Canada, Jamaica, Uganda and now Grenada) Sadly this drive may ultimately lead to the constraints. For us christians this mean growing persecution and a kind of hell on earth! For all people it means in practice major losses of freedoms and human rights such as we are now seeing evolve in the USA since 9/11.

This is why the sign of the cross can no longer be worn visibly at work in the UK, a supposedly christian country! Flying the american flag on your vehicle or business facade has been banned by many states in the USA. Feeding the homeless on the streets has become illegal in over twenty US cities and others are set to follow. This is why USA and europe have outlawed prayer in schools and in public buildings. It is also why the anti-christain system of Islamic law courts have been set up in several european cities including London.

We are, without our consent, being slowly and imperceptibly re-engineered to serve this satanic agenda for a one world government along with a mainly Gay/Transgender society where pedophilia and beastiallity will be legal. They seek to redefine and undermine institutions like marriage, the christian religion and promote depravity, dysfunction, corruption and division among us.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

TPTB want to wipe Japan off the map

All the Tsunamis and major earthquakes that happened and will be expected in Japan are artificially made by TPTB to destroy the country.

The reasons are that Japan is a very developed and hardworking country that reached all this success in such a short period of time and that there is a fear it would reach the peak of the greatest renaissance in modern history any time in the near future.

However, the main reason is that Japan is not on good terms as much as required with the world government that was formed by Britain in 1947 in which CIA and Israel were created as a Western and an Eastern proxy fronts for Britain which preferred to run the world behind the curtain this way for a long-term plan where most of its proxies will fall gradually by design from within and America can be made as an example of this outcome as many can realize its gradual collapse today by a certain remote power. This is to pave the way for Britain to come back in the open after eliminating the stereotypical view of the British arrogance known to the peoples and the countries they have set foot in, and after indirectly proving to the world that all major powers - that are actually under British (MI6) control - have failed to do any good to their own peoples and other countries.

Britain used 3 main deceptions among other ones, so ordinary people and even critical thinkers wouldn't suspect the thing. First, the British instructed America to enter WWII not for help but to introduce it later as the one and only coming major power whereas in fact America has been run only as a proxy for Britain since the day it entered the war, and even American military and technology is backed by Britain. Some of these technologies were stolen from Germany by only MI6 as other countries were not permitted to do this or even create its own technology without taking orders and instructions first from Britain. Second, MI6 wants everybody to see modern day Britain as no difference to any European country to some extent according to precise calculations and even worse. Some of the methods used for this king of programming is allowing huge numbers of Muslims and other nationalities in the country by design and in a manner that everything appears out of control to the Public, so nobody would be able to recognize the good old Britain. Third, MI6 has made sure through long-term planning, programming, Brainwashing, Hollywood and of course with the cooperation of its proxy agencies and countries that whoever one day would say that Britain is the one that really runs the world behind the curtain and nothing above it, would be the laughing stock everywhere in the world.

Japan is not that loyal to the world government although it is under the rule of the British global government. Japan does good things to its people that upsets Britain which has been pulling the strings behind the scenes since WWII and these good things are not part of the global assigned script.

The top reason that made the world government start these recent sly aggressive acts against Japan is that Japan wanted to expose the whole thing to the world someway gradually after the initial peaceful revolutions of 2011 that were made by the Peoples of the Middle East and inspired the whole world and they were not made by any other agency as contrary to the widespread alternate media propaganda. Japan wanted to prevent these great popular revolutions from turning into chaos by the British world government which has caused all the troubles and woes almost everybody suffer from to this day. Japan would have appeared like pre-WWII Germany which Britain also made sure to falsify the whole truth of Germany's good intentions and real greatness at the time and lie about almost everything to the Public in history books, all kinds of media and prints across the globe and even making the world believe that modern day Israel - created by Britain as part of the plan - is the one that lies, fabricates and even runs the show which is not the truth as Israel is one of the many proxies used by this world government for all the big destruction-from-within show, besides the Public would throw all and any accusations only at these proxies and not the real master behind the curtain.

TPTB (the British world government) created the Fukushima disaster to distract Japan and it worked well even initially and the series of punitive procedures are still underway against Japan for not being totally loyal like all the other countries. And as such, many artificial catastrophes and disasters to be expected in Japan.

Dr. Ford #racist stormfront.org

This could be interpreted in different ways - "We will easily win any fight" or "The attack will help to bring down our evil system."

If the former, don't underestimate them. As an American, let me say that Americans do not know what real pain is. 9/11 was nothing. Given its unstable racial makeup, it would not take much to bring this country to its knees. We have legions of Blacks who would quickly side with ISIS, at least in words, if doing so would give them free reign to rape and loot.

And the US is very vulnerable. Just ponder what could be done here with a single every-so-tiny vile containing Ebola, then "growing it" in some homeless dude no one would miss, extracting the body fluids and mixing it in hundreds of gallons of ice water and then using a small plane or other means of delivery to spray that mix over a large crowd (one that would scatter all over the country before symptoms started and people would know what they had been exposed to) - a Super Bowl, a New Year celebration, etc.

These days, terrorists don't even need nuclear material to kill millions.

And, for just the record here, the cause of all these catastrophes is the genetics of the people we let into the country, which in turn is the result of the bad genetics of the people who hold positions of power, especially those in the media, government and banking sectors. No more lying psychopaths in power (e.g., Clintons, Obama, Jews) nor delusional weakminded fools (e.g., "Dubya" Bush, Lindsay Graham, etc.).

C. Little #fundie rr-bb.com

1) We should fight terrorism every where it raises its ugly head. But I mean really fight it. Be as brutal as they are.

2) Fight terrorism w/ covert operations and assissinate their leaders when possible. If there's a training camp, blow it off the face of the Earth. If you're caught in our country, you go to jail until you die.

3) Sadam thing was fine with me, but why waste time w/ the trial.

4) Iran - nuke their nuclear facilities. Make a crater where they used to be. Overthrow their government and let the people decide what kind of gov't they want. We control the oil, but we'll make sure you get a lot of the profits unless you start screwin with us again.

Afghanistan - we should have completely leveled the mountains where bin laden is/was hiding on 9/12. No warning, no nothin', just had it rain nuclear bombs on the whole place.

Sudan - force the UN to go in with us and straighten the mess out.

5) see #1, hunt them all down and kill them or put them in prison until they die.

6) it's war, kill them

7) Iraq now - take care of Iran would be one huge step. Send enough troops over to completely blanket the place and hunt down all the bad guys. They can have their country back once we wipe this cancer off the face of the Earth, until then go to work and make something of yourself and your country.

8) Israel should be protected at all costs. Instead of giving up land, they should expand and take more land from the muslim countries. Every time one of the muslim countries steps out of line, invade them and take over. After you do that about two times, I'm sure the rest will behave.

9) Gay marriage - marriage is defined in the US as a man and a woman. Don't like it, move to France or Switzerland or wherever your little heart desires.

10) Abortion - well that's murder. Here's an idea, don't get pregnant. As in the case of rape, well let's just say that wouldn't happen a lot if I were in charge. We would have HUGE prisons and LONG sentences and very few paroles. Nip that in the bud right now!

11) Poverty - if you are able and willing to work get a job. There will be a lot of them, because we wouldn't have illegal aliens in my country and companies would face heavy taxes if they outsource to other countries. I would help educate and train people so they can get a job. After a few years, they should be able to support themselves. You get three years of welfare and food stamps, so you need to get busy.

12) Homelessness - see #11. Those that are mentally unfit to take care of themselves would be taken care of. A lot of homeless have mental problems, they need to be helped and cared for.

You didn't ask, but drug use would be penalized as harsh as dealing. Go ahead and smoke that joint, I hope the high lasts 5 years. Snort that coke, I hope the high lasts 20 years, because thaat's how long you're going away for. We'll cut the demand really fast.

Sanya #fundie rr-bb.com

I have to admit I am of the opinion that a bomb similar to the one dropped in Hiroshima Japan in the 1940's should be again employed. I think that there should be one dropped in Iraq, one in Syria, and one in Arafat Land. I think they would need to be dropped in a contiguous fashion so that each country would have just a chance to see what was coming at them and that is all. I would have extra ones on hand and dare any of the United Nation members to just 'tryit'. Sort of like a John Wayne move in a local bar. Then, let the ones that want peace have a go at what is left, move our forces out(before the fact) and let em start over. I am so tired of seeing the daily harping of Fox, and all the others and the death counts and the who hit who today reports. It is enough already and should be done....

bostick #racist #conspiracy stormfront.org

The European Race makes up, maximum, 45% of America.

Joe Biden already admitted that in 2017 the European Race would be the minority, and this was three years ago. If one were to look around America, they would see with their own eyes that true European Race is closer to 40% of America. The Jews are going to lie right to your face as they always do and say that it is 56%. It is not.

The Jews have incrementally assassinated the European Race down to 45% of America, and they are not going to stop. The Jews have taken over the American and European political systems by infiltrating all levels of government, and have bought ownership of the entire media and banking systems using the capital they stole from the people through usury.

To incrementally assassinate the European Race, the Jews are creating an environment in America and Europe that is hostile to the European Race by flooding European Race countries with nonwhites. Nonwhites will always be hostile to the European Race because the European Race is genetically more capable than nonwhites and all races naturally prefer their own race . Thus, the nonwhites will always think the European Race is evil and will always fight against the European Race. It is easy to see that the European Race won’t procreate in such a hostile environment.

This is what happened in South Africa. The Jews had infiltrated the political system there and stopped the Apartheid system, now the non-whites are openly killing the European Race there and this is now the South African government’s policy. The Jews are creating the same exact situation an America and Europe that the Jews created in South Africa. The Jews have taken over the entire American political system and all levels. The Jews are giving political power to nonwhites. If political power is ceded to nonwhites, there will be a slippery slope in America and Europe directly to the South Africa situation. Nonwhites are not capable enough to have power, and nonwhites naturally hate the European Race. Obama was elected and used the government to attack the European Race, and this is what all nonwhites will do if they have political power. The Jews plan to constantly incite the nonwhites against the European Race.

Nonwhites are interested in Communism and Communism only. Thus by flooding European Race nations the Jews are setting up Communism worldwide. Thus, the Jews are the enemy of the European Race and all mankind. Therefore, to prevent the Jews from incrementally assassinating the European Race and causing worldwide Communism. the European Race must have full political power. The fight of the European Race is not against the nonwhites. The nonwhites are genetically too dumb to known that the Jews are just using them to attack the European Race and to cause an environment in America and Europe that is hostile to the European Race so the European Race won’t procreate. The Jews plan to kill off 6.5 billion people worldwide so that the Jews can rule the world and enslave everyone else.

Thus, the Jews are the enemy of the European Race and all of Mankind. Therefore, the European Race must fight the Jews. This fight is political and not physical. The European Race must take the American and European governmental systems back. Nothing will happen to the Jews except that they will be sent back to Israel.

A march on Washington against the Jews is required. Everyone must know that the Jews have taken over the American and European political systems, that the Jews are incrementally assassinating the European Race and setting up European Race America and Europe to be Communist by flooding nonwhites in.

FrostyB #fundie steamcommunity.com

???? ?????????????????? ??????????????????

To set some standards straight, before you read:
If you're ever so willing to read a Manifesto, please do read with an open-mind as the close-minded would see through the conveying message of the Manifesto.
Also yes, I am quite serious when I say I'm a Neo-Fascist, I'm politically active and bloody proud:

I was once a "Democratic-Socialist" in my early stages when I was learning about politics, because I was influenced by the nice sounding words "equality", "diversity" and "acceptance".
My friends, my teachers, even the media spoke greatly of the Left-Wing and how everyone has "human rights" and also how it is religiously affiliated as a just and moral cause to help your fellow human being.
I loved everything about the Left-Wing at the time, it sounded so right, so justifiable to fight for us all to unite as one equally same human being, sharing our own customs and traditions amongst foreign men in the country I loved dearly.
Well, that was until I started opening my eyes to the Left-Wings destructive nature.
It all started with the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, it shocked everyone in Australia and the world.
I was shocked and surprised that it was done by a Muslim, and so, after school, I went home to research more about Islam, the further I dug I came to read online that Islam was a violent cult.
I was often told that Islam was a religion of peace so this left me very confused, the next day I confronted my Muslim friend about the violent quotes in the Quran I read online, to which he responded "They're lying, it's not in the Quran, they take it out of context", and so the next week as I was further driven by curiosity I borrowed the English version of the Quran from my local library to see if it was true what the so-called "Nazis" said online about Islam.
To my surprise, it was true, the standard version of the Quran was indeed true to holding many violent phrases against the "Infidels".
I felt betrayed, my Muslim friend and the teachers lied to me about Islam, to then they've lost my trust that they are teaching us accurate information, so I started questioning everything they've taught me thus far and started researching everything learning more deeply in its roots to see if it is at all accurate.
I became even more curious the more deeper I researched and started questioning the morals of "equality" and even the technical tenets of the Left-Wing, as curiosity led me to only more questions about everything I've learnt about Religion, Diversity, Equality and the so called "good and just" cause of the Left-Wing.
To everything I thought was morally right, correct and good in its practise, bad and evil I found myself to be very wrong.
Throughout all my research, I have concluded to find myself to be in total disbelief, I was in shock, I felt total agony to my discovery that me, my friends, my family and the fellow European brothers of descent that we were indeed living in a political dystopia, as it is true.
The more I thought about it, the more it became clear to me of what I thought reality once was, is now collapsing into what I know as the very real reality, it left me completely stunned.
I was shattered, morally, religiously, and politically.
To my conclusions, learning that by human nature and its principles, we are indeed not equal nor the same at all.
We are all different for a reason, as I am now convinced religiously and politically, we are not infact equal at all, but unique.
By keeping our Customs, Traditions, Ethics & Ethnics separate, we are playing by basic human nature, as it was always intended to be.
By nature, I am also talking religiously by Gods and God them self that we were always meant to be a unique blossom of different cultures and customs in its purest form, like a unique colour in the Rainbow.
As for example, when you combine all the colours together, it creates a disgusting brown darkish colour, it creates a mess.
The same with different cultures, as by natures fundamentals it is proven that different cultures do not mingle, but collide.
As such as the animals that we are, you never see the bear befriending the fish.
Nor see the Rhino mate with the Elephant, it was never intended to be, it doesn't work by nature.
Race mix is simply a form of destruction, a form of impurity, like a detached link from your ancestors blood and from the soil on which you live on.
By Left-Wing nature, in its true form and purpose is a self-destructive political monster of corruption that favours imaginative thoughts over realpolitikal action which goes against the very statically set principles of human nature to which they call "progressive Globalism", which is infact regressive and dangerous in its true form, created to trick the light-minded, the vulnerable and gullible people who is politically active into voting for disaster profiteers.
Alike Democracy as I've learnt, people are tricked into voting for the dangerous, destructive and corrupt Left-Wing and other regressive parties.
To which also in its other form on the Right-Wing such as Centre-Right like Liberalism are no better than the Left-Wing as it is a different form of Leftism "Globalism" but for the Right-Wing, in which Liberalism populates and fundamentally favours bigot groups for those who don't think regressively and to punish those who dare to think differently from the fundamental tenets of Leftism/Liberalism like the groups that are born from a Liberal democracy such as Antfia, "Anti-Fascist", and other fantastical anti-fundamentalist groups like LGBT where there is more than 2 genders or even Black Lives Matter where the foreign man deserves superior living conditions to the Native White European man in his very own country for all the supposed "evils" our White ancestors have done in the past that have created the great Western world we have today.
In all of this further proving what I believe in and why I do, we need to remove the dangerous Left-Wing and Democracy itself, it favours a false idea of freedom which ultimately leads to the destructive nature of Leftist and Liberal agenda's as such for example bringing the foreign man first before the Native people, as well as giving a false sense of equality that hides the destructive nature of democracy.
The Western world needs Social order more than ever, we need an authoritarian system that would lead us beyond the Left-Right spectrum of politics, a leader, a hero, for those to look up to, to inspire and to install within the people the values of the Western man, the ideal citizen body who rules with an Iron grip, who would light the way for the future generations of our great Western Nations to her survival and for those of descent to look back at our great unique history with pride and glamour to say I am proud to be a White Native European of descent, of this blood, of this soil that we share with one custom, one culture, one tribe, in this great Nation of ours where security is strong, where we are safe and where we live and prosper in this Utopia amongst fellow Western men of the same descent, we are free, we are safe, long live the West, long live Europe, we belong here, this is our country, this is our people of whom share the same blood, we are of the Western world, of European blood, we are Australian and this is what equal is!
Do your research before you are quick to judge and never be afraid to think independently from others, I'd rather die knowing I was living the truth about politics and its nature rather than to live my whole life believing in a lie just because the Media, my teachers, and my friends says its true, don't be fooled!

Africa for Africans!
Asia for Asians!
Europe for Europeans!
Dogs for dogs and cats for cats!
This is natures rule, and it will stay that way forever.
Religious or not, this is the intentions!
This is the correct and true European way of life, through one cultural unification, through order, and by blood and soil.

sirgemini #racist stormfront.org

I can trace just about all of my ancestors back to the late 1600s, some even 1500s, through extensive family trees. A sibling who took a 23andme shows that I am 99.7% European, and 0.3% North African (yes, I know I'm not full European, but many North Africans look white to begin with, and North Africa is in such close proximity to Southern Europe, that it is to be expected, and I like to think that North African ancestor was a fair-skinned, eyed, and haired Berber or something, not to mention a DNA test may not be 100% accurate.) I am 0.0% Jew, eastern european, black, native, asian, or even middle eastern. I consider myself racially pure. I live in Texas, and most of my ancestors are from the South, yet none of them ever mixed with blacks or natives. Around here, it is common for people to be only 95-99% European, if they are "white". It is unfortunate how many Americans have become racially polluted over the years and I am lucky to be pure. I would really like to move to a part of America where most of the women are at least 100% European (<0.3% North African would be okay too) and where there is a higher chance my descendants will be pure as well. I have heard Maine never really mixed with blacks or natives, so would that be a good choice? My biggest concern here is that I will go to college (I am 17 going next year) and that I will "fall in love" with one of these "white" women who are actually only 98% white or less, and by that time, I will think "well, it's love! we're all humans" and become softened. I realize that what I'm thinking at 17 will likely not stick once you get older and get more experience, but I really do not want to lose my concern for my children to be pure and pride that I am pure. What can I do to go to community college in Texas and not "fall in love". I am worried it will just happen and I won't be able to stop it or won't care by then about this kind of stuff. I will leave it to fate, but I'd at least like to make it less likely. Does anyone know what parts are more racially pure? I don't care as much if the area is 100% white or only 20%, just that the white people there are full white. Thank you.

Bana phrionnsa #racist stormfront.org

It is so upsetting. They say they take joy that Europe and America are becoming third world nations and that Muslims are causing problems for whites and that is good revenge because Europeans have treated them poorly.

The Jewish belief is that they need to inhabit the entire world. They need to enforce destructive things into every one of those populations. Why? Because their religion tells them so but I noticed that most Jews in this world insist on living in white countries. They do not live in African countries yet the worship the black on television.

They are mentally unstable as a people.

Jews are an abusive people. There is no good that comes from helping them. I have written about my cousin Henry who flew a plane in WWII and was shot down. His body never found. I have family who lived in the West Midlands during WWII. They fought against Germany and they fought to save Jews from the camps believing they were doing the right thing. Now I would go back and tell them not to do so. Find peace with Germany because it is not worth it. It is not worth losing family and being bombed. The very people they were saving have turned many parts of England into cesspools of third world browns and blacks. Disease, violent crime and poverty are becoming common. It is the future. Non-white and poverty stricken with blight everywhere. Fighting Germany turned the country bad. It is what England and the rest of the U.K. get for for fighting for the Jew. Now we are miserable due to their treatment, due to their abusive mind control techniques through the media they own and the public schools they run. extreme nepotism and paranoia are rampant in Jews.

No good deed goes unpunished with the Jew. They make sure of it. They have targeted the very countries that helped them the most. That should tell you all you need to know about the Jew.

uncommon1 #fundie freeconservatives.com

I still believe that we need to turn them into "real" victims and annihilate one of their countries. We would then explain to them that the next time they acted out their rage, we would do it to another one and then another one. Eventually they might get the message. I still believe that we need to take it to them and snuff them out like the roaches that they are.

Christina #fundie rr-bb.com

Well voodoo priests seem to believe that they are people who have died and either were not buried properly (proper ritual in other words) or not "prayed over (meant to read as chanted over) properly so therefore they come back to life and persecute the living. For all we know they can be dead bodies inhabited by demons which would explain why these priests believe they are the dead come back to life. When it comes to the spiritual world, I believe a demon can inhabit a human body and what would be the difference between inhabiting a live one or a dead one...

Gazi Kodzo #racist facebook.com

??????? We have been kidnapped and tortured for over 500 years. I support these four African teenagers!

The united states government which was built by kid napping and torture of millions of Africans does not have a moral foot to stand on to judge these four African teenagers!

If the united states was truly against kidnapping and torture they would give reparations to African people! They would release all African prisoners! They would stop poisoning our water supply! They would stop police terror in the black community!

Don't be ashamed of the act these four Africans committed! UNDERSTAND it! We are tired of being oppressed, terrorized, humiliated and killed! You can only push a people SO FAR! Until African people are free acts like these will continue to happen!

UHURU!

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.; various Randroids #racist mises.org

Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

“Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

Hans continues:

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

(This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.

These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

Yukon Jack #racist yukonjackrevolution.wordpress.com

What would life be like if we didn’t think like Jews? We would experience life if we lived outside the realm of the Jewish brain. Life is outside of the Jewish brain, the Jew tries to exploit all life, so life exists outside the realm of the Jew, all inside the control of the Jew are either dead on their way to be dead.

jewish brain trust Neocon allstars all Jews

Jewish rule is death, Judaism and it’s deadly offsprings are death cults. Why? Because of how the Jew thinks in terms of exploitation, dominance, and death. If humans are ever to live life then they must rid this planet of Jewish thinking patterns as detailed in Jewish holy books. To be a holy Jew is to be a killer of life, the Jew can only do one thing, and that is, end life.

Thinking in terms of exploitation is like looking at a tree as board feet of lumber. When a Jew looks at Goy he is looking at tree that needs cutting down, the Jew makes money by exploiting you just as if you make money on the tree by cutting it down. There is no money in letting the tree live.

The Jew only lets you live if you are a slave, the Jew will kill any nation not slaved to Jewish interest, this is what the Jew did to Germany. Germans are now slaves of the Jews, slaughtered for being independent of the Jewish banks until they were brought to heel. The Jew did not care how many died, then the Jew lied about the Holocaust, claiming the Jew was injured by World War 2.

NEXT TIME BE MORE CAREFUL TRYING TO ESCAPE JEWISH CONTROL

Jews are not just a problem, they are the problem, and attachment to Jewish myth makes you part of the problem. The solution is to dump Jewish myth about this angry god created during an earlier era were man had far more limited understanding of Nature. No one needs Yahweh and no one needs the Jew. Think about it, if Jews were all gone what would be the loss? But what would be the gain?

This planet would be a far better place if the Jew and his book were erased from memory, because no longer would we feel guilty for being born, no longer would we be ashamed of our nakedness, no longer would we fear hell and eternal punishment, no longer would we allow others to rule over us and judge us in the court system, or tax our sustenance for being alive.

Without the Jew who would need the CIA or the FBI, or National Security or a the police state of the terror war. All the Jew does is exploit, enslave and kill for profit. So how good things would be with no Jew. Humanity could experience real life if they could live outside of the Jewish brain.

JEWS ISRAEL INSANITY FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE

The ecosystem would like the Jew gone, for the Jew is the destroyer of life, and the earth is getting close to the breaking point. We can no longer ignore the exploitation myths, God didn’t give us dominion, we just took what we needed then we developed myths that allowed us to exploit with introspection or guilt. Jews exploit without guilt or care, that is why life outside of the Jewish brain is threatened for its very existence.

We would all be better off with a no-Jew planet. We would all be better off without their book. What humans can not understand is that Holy Bible is creating the hell, not saving us from the hell. The Bible is a brainwashing tool of the elite, it is our enslavement, and those at the bottom that promote it do so because of their own judgment and internal corruption.

You have to understand the internal process of the judgmental believer, they are attaching their ego to this book and making this book their innermost truth, framing their reality and then imposing it on the rest of us with the mechanisms of state. All statism comes out of the Bible, the state was formed by the authority established by the Holy Bible.

you wouldn't let creepy jews babysit your kids why do you let they make your laws

The killer state is the creation of the killer Jew, the Jew got in your head with his book and then rules politically because the Jew first made a beachhead in your mind about God and government. The result is the present day world, where the Jew has successfully organized the Western Nation States as an arm of Judaism, where the United States of America is but a vassal of Israel and power mad Jew ethnically cleansing the Middle East.

THE UNITED STATES HAS KILLED 55 MILLION SINCE THE END OF WW2

But what if there is no external authority to self? Have you ever even considered that, have you ever even tried to visualize a life without the state, a life without an EBT card (food stamps), or regulations on home building or driving permit free on public roads? Life outside the Jew is freedom. Life without the Jew is a free and prosperous society.

Many Jews from around the world have moved to Israel only to experience horror of the total state. Marriage and divorce in Israel is a nightmare based on their testimonies. So if Jews in Jewlandia hate the experience then why would any non-Jew want to live under the thumb of Jewish law? All of this horror stems from one fallacious idea, that someone outside of the self has authority over the self, an obvious fallacious claim when you are the only one in control of thy own self.

jews kill and kill and kill because that is how the jewish brain works

Only the Jew or a person who has incorporated Jewish ideas would love the state. The state is really the state of Jewish insanity, where some power mad Jew decided he knew best for you, and was willing to form a state, a group of armed thugs who enforce Jew law. As a result of this, human being have cast all self responsibility aside, and do whatever because their is a higher power in charge.

So life outside the Jewish brain is life itself. You can not be living when awaiting death and to be with the Jew savior god, you can not be really living when you spend every waking moment waiting to be with Jesus, the Jew who never even existed. The Jesus concept is absurd on it’s face since you don’t need salvation from God but from the Jew.

jewish borg children living in the israeli hive

Belief in Jesus makes about much sense as making payments for the Holocaust. Nothing in the Jew Universe is even real, let alone life affirming. So I ask you why do we put up with Jewish myth and Jewish law, and Jewish gods, and Jewish money? It is all death and if we want to live we must find life outside the Jewish brain.

So what we can immediately do is go toward life by stopping with any Jewish thought. Life starts when Jewish programming ends. Want life, then burn the Bible, put the Jew in FEMA camps, ban Judaism. Simple as pie. End the Jew and life begins again.

Quintium #racist forum.nationstates.net

Here's my evil, racist take on the matter. You can help some nations, but you cannot help others. Some people, whether it is by their limited intelligence or by the suffocating influence of their culture or religion, unable to build a productive society. A good example: in the early 1950s, South Korea and Uganda were equally poor. Since then, Uganda has received more aid from abroad than South Korea. But because (1) it is part of the Korean culture to want to work hard and build a functioning, orderly society and (2) the IQ of the average Korean is at least a good twenty-five points higher than the IQ of the average Ugandan, North Korea is much more developed than Uganda and South Korea is one of the most developed countries on earth.

As for the culture that is prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa, I don't expect much. All of the economic growth in that part of the world is either because of sheer population explosion or because of foreign aid and remissions from migrants living in Europe. And what little economic prosperity and social order there is now will most likely be shattered within one or two decades, in another round of bloodshed. Look at Nigeria, for example, the largest African country by population. People have had to temper their enormously optimistic beliefs about Nigeria because there's the religious unrest that no one but hardcore racists like myself would have been able to predict. Two groups of people fight in an African country, and the result is more political unrest and therefore another cycle of violence - who would have thought?

Dreams of Dunamis #fundie dreamsofdunamis.wordpress.com

When we went in the store, it felt off, as if something had changed in the store, but we weren’t sure what it was or where it had come from.

As we shopped, we kept our eyes out for whatever it was that had changed.

Then my son came to me asking me for a band aid. He showed me a small cut on his hand that was bleeding.

So I gave him one, and he put it on his hand.

Then just a few minutes later, he came to me again, this time needing two more band aids for bleeding cuts.
I found two more band aids and gave them to him. Again, he put them on.

I asked him what he was touching, that would cause cuts on his hands, but he said he was looking at clothes, and did not know how or why his hands had started to bleed. He said he came to me for the band aids because he didn’t want to get the clothes all bloody.

We looked at his hands again, and found that just within the time that we’d been talking, there were several more small cuts in both hands that were starting to bleed. The cuts were in the natural creases of the hand.

As I tried in vain to search for more band aids, the Lord told me to get out of the store.

But I kept looking for the band aids, thinking that he would need them anyways, and I was already in the process of searching through out my purse for them.

But again, I heard the voice from within almost shout at me: “Get out!”

So I stopped looking and ushered him outside.

As we were leaving, we looked back into the store, and seen a huge altar sitting there right in the middle of the store.

We had not seen it as we went in, for the store was busy, and several people had been standing in front of it. People had also put stuff on top of the altar, so it was not very noticeable close up.

But from a distance, now that the people had cleared out, one could see it.

It looked like the kind of altar one would find in a massive Roman Catholic church, complete with a large X with a P going through it, and the letters JHS on its side. It looked like it had first been built in the seventies.

That is what our eyes told us. But the spirit in both of us knew without a doubt, that this altar had once been used for satanic sacrifices and ritual works. We guessed that it had been in a Roman Catholic church at one time, and then had been used by a satanic coven. Now the coven no longer wanted it, and so it was now for sale at the second hand store.

My son was trying hard not to cry. He told me that he could sense the death that had come upon the victims that were once offered up and killed upon that altar to satan.

By the time we left that store, my son’s hands were slippery with blood. Many more wrinkles on both the inside palms of his hands had begun to bleed. The band aids wouldn’t even stay on; there was just too much blood.

But just minutes after we left the building, my son’s hands simply stopped bleeding.

A half hour after that, all signs of cuts or bleeding, were gone. No infection had set in. It was as if it had never even happened.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman #fundie myspace.com

Q. But how does someone’s homosexual “marriage” threaten everyone else’s families?

A. Gay activists are not asking for just one homosexual marriage, even though they often personalize it by saying, “Don’t you interfere with my family and I won’t interfere with yours.” What the activists want is a new national policy saying that no longer is a mom and a dad any better than two moms or two dads. That policy would turn some very important principles upside down:

Marriage would become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men or two women to marry, why not three, or five, or 17? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. “Mother” and “father” would become only words.

Gender would become nothing. The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. It must rest on a “Mister Potato Head theory” of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). If real differences did exist, then men would need women and women would need men. Our children would learn that sexual differences are like mere personality types. Wait until your kids start bringing those papers home from school.

Tyson Fury #fundie bbc.co.uk

In the aftermath of his win in Dusseldorf, Fury had said: "I'm not sexist. I believe a woman's best place is in the kitchen and on her back. That's my personal belief. Making me a good cup of tea, that's what I believe."
He has also drawn criticism for saying that fellow SPOTY nominee Jessica Ennis-Hill "slaps up well".
But Fury, who refers to himself as the 'Gypsy King' because of his Irish traveller heritage, told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine programme on Monday: "I love my women and what I said goes for my wife alone. She knows her place, I know her place. That's our culture of people.
"That's nothing to do with the world or anybody else and if I was a normal person, I wasn't in the spotlight, no-one would be making a scene about what I say to my wife."
The new world champion has also previously said it would only take the legalisation of paedophilia in addition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortion to see "the devil come home".
In an interview he said: "There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one's paedophilia.
"Who would have thought in the '50s and '60s that those first two would be legalised?"

PeasantsArePeople #fundie reddit.com

Now, I will not deny, that certain characters (cough Churchill cough) behaved awfully, especially with the Bengal Famine. But we need to consider the impacts short term and long term. Others here have already talked about Africa so I’m going to keep focussed on India and maybe China to an extent.

Now in the short term, events like the Indian Mutiny, The Bengal Famine and the Opium wars would do damage to these countries, no one can deny this. However we need to consider the fact that this is a continued phenomenon throughout human history. You would be hard pressed to find a single country today without millennia of bad actions.

You yourself are Chinese, should you now walk on by and kiss the feet of the Tibetans?

Man oppressing man is no unique to the imperial powers. What is however is the vast and amazing changes in wealth that transformed the world during this time period. Steam shipping, telegrams, electricity. China herself benefits heavily from technology it has copies of the West, particularly in its car industry. Should we get repatriated for them copying our idea? No.

Conclusively this one dimensional narrative of “Imperialism Bad” is erroneous. But regardless of its moral value it is still not a justification for people to live in our countries nor for repatriation. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son and no one deserves anything.
permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply

Telochi #fundie reddit.com

I wouldn't call the Revolution truly won at that point, I believe that the Revolution could only truly be considered wholly won if full postmodern consciousness has been achieved in all parts of the world. By this, I mean full education and implementation of policies involving class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, and scientific consciousness. In short, a complete upheaval of centuries of bourgeoisie and reactionary contamination across the world, International Revolution. If there are still Capitalists, then the Revolution's goals have not been achieved. The issue would need to be rectified, one way or another.

In a sense, it is a contradiction to say that there is such a thing as peaceful rebellion for a Capitalist, because they are advocating for an ideology that is fundamentally violent, fundamentally harmful. It does not matter if they are shooting people in the streets or passing around pamphlets, both are violent actions. It is merely a question of the varying severity of violence. By making attempts to reinstate a violent system, they are perpetrators of violence. Therefore, it does not change how I would deal with them. It is very important that we never go back to the days of wage slavery and racism, and I am willing to use any means at my disposal to preserve the Revolution and advance it.

I've actually thought of this at length, how I would deal with counterrevolutionary elements after the Vanguard has achieved enough power to begin bringing about full postmodern consciousness. In the first phases, it would be fairly easy to deal with counterrevolutionary elements since there will be plenty of blatant counterrevolutionary paramilitaries still lurking around, they can be eliminated using a mix conventional and counterinsurgency methods. This would be the most straightforward, and perhaps the least morally grey phases of defending the Revolution. It would also be a time of asserting the Vanguard's legitimacy and willingness to defend its authority and defend the proletariat from counterrevolution.

However, as OP mentioned, there would still be plenty of counterrevolutionaries who hide it better, or choose, "Safer" means of opposition. Still, there are obviously factors that would make someone more likely to be a counterrevolutionary than others, such as being white, such as being or associating with former land owners, former law enforcement, former military of the old regime who chose not to fight with the proletariat. My personal policy is that the burden of proof will lay on them to show loyalty to the Vanguard and to the principles of the pursuit of the postmodern, or they will face purging, sentencing to labor camps, etc.

Yes, it is a very harsh policy, I acknowledge that, but it is beneficial in the end. Attempts at Revolution that were afraid to use violence have historically failed. It's either the loss of those who would harm others, or the loss of many more who are Revolutionaries, who could live to see postmodern consciousness emerge, who will birth the next generations who will experience even more victories and even more prosperity. It is important that no one have to live under the tyranny of bourgeoisie or reactionary influences.

I acknowledge that it would be difficult to truly root out every counterrevolutionary, but I have given thought to that as well. This is part of the reason why I advocate for totalitarianism to some extent when it comes to defending the Revolution and establishing postmodern consciousness. There is certainly a risk of the Vanguard becoming degenerated, but I of course have developed countermeasures against even that, which is a story for another time. Totalitarianism, like many things, is a tool, a means to and end.

Arguably, totalitarianism is a very risky means to an end, and a morally ambiguous one. However, totalitarianism would perhaps be the most effective way of prevent a counterrevolutionary Blanquist scenario from arising, a counterrevolutionary Deep State, if you will. Surveillance, social engineering, psychotronics, mental orthodoxy, etc. will be, obviously temporary measures to root out any remaining conspirators, hopefully. I would like to go more into detail, but I don't want to digress too far.

Education will be what eventually allows these Orwellian measures to truly be temporary, and that's a promise by the way, I have no intentions of locking the proletariat into a controlled environment for longer than is necessary. Education will be the main tool, education of all people in not only academic pursuits, but in the horrors of the times before. The rhetorical and mental destruction of all oppressive institutions and concepts from the next generations; education on the perils of whiteness, of sexism, of the gender binary, of the class system, etc.

The totalitarianism part would go hand in hand with this here, social engineering. People will be encouraged to race mix, to form their own nontraditional identities involving their gender, sexuality, and other aspects. In a few generations, there would no need for totalitarianism due to the complete deconstruction, and the arrival of the postmodern consciousness. New generations would further the cause of the Vanguard elsewhere.

In conclusion, that would be how I will deal with these quote on quote, "Peaceful rebels." Some may consider my methods deeply Orwellian, deeply Draconian, but I assert that they will no doubt still be effective. It is important that we consider the bigger picture, don't be someone who can't see the forest for the trees. Remember, there is a world to win, a grand cause that ascends any other consideration. I leave you with that, comrades, enemies, and future comrades.

Phyllis Chesler #fundie meforum.org

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here he is describing Afghanistan in the Taliban era:

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<table>

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

Chellebaby & Raptor #fundie premierchristianity.com

shalini: its the same principle raptor.
The trouble with yyour fully qualified creation scientists is that most scientists and scientific institutions wont touch them with a barge pole because they are lousy scientists.
If what they said was true some of it would be supported by science. Plus many of them are supported by very dubious american right wing organisations.

Raptor: So what else is "like evolution"? Why would an all-powerful God need anything like evolution? He has told us very clearly but you don't believe Him and would obviously prefer almost any other speculative explanation except the biblical one.

shalini: Why would an all powerful God need to create us at all? Mystery, mystery.
You seem to want to box God in. Label him. Do not touch.

Chellebaby: You actually just asked why would an all powerful God need to create us all?! Have you ever read your Bible? Why would God leave things to chance? I do believe the Bible the Bible says we are all fearfully wonderfully made.

shalini: Don't worry your head about it.

Chellebaby: I don't as I know the truth and know I have a place in Heaven. I do however fear for you and where you will end up. Have you shown enough love lately to earn your place?!
Can I ask is there a measuring stick so you can see if you have shown enough love to get into Heaven? What happens when you show hate ? Do you have to reset your counter?
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Titus 3:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
SORRY I FORGOT YOU CAN'T READ LARGE POSTS!

HellHoundOnMyTrail #fundie teenspot.com

To everyone who said Evolution is supported by fact. read my "Questions For Evolutionists" thread. I'm sure you'll change your mind. For example:

Where did the space in which evolution occurred come from? And where did the first matter come from?

If you believe it was just always there, that's just as impossible to proove as the existence of God. Both evolutionists and Christians believe the same thing. Christians believe God has just always been there, and evolutionists believe matter and space has always been there. Both are impossible to prove. Except one day, God will be proven. When Christ returns to earth, no one will be able to deny it.

And we Christians don't need or want proof. We have faith. Christ said, "We walk by faith, not by sight."

If we had proof, no one would need fath. And we dont need or want the proof that God is real untill we are in the kingdom of Heaven.

Robert Campbell #fundie raptureforums.com

My people, black people of America, "have been totally destroyed( not all but most)."

In 6 years or less, our President has turned and entire nation, if not world, into a cesspool of evil. And unfortunately, Its been my people the blacks, leading the way. And leading them, are the Preachers, and false leaders like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton etc. Not to mention the media giving it fuel.

It should be clear now, with the chain of events that have now taken place here in America, our President is not what he seems.

When the "Supreme Court" Handed down the decision to allow same sex marriage; "out of there own mouths they sealed the doom of America." And most blacks folks, (most but not all) fell right in sync with it.

Do you need to see evidence of that? "just look around." We as blacks lead the nation in abortion,(1800 daily), fathers out of the home,(80%), children out of wedlock 78%, and black on black crime. Oh, and lets not forget the ridiculous police shootings, and incidences, that led blacks to believe in their own twisted truths. Lets not talk about the riots, property destroyed and lives lost. I can go on and on, but the list is to long.

And all led by our President "Barack Obama."

He and his cronies, have turned this country into what he has always wanted all along.

A Socialistic Godless society.

[...]

How did this happen to us? Could part of this have started when, "Lyndon Baine Johnson" Our 36th. President of the United States, introduced the Welfare Act, some 50 years ago? Was it this bill that started the slow and meticulous destruction of the Afro-American?

This bill took care of the family, the bill fed you, it clothed you, it housed you.

One exception though, "no man must be in the home." That bill alone help start the decline of the black man. Or at least the black man we once knew. The one that went to work every day, and took care of his family, the one that fathered all his children from one women-his wife.

There is no more black family, it has been destroyed. It has been replaced by a new breed of black man, or so called.

This new breed of black man, does not believe in having a family, just having babies.

This new breed of black man, likes to look like a women, with its dreadlocks and earrings. with its pants hanging down low.

He won't even keep a job to support the many children he has fathered.

We now look at him as our modern day black man. "The new baby daddy."

[...]

One of the major sins we have committed is Abortion. We have killed 60 million babies in this country alone. That one sin alone, would be a hard one to forgive.

The other one, is turning our back on Israel. America has turned its back on Israel under this President.

And finally slapping God's hand, and telling Him, that a man and a women is not good enough.

We in America have achieved all three. America has turned its back on God. It is apparent that satan, is making you take sides.

Zen_Overlord #fundie reddit.com

We were born on the wrong side of the industrial revolution.

We were the kings. We were the nobility, the clergy, the lords and dukes. We were the scholars of the Holy Roman Empire. We were the great painters and composers that fueled the Renaissance. Females were given to us simply out of charity, because everyone understood how our romantic needs powered us.

But look at us now. We're forced onto fucking reddit because society hates the beautiful and the noble, and loves the dirty and downtodden (notice how normos always get a hardon for "rebels taking down the empire" stories).

We're too civilized for females. Pluck a king out of his throne, put on normal clothes and throw him in a slummy tavern, yeah no shit the females won't think he's "confident" enough.

Such a waste. Us being incels is like a man taking several wheelbarrows filled with $100 bills and dumping them into a river one by one. You would think one of the female passerbys would go "HOLY SHIT!" and take some for herself, but she sees that no one else is doing it and decides against it.

The bad guys have won. At least we can take solace in the fact that they will destroy the environment and thus the planet. With the end of our genes, goes the end of humanity. Can't say we didn't war

Kathy29 #fundie freeconservatives.com

Is the rampant promiscuity in Africa hidden news somehow? Is the fact that rape is unbeliveably common not well known? Is it not widely known that African men believe that having sex with infants under one year is a cure for AIDS.

IF there was divine wrath, it seems like African AIDS despite being almost exclusively heterosexual, would make Africa an ideal target for that divine wrath.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Democrat Mayor of New Brighton, MN, the tubby post-menopausal schoolmarmish Val Johnson, is emblematic of the shitliberal establishment in predominantly White regions of the country. Here she is caught on video having an emotional breakdown ranting about the phantasm of “White privilege”

...

Female brain gone insane.

This is your political party on estrogen, hot flashes, and dying ovaries. The feminization of the Democreeps means more crazy cat ladies virtue signaling like lunatics about all the browns and blacks they “look after” while haranguing White men about their privilege and misogyny. The mass influx of bitter hags and wrecked sluts into politics has been a disaster for the West, no doubt about it.

What’s more pathetic than this cunt’s psychotic break in the video, if that’s possible, is the collective reaction of the four UGH WHITE MALES sitting there taking hot splooges of this broad’s insanity to their faces. Not one of these “””men””” had the balls to tell this shrike to shut the hell up? You know they were all thinking it. At least, you hope they were thinking it; maybe shitlib White men are so utterly emasculated that this feels like normal to them. They would feel adrift without some rancid cunt shrieking like a banshee about how evil and stupid and entitled they are.

Anti-White feminism is a civilization-wide shit test, and men are failing it, badly. What the country needs more than ever is one man with brass ones to jab a chadfinger in one of these cunt’s porky mugs and tell her off. “There’s no such thing as White privilege you stupid old shrew, and if you keep it up I’m gonna throw you out of a helicopter!”

The Emascunations of the West are feeding the delusions of our worst people, and so naturally we are getting more shitty people behaving even shittier than ever running things into the ground. When the eunuchs guard the cunts, civ death is close at hand. Alexis de Tocqueville warned that America would turn into a country of masculine women and weak men, and that’s exactly what happened. The crazy cat ladies, homos, and ball-less wonders are at the helm, steering the ship of state straight into the litter box.

Ruthless #racist stormfront.org

Even if non-whites self segregate from white communities the problem is they are taking over more and more area that used to belong to the white communities. This is what is causing white people to flee their homelands to other whiter countries. In the USA every single city was majority white just 30 years ago. Now most are a majority mix of every non-white under the sun and the white populations are dwindling. Cities contain the most jobs and the highest concentrations of our populations, far outnumbering the populations in suburbs and rural areas.

The UK losing London to the mudslimes was the worst thing to happen. People in the suburbs and rural areas can turn a blind eye to the city. But when the brown hordes overrun the city they will be spilling out into the suburbs. Then the whites flee to rural areas. Then the brown hordes overrun the suburbs and spill into rural areas and then what??? At some point people have to put their foot down. The suburbs are a good place to start. If you live in an area that is 90% white that has a few non-whites that is when you start promoting pro-white literature and ideas. Not after the town has gone to 75% white.

Another thing that someone pointed out earlier in this thread is that European countries do have their own unique culture and language that should be preserved. No European country should lose their culture to another European culture. Each country should be able to maintain themselves as the majority. The USA really is the only country built for whites from any part of Europe. The USA was a country of white immigrants and a melting pot of European cultures. Ship the non-whites out of the USA and open up their spots to any white European.

Koolz #racist realjewnews.com

I won’t post about Politics but am going to tell you what the end game is and why.

There are two scenarios happening right now that have been planned for 100 years!

First is the immigration of Islam into Europe breaking the European Nations so they may become one, one mess of peoples with no identity.

Second is the Breaking of the US so the US, Mexico, and Canada become one, called the North American Union.

The Main objective is two fold:

Depopulate the Planet making it easy to control under Technology (people are all hooked up to Technology) — Cells Phones (smart grid, smart meters, smart phones).

Make Zionist Jews King of the World as a Cover for the Real Kings (Secret Society Group)

The Pattern is a Triangle which is part of sacred geometry.

Yes it is the Haves and the Have Nots. This is the reason the Middle Class is attacked in countries. They want the Very Rich and the Very Poor.

The European Race is attacked because they are the ones that would stand up to the Satanists, there the ones that have created things, they’re artists, they’re Christians.

The Genocide is Jews against the White European Race.

Not only that but all Christians in the world.

Now you can’t just go out and Cry Wolf. You have to move your pieces trapping the others, and in doing so reveal there folly and evil. At the same time showing you are the hero liberating that evil.

The world is a Chess Board.

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!

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

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

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

The left is out of options

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

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

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

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

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

We all lose in a hot war

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

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

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

1-800-DIVORCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four future outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferdinand Bardamu #racist eurocanadian.ca

The White race’s intelligence and behavior has been under intense selective pressure since late medieval times. These new environmental forces significantly increased White resilience in the face of adversity. The first of these was the Black Death that ravaged Europe from 1347 to 1351. As one of the most catastrophic pandemics in world history, it killed off one-third of Europe’s population. The evidence of bioarchaeology, drawn from skeletal analysis of burial remains from “Black Death” cemeteries, reveals that far from being random, the plague was very selective in its choice of victims (DeWitte, 2014). The weak and the elderly were at increased risk of infection. Given the strong correlation between poor health and IQ, the Whites who survived were much stronger, healthier and smarter than ever before. The dearth of peasant labor led to an increase in wages, rising living standards and the invention of labor-saving devices. This greater wealth and prosperity liberated many from the common drudgery of daily life. A century after the Black Death, the Renaissance scaled even greater heights of intellectual and artistic achievement.

The 17th century colonization of North America also subjected Whites to strong selective pressure. The first Englishmen to have disembarked on American soil had survived religious persecution in England as Puritans objecting to the “Roman idolatry” of Anglican ritual; they had survived the perilous transAtlantic voyage, unaffected by typhus or scurvy. In New England, the Puritans still had to contend with disease, the harsh winters and the “merciless Indian savages” that lay hiding in the primeval forests of the eastern seaboard. If the weak and unintelligent managed to survive the voyage, they would eventually be killed off by starvation or Indian tomahawk. This pattern of eugenic selection affected all English settlers, including those motivated by purely secular and commercial interests. By the end of the colonial period, the Anglo-Saxon in the Americas had emerged as one of the finest and most evolved specimens of the White race.

The purifying effects of eugenic selection had rapidly accelerated the evolution of Homo sapiens in Europe and North America: the fittest White men had always left behind the most offspring, but after the ravages of bubonic plague and the hardships of American colonization, their broods became larger, healthier and more intelligent. White men of lesser ability, if they were lucky enough to find mates, typically left behind few descendants, with fewer still managing to survive past childhood.

A significant increase in the population of intelligent Whites inevitably led to a rising per capita rate of innovation. This peaked in 1873, during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), but declined rapidly after that (Huebner, 2005). With the new science and technology, the White man was able to raise incomes, improve public health and increase longevity across the Western world. Eugenic selection for higher IQ made it possible for the White man to develop more sophisticated military technology. This far surpassed anything that had ever been developed by the ancient Greeks and Romans or even non-Whites. By century’s end, approximately 84% of the earth’s surface was controlled by the colonial empires of Western Europe. Intellectual and creative development had scaled such heights that Europe even gave birth to a race of intellectual supermen. These were the Victorian polymaths, who numbered among their ranks the colorful Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890). He was a man who excelled at every subject that commanded his undivided attention. He was a brilliant writer, scholar, explorer, geographer, translator, diplomat and swordsman. A master linguist, he spoke an astonishing 40 languages and dialects fluently. This period of continuous White evolutionary development wasn’t to last forever. By 1914, the golden age of White intellectual and creative superiority had come to an end.

II: Western Intellectual Decline from Late 19th Century to Present

The general intelligence of the Western industrialized nations has declined since late 19th century, according to a meta-analysis of over a dozen reaction time (RT) studies. A cognitive, but not an economic or thermodynamic, limit has apparently been reached. There are now fewer individuals with the intelligence to solve complex mathematical and engineering problems, which is why the rate of innovation has significantly decreased since 1873. “Genetic g” - g-factor in the absence of gene environment interaction - has decreased by 14 IQ points over the course of a century, at least in the Anglophone nations of the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. This means a decrease of 1.23 IQ points per decade (Woodley et al., 2013). To eliminate the possibility of overinflated RT latencies because of hardware and software lags (Woods et al., 2015), the meta-analytic findings were adjusted for lag time. The result was that the Victorians were still faster (and smarter) than modern Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

Measures of vocabulary, relatively insensitive to environmental influence because of greater overall gsaturation and heritability rate, provided additional evidence of superior Victorian intelligence. A study tracked WORDSUM item frequencies over the course of 150 years. For this, a database that stored 5.9 million texts from the 1500s to the present was used. The most difficult and therefore the most highly g-loaded WORDSUM items exhibited sharper declines in historical usage since mid-19th century, consistent with declines in “genetic g” observed among Western populations (Woodley et al., 2015).

After decades of “massive IQ gains,” cognitive reversals were observed in Norway (Sundet et al, 2004), Denmark (Teasdale & Owen, 2008), the Netherlands (Woodley & Meisenberg, 2013) and elsewhere. In one study, genes associated with educational attainment and cognitive ability had declined in frequency across birth cohorts in an Icelandic population. It was estimated that a loss of 0.3 IQ points per decade would substantially affect Iceland if allowed to continue for centuries (Kong et al., 2017). James Flynn, discoverer of the eponymous Flynn effect, has acknowledged the reversal of cognitive gains in certain Western countries, especially those of Scandinavia. At a 2017 conference hosted by the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), he admitted: “I have no doubt that there has been some deterioration of genetic quality for intelligence since late Victorian times.” Flynn has projected substantial losses of about 6 or even 7 IQ points for Scandinavia over a 30 year period. Such a reversal in intelligence would have catastrophic effects on the societies and economies of Scandinavia, now being flooded by hostile elites with Third World “migrants.”

A relevant question is: “If the post-WWII consensus acknowledges the existence of massive IQ gains over the last century, how does one explain cognitive reversal in the most industrialized nations?” This phenomenon is known as Cattell’s paradox and its solution is Woodley’s co-occurrence model. Although phenotypic intelligence has increased since WWII, genotypic intelligence has decreased. The anti-Flynn effect is really a “Jensen effect” because it has resulted in losses on psychometric g.

III: The Role of Dysgenic Selection in Western Intellectual Decline

Mass “immigration” from low-IQ regions of the globe, such as the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, have no doubt contributed to declines in the average intelligence of the West. In one recent study (Woodley et al., 2017), Third World “immigration” was associated with IQ declines in 13 different nations. High levels of Third World “immigration” are always significant predictors of Western cognitive decline; its most pronounced effects are on IQ subtest batteries with the highest g-loadings. Nevertheless, Third World “immigration” does not fully account for dysgenic selection among Western populations. Declines in genotypic intelligence occurred long before the advent of Third World “immigration,” which only partially explains the Western world’s declining IQ.

The greater fecundity of intelligent Whites, compared to the unintelligent, had always been the norm, especially since the 1400s. This changed during the Industrial Revolution; more intelligent Whites delayed having children until later in life, through a combination of abstinence and contraception, to further their educational aspirations and develop their innate potential. Medical breakthroughs significantly improved general health and nutrition, which prolonged human lifespans. This allowed less intelligent Whites to survive childhood and have significantly more children than those who were more intelligent. The rise of social welfare liberalism in the 20th century merely exacerbated this trend. As Western governments progressively taxed their wealthiest and most intelligent citizens, their wealth was unfortunately redistributed to less industrious and less intelligent members of the White race, who squandered the money as they multiplied recklessly.

More recent studies have shed further light on the negative correlation between intelligence and fertility. In one study, the higher the intelligence and socioeconomic status of adolescents, the lower their likelihood of having offspring. This dysgenic effect was more true of females than males, indicating that women become choosier the more wealth and status they accumulate (Reeve et al., 2013). Among adults, a negative correlation between intelligence and odds of parenthood was discovered; every 15 point increase in a woman’s childhood IQ would decrease a woman’s odds of parenthood by about 20% (Kanazawa, 2014). The female role in the transmission of intelligence is a substantial one because the genes for intelligence are X-chromosomal; if more intelligent women since the late Victorian period have had less children than the unintelligent, one can only expect a gradual decline in the national intelligence of Western populations.

Analysis of a large genealogical database revealed that Iceland’s national IQ had decreased over time because more intelligent Icelanders were having less children. Although IQ declines per decade were small, statistical significance is attained when viewed from an evolutionary timescale. Dysgenic fertility may potentially undermine Icelandic economy and society within a few centuries, unless it is reversed (Kong et al., 2017). Polygenic scores, which capture selection against g (such as dysgenic fertility or “immigration”), are the most significant predictors of the century-long decline in “heritable g” (Woodley et al., 2018). The “neurotoxin hypothesis,” like all environmental explanations, fails to adequately predict temporal trends in general intelligence because cognitive ability is under much stronger genetic than environmental control. The worst environmental deprivations (i.e. severe malnutrition) or the most costly and ambitious environmental interventions rarely, if ever have a lasting effect on heritable g.

Most experts in intelligence, cognitive ability and student achievement now attribute the anti-Flynn effect to dysgenic fertility, Third World “immigration” and worsening educational standards in Western countries; in contrast, they are far more unanimous among each other in attributing environmental causation to the Flynn effect, in striking agreement with Woodley’s co-occurrence model (Rindermann et al., 2016). Based on the evidence, Western intellectual decline is largely caused by a negative IQfertility gradient, with Third World “immigration” becoming an increasingly significant contributor as time goes on.

IV: The Road to “Idiocracy”

Nobel laureate William Shockley proposed a Voluntary Sterilization Bonus Plan (1972). He presented this as a “thought experiment.” This would be open to all members of the American public, regardless of “sex, race or welfare status.” For each IQ point under 100, the recipient was to be given $1000, as long as he or she was willing to undergo vasectomy or tubal ligation. This was not an original proposal, as it had been first suggested over 40 years ago by American journalist and scholar H.L. Mencken, albeit in a rather humorous context. What all of these proposals neglect, and what modern eugenicists have failed to acknowledge, is the obvious sex differential in contributions to dysgenic fertility, probably because of the natural sympathy that men typically have for the opposite sex.

The low-IQ male, unless he is among the 20% of males considered physically attractive, is permanently excluded from the sexual market. This is because of his lifelong inability to acquire the material resources that allow him to compensate for his genetic inferiority. On the other hand, the low-IQ female poses a far greater threat to the mental hygiene of Western populations, by virtue of her role as sexual selector. For the low-IQ female, there will always be large numbers of reasonably attractive males willing to satisfy her many sexual and financial needs. If the low-IQ male must be handsome or rich, the low-IQ female must only be of childbearing age if she wishes to attract a mate of fairly decent genetic quality. The Industrial Revolution brought with it substantial improvements in public health and nutrition, making it easier for low-IQ females to survive childhood, only to breed as much as possible throughout their reproductive years.

When, in 1869, Sir Francis Galton made his famous scientific prediction of declining Western intelligence based on anecdotal observation of changing Victorian demographics, what he really observed was more low-IQ females than ever before surviving childhood to satisfy their instinctive desire for maternity. This trend has continued without interruption to the present, making low-IQ females the primary driving force behind the dysgenic fertility that has resulted in declining general intelligence in Western industrialized nations. No successful eugenic policy can exist without taking this into full account. In order for Dr. Shockley’s proposal to have made any sense from an evolutionary perspective, the bonus for females should have been quadrupled or even quintupled for each IQ point under 100.

Into this volatile mixture was added feminism, a pernicious ideology that grants both unrestricted individual autonomy and reproductive choice to women who should not be allowed to breed for eugenic reasons. In recognizing that all women have the same rights, feminism reveals itself to be just as dangerous as the Third World “immigration” promoted by hostile elites. By encouraging low-IQ females to engage in promiscuity, march in “slut walks,” wear “pussy hats,” and breed prolifically - while high-IQ females delay parenthood because of their educational aspirations - feminism has merely accelerated the decline in general intelligence among Western populations, already well under way since the Industrial Revolution. As Whites get dumber, their “Western uniqueness,” including their high intelligence, creativity and ability to produce more geniuses than any other race of people, will disappear with them. This radical transformation of the underlying genetic structure of Western populations could take place within less than a 100 years. Few people recognize the fragility of Western intellectual gains because of selective pressures exerted by the Black Death in Medieval Europe and the 17th century colonization of North America. By undermining Western mental and racial hygiene, feminism threatens to return Whites to the way things were before the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic age.

Helmuth Nyborg, extrapolating from present trends and projecting them into the future, allows us to better visualize in concrete terms the post-apocalyptic scenario that awaits Western civilization (2011). He shows what happens when a racially homogeneous society like Denmark, with a population of over 5 million, is subjected to both “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (IRDS), referring to the preservation and multiplication of the genetically disadvantaged, and “External Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (ERDS), in reference to “super-fertile” Third World “replacement migration.”

When both internal and external relaxation are combined, “Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” (DRDS) is produced, a clear and unobstructed path to Western “idiocracy” in Denmark. By 2072, ethnic Danes will be reduced to 60% of the population, from a high of 97% in 1979; minority status will be reached by 2085. In 1979, Danish phenotypic IQ was 98, but by 2072, it is 93, having dropped 5 IQ points in less than a century. As national IQ decreases, Denmark will be gradually transformed into a Latin American “banana republic.” Ethnic Danes, demoralized by feminism and social welfare legislation, will have no choice but to acquiesce to the destruction of their own country. Significant damage to the economy and educational infrastructure are to be expected; a 5 point drop in Danish IQ means a 35% reduction in the nation’s GDP. Democracy will inevitably become unsustainable as average national IQ plummets below 90; it will be replaced by the authoritarian political culture and religious dogmatism found in Middle Eastern, African and Latin American societies.

Belief that “more White babies” are the answer to dysgenic fertility among Whites is just as dangerous and genocidal as the liberal belief that Third World “replacement migration” is “cultural enrichment.” Since low-IQ females leave behind more offspring than those of high IQ, more White births would reduce high-IQ females to an “endangered species.” This would intensify the “Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection” already occurring in Western populations. As Whites “devolve,” they will no longer be able to maintain their own Western industrialized societies. A demographic transition of such magnitude would transform Western Europe and North America, the Occidental heartland, into a cultural and biological extension of the Third World. Since women are loyal to wealth and power, but not race, one can expect genocidal levels of miscegenation between White females of low intelligence and the non-White foreigners who have dispossessed Whites and conquered the West.

To reverse the process of dysgenic selection, the White man must do three things:

He must get rid of the hostile elite.

He must forcibly repatriate all Third World “migrants,” including their descendants. Forced “remigration” is not an unrealistic policy; mass population transfers have been successfully carried out before, i.e. deportation of Germans, 1944-50, from Eastern and Central European countries to Germany and Austria.

If selective pressures in medieval Europe and colonial America led to the steady eugenic improvement of Western populations, making it possible for them to conquer 84% of the globe’s surface, only their re-emergence will reverse the dysgenic selection that has bedeviled the White race since the mid-19th century. This can only be accomplished through a rigorous application of classical eugenic principles.

If the White race is to survive, only its strongest and most intelligent members must be prepared for the harsh Darwinian struggle that lies ahead. Wasting precious resources on mental and genetic defectives is sheer pathological altruism. Race-conscious Whites have a collective interest in raising healthy and intelligent offspring, but no such interest can exist when it comes to those who are weak and unintelligent. They are “life unworthy of life”; even they would not consent to such a truncated and meager existence if given full possession of their normal faculties. From a White nationalist perspective, to bring such children into the world is selfish and morally irresponsible; they impose unnecessary fiscal burdens on Whites and use up resources that are better invested elsewhere.

The race-conscious White man is faced with a dilemma: because of liberal elite hostility to his own ethnic genetic interests, any program of eugenic enhancement would be outlawed under the current totalitarian leftist order; at the same time, he cannot simply wait out the elite-managed decline of Western civilization. In less than a few generations, most of his race may become drooling mental defectives, if they haven’t already miscegenated themselves out of existence into the burgeoning mass of Third World “migrants” who now infest his homeland. If he must take action, he must take it now, otherwise all is lost.

Race-conscious Whites must abandon all leftist-controlled urban areas to “live off the grid.” By colonizing relatively unpopulated areas of North America and Western Europe, the White man will return to a rustic existence, filling the countryside, the mountains, the forests, the tundra with Whites only settlements, similar to the Boer-only settlement of Orania in South Africa. Living the way his ancestors did centuries ago will ensure that no Third World “immigrant” follows him into the mountains or the wilderness. Self-imposed hardship will further intensify Darwinian selective pressure on Whites, jumpstarting the process of natural eugenic enhancement, just as it did during the early colonization of the Americas. Once race-conscious Whites have become sufficiently numerous, they must embark on a program of state-sponsored eugenics. This will be used to strengthen the White population until they are able to wrest control of North America and Western Europe from the hostile elites and their army of greedy “migrants.”

The new ethnostate will be constitutionally grounded on Aristotelian political philosophy and neoDarwinian biology; it will be a meritocracy based on eugenic principles. Eugenics, the scientific ideological core of the new White nationalism, is easily reconciled with the aristocratic political science of Aristotle; both are concerned with the development and formation of the best possible citizen, one along genetic and the other along characterological lines. Aristotelian philosophy is based on a linear hierarchical conception of reality; this overlaps with the dominance hierarchies of the animal kingdom and of all human socio-political organization. Furthermore, the capacity for superior moral development is improved substantially by superior genes. In an Aristotelian political order informed by eugenic principles, the state would ensure that all citizens have both the mental and physical capacity to live the good life. Mandatory genetic screening would be one of the conditions of citizenship; those at risk of transmitting hereditary diseases or conditions, such as criminality or low IQ, would undergo compulsory eugenic sterilization. Only the best and most virtuous citizens, the biologically and intellectually superior “aristoi” or natural-born aristocrats, would be the ones allowed total freedom of action in the political sphere.

In the ethnostate, the aristoi of the White race will determine who must give birth and who must be sterilized. These men are not petty bureaucrats, but aristocrats selected on the basis of health and IQ. Their sole task is the promotion of White racial survival, whatever the cost. For those who believe eugenic sterilization is barbarous and cruel, allowing the birth of children who suffer from mental retardation or cystic fibrosis is much, much worse. For this reason, only the healthiest, high-IQ females will be allowed to breed, even being massively incentivized to do so. Encouraging the natural increase of healthy, intelligent Whites, at the expense of the low IQ and genetically unfit, is the most White nationalist thing a White man can do for his race.

Some will necessarily object: “But state-sponsored eugenics will infringe on individual rights and freedoms!” This is a common, but groundless objection. The “right to procreate” is not an absolute. In 7 utilitarian ethics, rights are never ends in themselves; they exist to maximize the happiness of the greatest number and must be tempered by social obligation. Furthermore, not all men have the capacity for individual freedom. The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognized the existence of natural slavery because of the inability of some to reason autonomously, even though they may be responsive to reasoned instruction. Whether a man is free or not must be determined by his capacity to reason (for us, his IQ).

Legislation regulating some of the most intimate areas of our lives is hardly controversial; if we allow government to enforce this legislation, ostensibly in the interest of public safety, why not allow government to decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t? If the low IQ and genetically unfit are allowed to breed recklessly, as they do now, Western civilization will eventually be reduced to smoldering ruins. Unregulated breeding is far more dangerous than any black market specializing in the sale of illicit firearms or drugs. Society would be much safer if it allowed every citizen to acquire large arsenals of weapons without special licensing, but criminalized the marriage and procreation of the low IQ and genetically unfit.

If a large minority of race-conscious Whites emigrate, seceding from the leftist totalitarian state to independently pursue their own racial interests, reversal of dysgenic fertility and Third World “immigration” may be accomplished within a few generations. As race-conscious Whites strengthen their race through genetic enhancement, the totalitarian left will get weaker, forced to increasingly rely on low-IQ Whites and “migrants” for manpower. From their bases in the Pacific Northwest or Lapland, race-conscious Whites, stronger and more intelligent than ever before, would raid globalist-occupied territory, slowly enlarging their own dominions until the reconquest of North America and Western Europe has been completed. This is not without historical precedent. Medieval Spanish Christians, reduced to a small area of their own country, seized the emirates of Mohammedan Andalusia one by one, until the last emirate of Granada had been defeated, its Moorish inhabitants expelled from the Iberian peninsula in 1492.

Race-conscious Whites must live, think and breathe race, just as they did during the long and distinguished reign of Queen Victoria, when Whites were at the peak of their intellectual and artistic powers. In this age of drab multicultural uniformity, the White man’s race is his most formidable weapon, a thorn in the side of those who wish to replace him with the low IQ peasant masses of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Nothing terrifies the hostile elites more than the prospect of encountering race-conscious White men bred for superior intellect and physical strength, able to aggressively pursue their own racial interests undeterred by elite and non-White hostility.

Man For Young Girl To Become My Wife #fundie blog.360.yahoo.com

My primary goal is to find one wife. I do not need more than one wife. I will be very happy and content with just one wife. However, I have interviewed many that would like to be one of two or more wives. I have given this serious thought and should I end up with a wife that would like to be one of two or more wives, I have no problem with it whatsoever. There are pros and cons to having multiple wives and I have considered all that have occurred to me. After I find my first wife, I will not seek out another wife. It will be my first wife's responsibility to present prospective wives to me, whom I will interview and decide if I will or will not accept them as a wife. I will be just a picky about them as I am with my first wife. In fact, I'll probably be more picky.

Yes, I hear all you arrogant ignorant Christians out there claiming it is ungodly to have more than one wife. Yes, God prefers a one man one women relationship but God Himself, under certain circumstances, not only allows a man to have multiple wives, but demands it, and nowhere in Scripture can it be found that God comes against multiple wives. King David, the man after God's own heart had multiple wives. King Solomon, the man God blessed with the greatest wisdom of all men had numerous wives. We find in the New Testament that God recognizes multiple wives in the consideration for the qualifications for Elder or Deacon. God says to qualify to become an Elder or Deacon, you must be a one woman type man, the husband of one wife. An Elder or Deacon is to be focused on God's work, not his wives, one wife it too distracting already LOL (laughing Out Loud).

But in America it is illegal to have more than one wife. Well, I can easily prevail in a debate regarding that matter, but that is not my task here. Just suffice it to say, you cannot legally marry more than one wife where the state is the authority giving you permission to marry. I will not be asking the state's permission, for I am not under the authority of any man made government.

hello4843 #racist stormfront.org

[Title of thread: I am a Jewish Holocaust denier]

Hey everyone, this is the internet so at least I have privacy.

And yes, I am a real Jew, not a fake half Jew or a Jew who knows nothing about Judaism, I actually go to synagogue maybe 6 times a year, born and raised Jewish, went to Jewish summer camps and a Jewish school, surrounded by Jews my whole life, the real kind of Jews too, etc.

But several things about the Holocaust really bother me. I discuss the supposed 6 million on point 3.

1) Self-pity, whinging and blaming the past for everything. It is just annoying.

2) Using the holocaust to make homogenous countries diverse, and using it to justify mass immigration and multiculturalism, by trying to make everyone tolerate each other. If you want an all white country, I don't mind. The idea is, an all white country is bad and there will be another Holocaust if one exists.

3) It is overly hyped, maybe about 500,000 Jews died, mainly from disease or simply being shot, which is still appalling that they could let this happen, but why should there be a genocide hierarchy ? All the massacres from ww2 to Rwanda are terrible events that should not be used as extortion rackets or to promote political ideas like multiculturalism.

Also, I have seen news articles where they use the phrase ''6 million'' in the 1920s ! Obviously the propaganda was being planned then.

Also, the number 6 million may have some Kabbalistic significance, but I need to research it more.

4) The way it is used to make Germans looks bad. Germans are one the great peoples of the Earth, from classical music, to science, to their architecture, to their way of life, to their culture, - all things which ultimately come from your genetics. I cannot stand Hollywood movies that demonise them so blatantly.

5) Israeli hypocrisy - a country created on the idea of ethnic purity to prevent another Holocaust, whilst promoting laws to allow refugees into European countries.

6) When people complain about Germany invading Britain, but then let millions of Africans in the country. Britain would be better under German Nazi rule.

7) Why it has more coverage than other genocides.

8) The facts aren't even certain. Was Germany even anti semitic ? Was Hitler even that anti-semitic ? Or did they simply want control of their nation by their own people. Were the German people friendly to the Jews during that time ? Who knows, it is very unlikely every single German hated them.

9) The confusion over the camps. I have heard they were simply for keeping in political prisoners who were threatening the nationalist ideas of Nazi Germany. Also, some camps treated the prisoners well.

10) The way Jews have no self perception and cannot discuss the idea maybe they bought it upon themselves.

So overall, yes they did some bad things, but I don't feel it deserves all the hype or remembrance it gets. I actually cringe when I tell someone I am Jewish and they tell me they are sorry for everything that has happened to us, grow up! Germany has nothing to apologise for, and I don't want one.

Micheal Brown #fundie charismanews.com

[From an article titled "I Was There When the World Went Mad"]

I heard it with my own ears. If I believe I'm a woman, even though I'm a male in every other way, then I'm a woman and can use the women's restroom. And if I believe I'm a horse, I can use the stable. After all I'm not hurting anyone.

I heard it with my own ears.

The LGBT protesters in Charlotte, North Carolina, were chanting, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, transphobia's got to go."

They were seeking to disrupt our Christian rally where we called on the City Council to vote "no" to the so-called nondiscrimination bill, one which would actually discriminate against Christians and other people of conservative moral values and one which would make all public bathrooms and locker rooms gender neutral.

I had just finished speaking and tried to engage some of the protesters, asking them what "transphobia" was.

When I didn't fit their definition of having an irrational fear of individuals who identify as transgender, I was told that my failure to embrace their identity made me transphobic.

I asked one young man, an African-American, if he would consider me black if I really believed I was black.

He explained that skin color was outwardly determined but that it was "primitive" to claim that gender was determined by one's biological and chromosomal sex. Primitive!

No, gender was determined entirely by how you felt in your own mind, regardless of biology and anatomy.

When I pressed him on the matter of racial identity, he conceded my point. If I genuinely believed I was black, then I was black.

That prompted me to ask the City Council members when I had my turn to speak later that night (I was one of more than 115 people who signed up to address the issue) if I should be entitled to minority housing benefits if I was convinced I was really black.

This was not meant to mock but to underscore the absurdity of dismissing all external tests and claiming that reality is determined by whatever I believe it to be. How can human society even exist with such social madness?

Most frightening of all was the passion with which these protesters presented their views. To call them intensely close-minded and dogmatic would be a severe understatement.

When I asked a young lady if I could use a stable if I believed I was a horse, she said "yes" without slightest hesitation. And while she didn't have children of her own (she said she's unable to) she wanted me to know that she teaches 90 young children and would be perfectly at home with them sharing a bathroom with, say, a biological male who believed he was female.

For me even to question her was absurd in her eyes, and yet this young woman is influencing our little ones.

Bulldog789 #racist stormfront.org

The Jews made up that 5h1t about the world being controlled by a bloke who lives somewhere up in the sky and them being that bloke's chosen people (magical thinking + narcissism). The Jews made that ridiculous decision to completely ignore the fact that human beings are one of the most highly territorial species on the planet, spread themselves across an alien continent (Europe) infiltrating other peoples' territories in their millions without a by your leave, and when the inevitable backlash occurred (which they refer to as the 'holocaust'), instead of admitting they'd made a mistake, explained it by inventing a fictitious illness called 'antisemitism'.

Habitually making things up and refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's own mistakes are traits that are usually associated with psychopaths. Jews mutilate their baby sons' penises. They have an irrational fear of eating pork. It's blatantly obvious that the Jews are a tribe of mentally ill people. It's so F'ing obvious, I can't believe it isn't more widely acknowledged.

The existence in the world of a tribe of mentally ill people doesn't have to be a problem. It's only a problem if you allow them to infiltrate your civilisation, take it over then set about destroying it. That's exactly what we've allowed them to do. I'll never understand why. Pandering to mentally ill people isn't an act of kindness, it's an act of cruelty. When Jews first started trying to infiltrate European countries, kind and compassionate European leaders would have said 'No, we're not letting you infiltrate our territory. If we do that, it's guaranteed to end badly for you'.

Of course, that isn't what happened. That tribe of mentally ill people were given enough rope to hang themselves. They made good use of it. Anyone agree/disagree with this analysis? I welcome feedback on my posts, in agreement or otherwise.

Newcel04 #racist #sexist incels.co

[Discussion] World vs Latino Race War? Opinions?

If white people become the minority in the USA, then Latinos, the second largest group, will take over the USA. They will have access to the entire US military. They will give nuclear weapons to each latino country. The only other countries with nuclear arsenals are Asian and European countries. Who would win?

Asian stats: Smartest,60% world population, can develop tech,have nukes
White stats:Smart,10% world population, can develop tech, have nukes
Latino stats:Stupid, 15% world population, cannot develop tech, will have nukes but cannot develop them
Black stats:Stupid,25% world population, cannot develop tech, no nukes
Sand stats: Not smart or stupid, average intelligence, very small population, may develop tech, no nukes
Abo stats:Stupidest, very small population, cannot develop tech, no nukes

The results of this race war will greatly affect the perception of men around the world, and change the smv of many, many men.

How is this related to inceldom?

it will affect the smv of each race of men depending on who wins

Retarded, you are counting smarts here in terms of ability to execute and /or follow instructions.
That counts for something in being able to manage a stable system, which is what u have in riceland, but in the scenario you envision that is meaningless, the only smarts that counts is ability to think from scratch, innovate, and apply quantitative concepts to qualitative issues, once these have been identified by innovative thinking.
Only 4 races are adept at this, Ashkenazi Jews, Nordics, germanics, and IIT/M, so you're Asians are smartest goes for a toss, Asians would sit between non Nordic/ Germanic whites and sands in terms of smartness.
Other than that your xp points seen fairly distributed

Lol no. Asians (Rice and Curry) have the highest iq in the world

Nope, they have just been doing Iq tests since the age of 5.
Whatever IQ they do have they are unable to apply in any real situation, so they would be screwed in any of these scenarios.
Agree they are the best human calculators, which carries you a long way in IQ tests, but that's not smarts. Those 4 are the only smart races, and one of those 4 is from curryland

image

Huckool #racist forum.lowyat.net

("Huckool" is this sicko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Huckle. So not only is he a racist, he's a horrible human being too)

Hi guys, I'm a new member here as I heard this is a popular forum for Malaysians, and I'm really in a time of need where I want to confide with other anonymous Malaysians who won't bias favour my opinions out of friendship (basically I'd like some cold, hard honesty).

I'm a 26yo British student, and I have fallen deeply in love with Malaysia, especially the Tamil community (though I also love the Malays and Chinese nationals here too), and try to do whatever community or social work that I can in my spare time, especially helping local kids. I'm also a keen photographer, which earns me some pocket money by doing small events for people.

But lately I've been having problems, and I don't know if God/Karma is punishing me for this, but I've developed a really negative and hostile view of negro Africans, which has severely escalated the past year, and I simply ask, are Africans really such a major problem in this country, or has my personal opinion started from an irritation to a full blown hatred that I can never turn back from?

There are numerous reasons I have a dislike for Africans, especially as its gotten personal for me with several of my close female friends being harassed by Nigerians, who lust for the first woman they can make conversation with. I've also read and heard many stories of Africans being a nuisance in this country, from their aggressive attitude and loud parties, over staying and abusing visas, to being involved in drug smuggling and internet/love scams.

I know there's the term that I shouldn't let one bad apple spoil the bunch, but for me with Africans, I can't find any good fruit at all; I only think of disgust whenever I see a Nigerian, especially one with a local woman (what suprises me most is, with the kind of ego Nigerians have, they'll settle for some of the 'ugliest' locals, which show even clearer signs of love scams). Even my close friend, who's a Muslim Indian divorced mother with five children, is currently 'dating' a Nigerian, but I know in my heart and hers that she wants nothing to do with this man.

I'm even having problems in my apartment with Africans; I made a joint investment on a deposit for an apartment with my Iranian best friend, where we sublet two spare rooms, but he and his Ugandan girlfriend collected most of the deposit money from the subtenants, leaving me over RM900 out of pocket. Now the Iranian has gone back to his country, and the Ugandan wants to kick me out. An African I was forced to trust for being the girlfriend of my best friend, and the corrupt African way is going to screw me over.

All I ask is, my Malaysian friends, are Africans really this bad to you in society? Is the Malaysian government really trying to deal with the mess that it's made by opening its borders to a flood of Africans, who only take money from this country, whether they do legal work or scams, and send all they can back to their countries? Are our SEAsian neighbours suffering just as bad and are they doing anything about it? I've read a mix of things saying that Singapore has become very tight and regulated with allowing Africans, especially Nigerians, into their country (is this true?).

My incurable racist attitude towards Africans seems to create more problems than it solves, but am I exaggerating my ideas of these people or are they really that bad of a social menace that so many other locals are suffering here? Agree or disagree, I'd love to hear your constructive views on this.

Incog Man #racist incogman.net

The first teaser trailer for the upcoming superhero movie Black Panther has been released, and it offers us an exciting glimpse of how Africa would look if the White man hadn’t colonized it.

In summary, it’s “We Wuz Kangs” on jenkem. Flying spaceships, sprawling metropolises, advanced infrastructure… this honkeyless utopia has it all.

Moreover, in the trailer, Gollum tells Bilbo how it came to be: the primitive Africa we see in National Geographic is “all a front,” and that the real Africa – Futurama with Blacks – is secretive and hidden, presumably to protect itself from White slavemasters.

Some spic provides additional information about the trailer for Affinity magazine:

In the trailer within just the first few seconds we see a white man, Everett K. Ross, who is interviewing another man, Klaw, describing the most common stereotypes about countries in Africa. Soon he is asked about what knows of Wakanda, soon we see visuals of a place the interviewee calls “El Dorado” and how it is not in South America, it is in Africa and it’s actually Wakanda. He proceeds to explain how anyone who had gone to “explore” it did not come out alive.

Wakanda: Jew Hollywood CGI makes black fantasies come true! [INCOG]

That right there in just two minutes drops the trope of defenseless Africans who need help, and shows what African countries could have been without its colonization. Where instead of showing a story of a white hero who comes to aid the people it shows those who have hidden their culture to keep it safe.

Well… I don’t really know what to say.

Mocking this film is like mocking a child’s drawing; you feel bad for doing it, because you’re denigrating the work of undeveloped beings, but sometimes you just can’t help yourself.

It’s worth pointing out that while this film is ridiculous to us, a lot of Africans-in-America really believe in its underlying premise: that if Whites hadn’t traveled to Africa, then Blacks would have developed advanced cities that put London or New York to shame.

Though this film is a mostly Black production, Jews are to blame for promoting this ridiculous narrative throughout the decades.

Stan Lee, the co-creator of the Black Panther character, is a rat-faced kike.

The film isn’t out until February 2018 (aka Black History Month), but it’s never too early to state the obvious: no one should be supporting this trash!

I know it’s ludicrous and OTT, and we want to laugh at niggers pretending to be humans, but these films do genuine damage to our societies. They spit on the generosity we gave the other races, promote self-hatred among weak-minded Whites and, worst of all, radicalize Blacks into killing us because we stole their blueprints for theoretical computation systems back in 1500 AD.

Let’s vote with our wallets and give this film the Red Tails treatment!

Nobody paid to see Red Tails (aka “We Wuz Pilots”), and the studio lost tens of millions of dollars. We should do the same with other anti-White films.

INCOG NOTES:

You might think this crap is funny and all, but think again. The Jewish brainwashers are bound and determined to rewrite history making blacks look heroic — no matter if it’s patently full of BS. They are doing it as non-obtrusively as possible, so as to not awaken too many of us Whites to the deal.

You can see this BS all the time on TV like the National Geographic channel. They’ve been bought out by the international Jew media octopus and they’ve been pushing PC bull like crazy these days. All their documentary shows are now jam-packed with black “experts” and heroic black actors in recreated historical scenes. Except for the evil Nazis of course!

I saw a thing a month or two ago where they made the first “evolved” people to migrate into Europe as black (part of the long-running “Out of Africa” anthropology agenda), versus the White-colored, more primitive Neanderthals. Also, pay attention to the “History” Channel, too. They made Hannibal of Carthage black last year. King Tut was shown as black on a National Geographic magazine cover and ABC did a piece on the nightly news portraying Cleopatra of the Ptolemies as black. Total BS!

Blacks are pretty much the sorriest, most violent and criminal race on the planet. Always have been, actually.

How can they do all this? Because they can, that’s why. Say anything and they’ll call you a racist. Get the big head job they’ve pulled on us White people now?

Tell a friend!

“History” channel’s 2016 “Roots” producer Mark Wolper. His “daddykins” (“kins”– stupid Jew endearment appendage) was David Wolper, the original Jew responsible for “Roots” brainwashing campaign back in the 1970’s. Subversive Jew creeps like this little punk have been making dough jacking the homies and White liberals for decades. [INCOG]

lukestarboi87 #racist reddit.com

I am an originalist in every sense. I want all non-Europeans to be deported to their lands of ancestry (with the exception of natives, who I would be fine with if they stayed here, as Americans allowed in the 1800s, though they did not particularly like them. I'm on the edge with blacks. They are detrimental to American and European society, but the Europeans brought blacks with them to America). I want only men to vote. I want there to be a de facto (not de jure) state religion of Christianity (since America had so many protestant denominations comprising it in its beginning, I will not set a denomination). I want many of the modern-day amendments to be reversed (so basically anything after the Civil War, but that would be quite damaging, so I may change my view to everything being alright provided it was passed before the end of Teddy Roosevelt's second term in office, and keeping the amendment prohibiting people from holding the presidential office more than twice since people no longer respect the founding fathers and must be bound by law instead of their own consciences). But the point is, every moment of our country's prosperity was when it was effectively a white ethnostate, though unofficially. Once we started letting in an abundance of nonwhites and afforded them even the smallest amount of political power, our country started going down the toilet.

So yes, an American constitutional republic would work perfectly in a white ethnostate. Since the American republic has become more corrupt and worsened with the amount of non-European whites in the country, surely having European whites alone would begin to solve problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<only 600 dollars>

shavager #conspiracy breitbart.com

[when questioned about how his assertion that 95% of countries in the world are communist countries can be true when only 5 of them are]

What an idiotic statement, the world is dominated by communist countries regardless if you consider them socialist or not--they are communist. COMMUNISM is government OWNED and controlled even if the business actually has a 'real' owner--it is totally controlled by the state. Socialism is communism but allows private individuals to OWN those businesses even as they are still controlled by the 'state'--or national government as in Russia. ALL of the far east countries are dominated by socialism in one form or the other, European countries are socialist by their own social policies, muslim countries are religious dictatorships aka socialist, Sweden in a socialist country, Canada is a socialist country, as is for most part, the U.K. America has spent the last 100 years morphing into a socialist country under an ever growing federal bureaucracy and control. 100 years ago, the U.S. was a very successful nation WITHOUT INCOME TAXES and other huge bureaucratic programs instituted by progressives, specifically in the DemocRAT party with help from many GOP big government, big spending Republicans in Name Only RINO's. The original Social Security program was a RETIREMENT program instituted by DC, that was changed to a TAX by the DemocRAT controlled Congress and president LBJ--for all that huge amount of money invested in it. And Obama's "MYRA" retirement program he just announced at state of the union speech? The FIRST STEP in Washington DC government TAKING OVER 401K retirement accounts and pension plans. There's an estimated $5 TRILLION in money sitting in private plans and retirements that the FEDS will soon be after--promoting the "MYRA" program is first step to moving Americans into this government controlled retirement program that will eventually give them ACCESS TO YOUR MONEY--and YOU will get an IOU--just like the Social Security program where people living off SS payments are receiving monies earned by working Americans NOW, NOT from any money they invested years back--that money is GONE, long spent by DC. That's the FUTURE of the "MYRA" retirement program, institute it first, then require ALL Americans to invest in it. Private plans will be eliminated just as private insurance companies will be in next 10 years under Obamacare.

Bellatrix #racist stormfront.org

I kind of have mixed feelings about it. I think it depends on the scale and the intent. Large, permanent colonies -- not such a good idea. That forces a place like Hungary to sacrifice their national entity, and that's not fair. Taken to an extreme, they would cease to exist.

On the other hand, a handful of western European countries are in a crisis and the nationalists in those countries can't seem to make any headway. You either have to change the system from within (staying home) or change it from the outside, and maybe they could achieve something by temporarily going elsewhere? I don't know. Maybe if nationalists leave, that would have the opposite effect of completely handing those countries over to anti-whites. A collapse would eventually follow but once you hand it over, you can't necessarily get the country back. Would the children of these expats even have, say, British citizenship from their parents? Leaving with no legal means for descendants to return down the line is a dreadful thought. And of course the long-term objective should be to get these lands back again to their rightful indigenous owners.

Then there's the danger of assimilation. If children aren't surrounded by a majority of white peers, they are going to race mix. You bet. Unless we come up with something amazing that prevents it. So for those white families who stay in the mire, it's almost certain death by assimilation. Which is of course what our enemies intend. Stay and fight is great, but what does that actually mean? And is it actually working? At what point do we know if it's ever going to work? The ideal situation is a nationalist movement takes hold in western Europe that overthrows current governments. But there's still a massive demographic problem to contend with, even if they were able to pull off that feat.

Really, it's probably not for those in the Western Hemisphere to prescribe what they should do. It's a very different situation in North America because the countries are so large but the cultures are so similar. I moved from a city that was about 50% white to one that is around 90% white, in a different country. I couldn't imagine living long-term in my former city, not to mention raising children there. Yet despite crossing a border, the white culture didn't change because the white nationalities are more or less the same. So nobody is really losing except for my former city maybe, where the whites are pretty happy with race mixing and don't seem to want to be saved anyway.

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. '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.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

Demerzel #fundie forum.gateworld.net

Every time I try to convince myself that torture is wrong, I remember the first scene in the first episode of season 7 of 24. Bauer is accused of torturing a terrorist for information. He admits that torture is wrong and illegal, but points out that said terrorist had targeted a bus with like 40 people and 12 children. So torturing that guy saved the lives of all those people.

Would you honestly prefer to see the terrorist, a guy that attacked your country and innocent citizens, unharmed, and see 50 people die, rather than inflicting him a little pain to make him admit the truth, so you can save innocent lives?

I think some things are wrong but yet may become necessary sometimes. Killing is wrong. Yet we do it in self-defense, or to protect others.

It's a weird world we live in. The SAD section of the CIA is authorized, by law, to assassinate people if needed to protect the country. So, ending someone's life is alright. But inflicting pain on them to try to get information is something that would go "against all this country stands for". Would be better if we simply killed him and didn't try to get intel out of him, then other people will also die. But hey, at least we can feel good about ourselves and our high moral standards, since we didn't torture anyone. Let's not interrogate terrorists anymore, let's just kill them. I mean, their numbers are bound to run out sometimes, right? Right? Oh wait.

We're talking about the country that dropped a nuclear bomb on a town filled with civilians and keeps putting its nose where it doesn't belong.

Torture is immoral. So is killing. Both are unfortunately necessary evils and are sometimes required to save lives. While people are busy being morally right, people die. Simple as that

[ Demerzel,Because it's a natural progression. If this is all about the ends justifying the means then perhaps the Terrorist will resist torture of their person. Thus, the next step is to torture people they care about, people who are innocent of any wrong doing and just happen to have a ******* for a mother or father.
To be clear, are you saying torturing the child of the terrorist (the child who has nothing to do with their mother or father's activities) is justified?
]

this is a difficult question. Personally, I don't think I would be able to do that unless, let's say, I knew that the lives of my family were threatened. That would be a direct enough threat to make me do about anything. Would it be "justified" to torture a child? I think it's wrong. But I also believe that our enemies don't follow any laws and don't care about the lives they take, and if we follow the laws to the letter while fighting them, we're going to lose. That's why the SAD exists, that's why we don't only fight enemies on the battlefield. President Reagan knew that some situations would come up that required soldiers to cross a line for the greater good.

I'm going to stop posting here, because the truth is that we can keep talking about this but none of us can know how it feels to be in such a situation, or what we'd do if such a situation presented itself. Presented with the chance to save many people at the price of one life, no matter be it adult or a child, I would do whatever is needed to save the most lives. That's my bottom line.

[ Becoming a monster to stop a monster will never, ever, make sense to me. In essence, you lost the 'war' before you've even started if you 'fight' that way. ]

it's interesting to see that killing people is fine, but hurting them makes you a monster.
Why the heck should we respect them and be nice to them?
I'd have an easier time living with torturing someone, than letting a lot of people die without trying to prevent it. When was the last time a terrorist nicely offered information when asked without being threatened?
Snd please, we can agree that torture doesn't always provide the right information, but it does work sometimes.

[ But is sometimes really worth the psychological, life long damage you are going to leave the victim with on the off chance of them having information which may, or may not save them?

TV Show or real life, no situation is acceptable. Except on TV or in Movies they know they have the bad guy and we are - at times - positioned to follow the hero torturing... except, I'm still unsure how that makes the act acceptable. ]

So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.
So let's say a terrorist has planted a bomb in a bus full of people. He doesn't care that they will all die, even children, since he does this to make a point and attack the country. So you'd sleep good that night, if you didn't torture him. Now ask yourself how the families of those murdered by the terrorist you protected, are sleeping that night.

You'd care about leaving a murderer and terrorist with psychological damage, while innocent people are dying? Why the heck shouldn't we at least try to make him talk? You respect a murderer and terrorist more than innocent lives? Good people die when the people in authority choose inaction and morals over what needs to be done.

[ LMAO, no you don't. You assume they have the information you want, and if you are torturing an innocent person and they lie to you to get you to stop how does that save lives?

The simple answer is; it does not. ]

It doesnt. Risk of hurting some innocents wont stop me from doing something that could save lives in the future.

It's a shame I can't give you rep more often. I completely agree.

"Never let morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

LisaAnn #fundie rr-bb.com

I was talking with my Mom today and telling her about the EU, Solana ect. and she totally stumped me with this question 'What exactly is the EU?' At first I was like [scratching head smiley]. I told her that I thought they were the European countries beginning to come together as one 'super country'. That their goal was to eventually unify the entire world as one under the AntiChrist. Was this the right answer essentially or am I way off base. They are also anti-America too right? Or is it anti-democracy.

unknown hotel staffers #racist supchina.com

‘Not Allowed To Receive African Guests’: Discrimination At Guangzhou Hotels

Juliet Hatanga arrived at the Tokai Hotel ???? in Guangzhou’s Xiaobei ?? neighborhood at around 5 p.m. on July 20. The Ugandan national had traveled to the city from neighboring Foshan and was planning to spend “four or five” nights at the hotel, according to a Ugandan community leader in Guangzhou, who asked to remain anonymous.

Unfortunately, when trying to check in at the hotel, Hatanga was informed by staff at the front desk that Ugandan nationals were no longer allowed to stay in the area’s hotels.

Hatanga — who works as a principal magistrate in her home country — contacted staff at the Uganda Consulate General in Guangzhou, who in turn put her in touch with locally based Ugandan community leaders.

“I picked her up and took her to Starbucks for a coffee and told her to calm down,” one Ugandan community leader, who asked to remain anonymous, told me. “I then called the consul general [of Uganda] and I briefed him on what was happening.”

Hatanga was eventually able to check in to a hotel in Tianhe ??, a Guangzhou district located roughly 10 minutes from Xiaobei.

The rejection of Hatanga’s reservation is being linked by Ugandan community leaders to notices that were posted at numerous hotels and serviced apartments in Yuexiu District ??? in early July. The notifications, while all worded differently, stated that the hotels were not allowed to receive guests from African countries, usually accompanied by apologies “for the inconvenience.”

image

One notice, posted by Waifiden Apartments ??????? and dated July 6, states the building “will not receive foreign guests from all African countries,” as seen in the image below.

image

A receptionist at the Tokai Hotel, when visited by reporters on July 29, said that guests from Nigeria and Uganda had been turned away in previous weeks at the request of the police. The hotel staffer assured us that the ban on African guests had been lifted and that “everything is back to normal.”

This, at least, seemed true enough. I visited several other hotels in the area, including Zhong Hai Hotel ???? on Huanshi Zhong Lu ???? and Donfranc Hotel ????? on Luhu Gongyuan ????, and all were now accepting African guests.

But who had ordered the posting of the original notices?

Authorities at the Yuexiu Public Security Bureau told us that no warnings were issued to hotels in the district in regards to African guests. They continued to state that any actions taken against citizens of African nations by Yuexiu hotels were done without the involvement of the bureau.

According to Uganda’s Sunday Monitor newspaper, the situation in Guangzhou has worsened for Ugandans due to “many suspects involved in crime, especially drug trafficking, being found to be holding Ugandan passports.” (The story goes on to state that many foreigners arrested carrying a Ugandan passport are actually Nigerian citizens.)

The Monitor report also claims that many restaurants specializing in African cuisine have been forced to cease operations at the behest of Chinese authorities.

In response to the reports, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Uganda issued a statement denying that hotels were instructed by authorities to reject Ugandans and Nigerians, according to Uganda’s New Vision newspaper.

“The situation that some Africans including Ugandans were refused to check into budget hotels in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China was purely resulted from the self-made decisions of isolated hotels,” reads the statement, as published by New Vision on July 28. “Local government has instructed the involved hotels to stop the improper practices immediately and gave grave criticisms and education to these hotels. At present, there is no hotel in Guangzhou which refuses to accommodate Africans.”

The release goes on to note that officials with the Guangdong government met with the consul generals of both Uganda and Nigeria and that steps have been taken to ensure similar problems do not occur in the future.

When contacted for comment, a staffer at the Uganda Consulate General in Guangzhou said that no one was available to speak on the issue and directed us to the statement issued by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Uganda. Staff at the Consulate General of Nigeria in Guangzhou denied any knowledge of Nigerian citizens being denied accommodation in Guangzhou.

Xiaobei is an area in Guangzhou’s Yuexiu District that is often referred to as “Little Africa” due to the large number of African expats, traders, and travelers that live and work in the neighborhood.

According to statistics released in January by the city’s police bureau, Guangzhou is home to 15,000 Africans — a 25 percent drop from 2009. Many believe this number to be on the low side, though, as it fails to include illegal immigrants and those who overstay their visa, according to Xinhua.

DoctorDoom #conspiracy libertydwells.com

For the sake of argument, let's dispense with the liberal "birthers" bullshit. There are millions of aware, troubled Americans who are NOT willing to suck the "historic" Marxist's dick because of his skin color and ignore the very real question of his constitutional eligibility for the office of POTUS. Insultingly dismissing concerned, politically savvy citizens with a mindless buzzword is what liberals do. It's akin to calling critics of Gorebull Warming "deniers". Never mind the arguments. Just defame them.

[...]

If [Obama] is proven to be ineligible, it's not a matter of, "Will it happen?" By definition, a bill that has been signed into law by a person who is not qualified to sign it has not been enacted. It is not a law, no matter how much one wants it to be so. Ignoring that reality would change nothing, and it would signal the collapse of the US legislative system.

A world-shaking constitutional crisis would result from Obastard being proven to have been unqualified for office. For one thing, America would have been without a president since January 20, 2009, in violation of Article II of the Constitution. As such, nothing involving the POTUS performing an executive action was valid, by definition. If a person is not legitimately the President of the United States, the person could not have acted in that capacity.

It matters not one phucking iota that the result of that revelation would be devastating. One cannot escape the consequences by pretending that the causes did not happen or are irrelevant. To say, "Well, it's done and we can't change it, so we must live with it," is intolerable and more disastrous to America than the ineligibility of the president for the office. Elections and reelections don't alter reality. If the person in that office is not there legally, he is not the POTUS, period, no matter what tens of millions of deceived voters thought.

It behooves America to get the cold, hard facts. All of the credible evidence points to Obastard not being a natural-born US citizen. What do deliberately forged birth certificates say? What does a faked SS number say? What do millions of dollars spent burying every trace of his past say?

"Barrack has led by example, when we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." What does that unjoking admission by Moochelle during a June 2008 campaign speech say?

This country MUST know the truth. It wouldn't be "nice" to know. It is mandatory to know. Even if he had been out of office for a decade when the facts were proven, the consequences would be no less horrific. Everything he did in his eight years of illegal occupancy of the People's House would be nullified. And the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I for one would be relieved if that asshole DID prove his legitimacy. Then he could be opposed strictly on his record. However, anyone who isn't lip-locked on his phallus knows that he and his lackeys have gone out of their way to avoid answering the question of his eligibility. What the phuck is he hiding?

Clueless appeasers trying to bury the issue with chants of "birthers" are doing no one any favors.

Tom Shackleford #racist identitydixie.com

[From "Belgians in the Congo"]

We’re not the only ones getting our history defaced and then destroyed. This pre-genocide process recently claimed a statue of Belgian King Leopold II, which after being vandalized, was removed by the government because he did racisms in the Congo. The government then issued a groveling apology to the Congolese President and announced a “formal investigation” into their colonial racism activities.

I spent a decade abroad, although I’ve only been to Africa once. I firmly intend to never do that again. I actually had an offer a few years back that would’ve involved relocating to Lagos, Nigeria. It was explained to me that expat professionals could live pretty well since the cost of domestic help was so low. I envisioned myself getting dismembered by an angry mob and immediately declined.

There was a church I went to where I was basically the only white guy and everyone else was an imported Filipino factory worker. The priest was from the Congo. Although everyone was speaking English, they were basically mutually unintelligible. It was pretty funny actually.

The Congolese priest was quite an amiable fellow. Sometimes, we would drink with each other in the evenings. He had some rather interesting stories. The gist of his take on his homeland was that Congolese generally aren’t up to very much, but if they get agitated, then well yeah, there’s going to be some rapine cannibalism. It was a fact of life kinda thing for him and he didn’t seem terribly worked up over it.

In another place, I had some associates from Malawi and Burkina Faso. This was quite a hot location, and in that sort of weather I prefer drinking vodka tonics. When I offered them one, a look of shock came across their faces. According to them, Africans who ingest vodka in hot weather put themselves at risk of spontaneous combustion. They figured this was self-evident science that I should’ve known since there were black people in my country.

One thing I’ve never heard from the Africans I knew was that their continent would be Wakanda if whitey hadn’t screwed the place up. This was long before that Black Panther movie came out, so maybe their opinions have changed. However, I doubt it because they were always clear on causality.

Even though they were from different countries they had rather consistent opinions on most things. A big one was that the people of their countries weren’t exactly industrious or well organized. They also shared an amazement at the sheer amount of free stuff that black people get in America. They pointed out that folks in their country do nothing and have nothing, but you can also do nothing in America and live like a king compared to Africans who don’t even have running water.

NS ACUMEN OF THE OLD GUARD #racist nsacumenoftheoldguard.blogspot.com

A National Socialist Thought About Memorial Day!

No White veteran deserves abuse; not for WWII, Vietnam or any other conflict. I direct my fury to the sellout politicans who start such conflicts, not the average Joes who unwittingly go out and do the dirty work that harms our nation and our race.

However, the main reason why I honor White veterans is that it was a shame that they were brainwashed to die for such a cause. Had the thousands that died on D-Day known that one day their country would actively participate in their own extermination and the destruction of their country, they would have marched right on to Washington D.C.and booted Franklin Roosevelt out.

THE FUTURE

For all their sacrifice to freedom, America has been willing to suck up the precious lives of White veterans, tricking them through false duty and hollow patriotism and then spit out their bones. America has allowed non-White aliens to ridicule and defame White veterans and their ancestors in our hijacked national media, and America has turned a cold shoulder to their plight.

These are White Americans. They are the stock of our people. They deserve better. These White serviceman came back from Iraq, where they do not belong to find themselves in another war zone, in a neglected and primitive nation.

While America gives billions of dollars to schizophrenic, paranoid, murderous Zionist Jews, our own people struggle by every day under the blind yoke of deceptive patriotism, made gullible by our own hijacked institutions, and sent out to slaughter and be slaughtered.

We, and they, deserve better than to be treated like brainwashed livestock bred for battle.

The American Nazi Party reaches out to all White soldiers and White veterans to join ranks and have their voices and concerns heard. Join today!

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch #fundie wnd.com

On the first day the new president – in a year’s time, after his swearing in – would do the three things he promised he would do immediately: end ALL of Obama’s executive orders, stop Obamacare and institute Health Savings Accounts, and cut the head off of the snake called ISIS. In other words, from Day 1 we would have an acting president, again. His concrete plan to defeat, not just contain, the caliphate in Syria would be unleashed in a reign of power coordinated with many other willing partners. It will be called Operation Roaring Lion (borrowed from Hosea 11:10), and its objective will be a quick (one month) end to that plague.

Day 2 would see the complete emasculation of all the costly and nonsensical laws and regulations that impale Americans and their business opportunities. The day would also see a drop in the corporate tax rate to the lowest level in decades. Trump would then stop corporate inversion and bring back over a trillion dollars of American investment from overseas to be invested in new jobs here. Late in the day he would put a shovel in the earth, breaking ground for the new wall on our border with Mexico, to be paid for by a tax on Mexican oil. The wall will be technologically impossible to penetrate. At bedtime he would change America’s broken visa immigration program.

Day 3 Trump would start by endorsing the Second Amendment and ending gun control. Then he would roll out a comprehensive plan to immediately rebuild America’s military. It will reflect the voice of the generals and admirals and reposition America for strength. Specifically, it will deliver the world’s most formidable fighting force on the land, in the air, and on the sea. It will also put China, Russia and North Korea on notice. All of America’s international trade deals will be up for renegotiation, and burden-sharing will be effected with costs born by those countries we defend. The Iran deal would be rewritten in our interest, and Gitmo would be reopened.

On Day 4 Trump would announce the Keystone pipeline and American energy self-sufficiency. He would change the U.S. tax code and implement his tax reform plan. It would lower taxes for everyone and especially the needy and middle class. As a flatter tax, it would also end all the expensive gimmickry called tax planning and evasion. There would no deductions (except mortgages) and no loopholes. The corporate lobbyists would be out of a job. No one will need lawyers and accountants to do taxes any longer. The estate tax would also be repealed, at midnight.

Day 5 President Trump would announce a balanced budget and enact the line item veto. He will meet with the speaker of the House to say “we won’t do business the same old way.” All spending will progress in Congress as separate authorization bills, and there will be a firm cap on the debt ceiling. He will also announce a pledge, called “The George Washington Pledge,” whereby every House member and senator will sign a contract not to run for more than two terms. Like our founding president, this will return America to a republic without an entrenched “political class” and will allow those in public elected service to literally return to their own Mount Vernons to pursue private lives, rather than decamp in the nation’s capital for a lifetime. Anyone who refuses to sign it will be hounded out of office. And Trump will also announce that no elected or civil servant can ever lobby the government after leaving office – full stop. It would be made retroactive.

Day 6 will see the end of both the Department of Education and its Common Core, and the curtailment of the EPA. All funding for education will be reallocated to the states. This decentralization and empowerment of people, where they live, will be a continuing theme of Trump’s administration as an act of subsidiarity. Private education will be funded at the same level as public education, and parents will be given the freedom of choice.

The country will be turned around in six days.

On the seventh day, as in the biblical Genesis story, after Trump bans late term abortion and defunds Planned Parenthood, the president and the nation will rest. The president will encourage all Americans, as is our tradition, to give thanks to God, ask for forgiveness, be generous and attend the religious institution (or none) of their choosing. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done (Genesis 2:3).

America will be Great, again!

Eurocanadian #fundie eurocanadian.ca

Uniqueness

Half of my book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, is about discrediting the multicultural claim that, as late as the mid 1700s, the West was no more advanced than the major civilizations of Asia, or China in particular, and that only a set of fortuitous circumstances gave the West a chance to industrialize first. The West did not "stumble" accidentally into the New World, I argued, and it was not "easy access" to the resources of the Americas, enslavement of blacks, or availability of cheap coal in Britain, that made possible Britain's take-off.

Columbus voyages were one among many other European explorations, starting with the organized expeditions of the Portuguese around Africa into the Indian Ocean in the 1400s. During the 1500s and 1600s, thousands of Europeans set about discovering and mapping the whole world for the first time in human history. While the acquisition of resources from the Americas, and the colonial trade did affect the timing, magnitude, and rate of industrial growth, this revolution occurred first in Britain because of this nation's freer markets, property rights, superior applications of modern science to industry, representative institutions, and a dynamic middle classes imbued with a Protestant ethic. Many other European nations, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Nordic countries, would soon industrialize in the 1800s, with next to no colonies. Overall the home market and the intra-European trade were far more significant than the colonial trade.

What I did new in Uniqueness was to argue that the rise of the West can't be reduced to the industrial revolution and even the preceding Galilean-Newtonian revolution. The West has always stood apart from the Rest as a singularly different civilization since prehistoric times. The history of the West is filled with continuous "births," "origins," "creations," "transitions," "renaissances," and "revolutions". We can start with ancient Greece and the "world's first scientific thought," the "invention of deductive reasoning," the "birth of citizenship politics," the "emergence of historical consciousness" and "the discovery of the mind". But then we have to explain what made Greece so different. The current, widely accepted explanation for Greek uniqueness, is question-begging. It says that the Greeks developed a unique institution, the polis, or city state, which encouraged individualism and reasoned discourse. Rather than having to submit to a priestly or government hierarchy, the citizens of these city-states were free to participate in the affairs of their city as well as enjoy a cultural atmosphere which encouraged individuals to contest for excellence.

But why the emergence of the polis and the higher individualism of the Greeks in the first place? Some have pointed to the geographical distinctiveness of Greece, its mountainous ecology, which compartmentalised the land into separate valleys, and encouraged the rise of small independent city-states. The geographic uniqueness of Europe generally is always part of the explanation. There is no question that the greater environmental diversity of Europe, its multiple rivers and links to a wider variety of seas, coupled with the fact that its mountains, plains, and valleys are all "of limited extent," and that no great river or plain dominates the ecology, and that farmers can rely on rainfall rather than on centrally controlled irrigation systems based on one large river, encouraged less centralized political authorities.

But rather than viewing geography as the active historical agent, the way Jared Diamond and others do, I drew on Hegel to emphasize the deep effect this environment had on the "type and character" of European peoples. The peoples of the world belong to the same species, but their state of being — their mental vision, temperament, and character — is deeply influenced by their place of habitation in the earth. I also went back in time to the prehistorical Indo-Europeans to argue that before the polis in Greece was established around the eight century BC, there were already aristocratic characters unwilling to submit to despotic rule. The Mycenaean civilization (1900-1200 BC) was uniquely aristocratic in the sense that "some men," not just the king, were free to deliberate over major issues affecting the group, as well as free to strive for personal recognition. The material origins of this aristocratic individualist ethos are to be found in the unique pastoral lifestyle of the Indo-Europeans who evolved out of the geographical area known as the "Pontic steppes". They were the riders of horses, the inventors of chariots and co-inventors of wheeled wagons, as well as the most efficient users of the "secondary products" of domestic animals (dairy products, textiles, harnessing), which gave them a more robust physical anthropology and the most dynamic way of life in their time.

I used the philosophical insights of four German thinkers, Spengler, Weber, Hegel, and Nietzsche — their writings about the "infinite drive," "the irresistible trust" of the Occident, the "energetic, imperativistic, and dynamic soul of the West," the "rational restlessness" of Europeans, the "powerful physicality [of aristocrats]...effervescent good health... [love of] adventure, hunting, dancing, jousting and everything that contains strong, free, happy action" — to argue that only European man has exhibited an intense desire to subject the world to its own ends, and that it is mainly this self who has been unable to feel "at home" in the world until it got rid "of the semblance of being burdened with something alien" (Hegel's words).

Why has the European mind shown less reluctance to accept "the ineffable mystery of the world"? Why have Europeans been less willing to accept a social order based on laws and norms which have not been subjected to free reflection? Drawing on Kojeve I argued the ultimate origins of Western uniqueness are to be found in the reality that only Western man became "truly" self-conscious because only this man created — in the environment of the Pontic steppes — a society in which the struggle to become a man involved a contest "for something that does not exist really," that is, a contest solely for the sake of being recognized by another human being as a man exhibiting aristocratic excellence against the biological fear of death and against the fear of rebelling against the norms mandated by mysterious/despotic gods and rulers.

In all cultures men have struggled for manhood and recognition by other men but only among the aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans do we find an incessant contest to validate one's aristocratic status among one's peers, for these nomadic, horse-riding warriors were not subservient to any ruler but were possessed by an attitude of "being-for-self" or self-assertiveness (rather than an attitude of "being-for-another" or deference towards a fearful god or despotic ruler). This contest had a profound effect on the constitution of the human personality, leading to the discovery of a unified self. This discovery was not, in the first instance, an intellectual affair, as bookish academics prefer to think; it was an intensively passionate drive for masculine identity in the pursuit of the highest form of recognition, aristocratic status, for the sake of the highest ideals, honor, courage, immortal glory.

Bay Area Guy #racist occidentinvicta.com

For years, I have extensively discussed race, diversity, and immigration. However, this is my first time writing about whites in South Africa (or any part of Africa), who are increasingly beleaguered. On account of government proposals to confiscate white-owned land and redistribute the seized land to black South Africans, various white nationalists have rallied behind their white African brothers. Many even assert that white South Africans face an impending genocide.

To be blunt, while I remain a reasonably tribal white person who’s concerned about my people, I don’t really care too much about white South Africans. For starters, I’m primarily focused on the well-being of white people in North America (where I reside) and Europe (my ancestral homelands). Also, given what I’ve written about immigration, landlordism, and economic rent, it’s hard to feel an abundance of sympathy for Afrikaners. While I can relate to white South Africans under siege, I also empathize with blacks who claim that whites are living off of ill-gotten land rent.

Of course, many would point out that white Americans also settled and conquered their way to prosperity. Afrikaners might even claim that the only difference between them and white Americans is that the former didn’t exterminate or ethnically cleanse the native populations, which is why they remain a minority. So who are we to judge?

Just to clarify, I’m not judging; I’m only being consistent. If we refuse to shed tears over the struggles of non-whites who choose to reside in white countries, then we can’t hypocritically champion white South Africans who carved out territory in black Africa. Likewise, if whites in the US, Canada, and Australia foolishly allow themselves to become politically powerless and hated minorities, then they won’t deserve much sympathy either. The world is a mean and tribal place, and if groups relinquish power in lands they previously settled and conquered, nobody will save them from themselves.

Fortunately, I think there’s a pragmatic and humane solution that could benefit everyone. If white South Africans’ situation is indeed as dire as white nationalists contend, then they might be rendered refugees. In that case, they should flee to their ancestral homelands in Europe, or perhaps other majority white countries These nations would receive a demographic boost, along with relatively educated and skilled workers. In turn, African refugees who’ve flocked to Europe can take the Afrikaners’ place down south. Since conventional wisdom dictates that immigration is an unalloyed good, South Africa would benefit from more workers and cultural enrichment – along with ridding themselves of the white problem. Never mind that there’s already been immigration from Zimbabwe and other African countries, and that this influx has engendered friction and violence. Black South Africans just need to appreciate diversity’s wonders!

Okay, sarcasm aside, I recognize that this is an unrealistic scenario. I also realize that the process would be painful and messy. Nevertheless, should the day come when white South Africans are compelled to flee, this proposal will remain on the table.

Nipplehappy #fundie reddit.com

Transgenderism, gay parades on the street where homosexuals have sex with each other in front of little children, rampant consumerism, rampant individualism, rampant liberalism, hedonism, nihilism, almost drinking yourself to death every weekend at a nightclub, disrespect to family and elders, women not looking like women anymore and men not looking like men anymore is "moral superiority" for them. If you don't follow their moral superiority your country will be invaded and go through a few "cultural changes" of course, because of "democracy" and "freedom".
Just go through places like r/Europe, you see constant whining about other countries and always a call to "intervene" because of "inhumanism" and "human rights" or some shit. Their superiority complex is so imbedded into them that they automatically want to police and control other countries when they don't do things they like and don't succumb to western degeneracy. Every non-western country needs to have an aggressive foreign policy and extreme militarism, or they will turn out like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.
Every westerner who is in a different country complains that there aren't enough LGBTQIADAPORECVNMZXSGFHJKL rights, that the country is too nationalistic, that the country is too militaristic, that the country is this and that. Nothing is good for them. If countries where Islam is dominant follow a more secular nationalist path it isn't good because nationalism and putting your nation above everything else is bad of course, and global liberalism has turned out waaaayyy better /s. If they follow an Islamist path it isn't good either. You HAVE to abide by their standards and succumb to their degeneracy, it's only good when your country turns into a globalistic degenerate liberal country. That's the only good thing.
America alone has intervened in more than 50 countries after WW2. If you really want to oppose westerners it means being fully independent, financially, juridically, economically, and the most important : culturally. Western imperialism has been one of the biggest cancers on this world. Especially America needs to burn for their actions. Nothing is more satisfying and nothing pisses them off more than a strong independent country who doesn't take their shit and bossing around and stands against them. I am not a communist but this is why I like actually like countries like Cuba, and to an extent even North Korea, only because of their anti-imperialism. Seeing Duterte call Obama a bitch and not succumbing to their hypocrisy when it comes to drugs is also extremely satisfying. Imagine if countries like Iran listened to western hypocrisy when it comes to drugs. If you truly want to oppose them you have to oppose their imperialism first. What third world countries need to do is work together and unite against them.

universallyabhorred #sexist reddit.com

An Incel's Fantasy

Disclaimer I do not condone the violence or sexual abuse of women nor do I advocate trafficking irl, this is merely fantasy.

Imagine if all those females that are trafficked every year from third world countries were sold to us incels. Since they would have entered the western country illegally they would have no rights and no record of them in the country would exist. While that sounds rather negative, an incel in a western country could actually provide a better standard of living for them including 3 square meals a day, clothing, shelter and entertainment, in return for them doing a few household chores such as cooking and cleaning along with providing sexual pleasure. The incel could also discipline the female as necessary to ensure she does not escape and fulfills her duties thoroughly. Over time the female would fall in love with the incel because he provides and cares for her despite her not being sexually attracted to him like she is to chad. While this might be illegal, it is not much different than traditional marriage and the reality is both parties benefit from it. In the end both the female and the incel will be content and thrilled with this situation, as the female's dream of a better life was fulfilled while the incel's dream of having a chaste and traditional female companion is also fulfilled.

Uglyman #sexist incels.co

If I had had had sex at least once with a woman from my country then I would have some confidence and I would enroll to a post graduate in my country. Not being a virgin would motivate me to try and find another girl.

But since I'm a disgraced virgin, I'm too embarassed to stay in my country and do a post graduate here. I will be nothing but a loser, a ghost, women won't give fuck for a subhuman incel. This fact was what led me to choose a postgraduate in a foreign country. The shame will be much less since I will be in a completely different society. Stranger among strangers.

It costs a shit load of money to study abroad but I didn't have another choice if I wanted to maintain my NEET lifestyle. Even my parents have accpeted that women from my ethnic group will never like me so they encouraged me to leave the country. So I basically, just gave up. There was no point staying home as a sub 6 asocial male, there was nothing left for me here.

Dave Daubenmire #fundie #pratt newswithviews.com


I’ve about had it up to my once water-breathing gills with this whole whitey hates blackie thing. Coming on the heels of a made-up pandemic the idea that the greatest evil facing America is racism is more than my once-monkey evolved brain can handle.

“Minds full of mush” is what Rush Limbaugh once called them; Human brains that will believe just about anything that some expert feeds them. “Please don’t feed the humans” should be the warning label on every TV in America.

Even though I would love to talk about the phony charges of racism that are spewed 24/7 on America’s airwaves I have decided to take a different tack and discuss another means of discrimination that very few people are willing to talk about. In fact, the thoughts my hunt-and-peck digits are tapping out may cover an area of thought that no one has ever programmed you with.

I am referring to the very common form of discrimination known as FAITHISM.

“I’ve never heard of that before” your CNN wired cerebral cortex may be beeping. “What the heck is faithism? Anderson Cooper has never mentioned that before, and if I haven’t heard of it from one of their expert guests so it certainly can’t be real.”

Well, racism isn’t real either. It is a made up word. It was a condition created by the CIA in the early 1930’s and was designed to be used to divide and conquer the American people. I won’t go into details about it in this rant, but as the carnival barker would likely say “read all about it.” RACISM IS MADE UP. Check out THIS LINK if you really want to know the truth.

Save me the emails. Racism is made up. It only exists in our minds…planted there by nefarious forces intent on destroying America. I’m sorry if Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Juan Williams have hustled your mind into believing it. There is only one race…human. Period. Skin color is not a race.

So I decided to coin a phrase that is just as prevalent and just as destructive to America and that is Faithism. Never heard of it, huh? Well, stick around and maybe we can get another group of Americans all riled up.

Faith is defined by Mr. Webster as “Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.”

Nearly everything you and I believe is based on faith. Any story you read about an historical figure is faith-based because you have no firsthand knowledge of the veracity of the information. I BELIEVE George Washington existed, but I can’t actually prove it. I have to trust that the historical record is true. In all of my life’s work I have never heard anyone tell me that they didn’t “believe” in George Washington. Most of us simply trust the history books.

The same holds true for Darwinism. I never met the guy, but from what I understand he wrote a book about “The Origin of Species” and even though I am familiar with it I have never met anyone who can prove he wrote it or that the information he presents in it is true. I simply take it on faith that he existed and that his theories are true.

By the way…a theory is a theory because there is no proof. Darwin’s theory is actually FAITH based because there were no eye-witnesses to verify what he postulates. Darwin’s theory has less scientific PROOF than the THEORY expounded upon in the book of Genesis. Both theories are lacking PROOF and can only be believed through FAITH.

FAITHISM is nothing more than the discrimination of one belief system over another based solely on the opinion of the one promoting the theory. Zoo keepers often have faith in Darwin and his acolytes while most Christians have faith in God and his evangelists.

A fair evaluation of the origin of man would certainly contain BOTH unproven theories. To choose one set of theories over another would be the ultimate discrimination. Despite what you have been taught in government schools, discrimination is a good thing. To discriminate is defined as “the act of making or observing a difference.” It has nothing to do with the buzz word “racism.”

But the nub of the issue is that both sides are not presented. “Science” always trumps “faith” when dealing in the secular world. “Religious” beliefs are always pooh poohed in favor of “science” even though much of what we believe about science is based completely on faith.

Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Even racism is built upon a BELIEF and not a fact.

FAITHISM would be defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different worldview based on the belief that one’s own belief system is superior.”

Faithism is rampant in our society. Those in authority do not allow both systems of BELIEFS to be treated fairly. The theory of Darwin is presented freely and openly to America’s public school children while the theory of Creationism is forced to the back of the bus. Faithism is everywhere you look and there has been nothing as destructive to our American society as the second class treatment afforded Americans who put their faith in the God rather than in Darwin.

“People of faith” are the most discriminated against citizens in this country. Most of our problems would go away if we simply taught ALL children the 10 Commandments of God.

Our schools teach our children that they evolved from apes and we are shocked when they begin to act like monkeys. Amoral education leads to immoral behavior. Christian beliefs are given second class treatment in this nation.

America’s Christian history is being rewritten. Statues are being torn down. Faithism is worse than racism. Content of character is more important than skin color.

Harry #fundie talkorigins.org

IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST

1)I would convince people that order came from disorder and chaos. 2) I would convince people that intelligence came from non-intelligence. 3) I would persuade minds to believe that living things can spring from dead matter.(The opposite of the law of biogenesis) 4) I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba. 5) I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death. Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth. 6) I would convince man that the intricate design of the universe had no designer, it was all an accident. 7) I would convince man that dolphins at one time had legs and climbed trees and then evolved into men. 8) I would convince man that the very first thing that ever came into existence, came into existence out of nothing. 9) I would convince man that the laws of nature( gravity, biogenesis, aerodynamics etc.) did not need a law giver. These laws came into being accidently from non-intelligence. 10) I would tell man that if the moon was not in the exact place it is in, the earth would be covered by water, and that the moon is where it is by accidental happenstance and good fortune.

LAST OF ALL IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST, I WOULD PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES ARE ALL TRUE

der-himmelstern #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

I've seen many people putting journal entries together to denounce the horrible attacks committed by Jihadists
in the heart of Paris. These are terrible events but one thing that people don't seems to realize is that all of this
mess has been the result of our own governmental weakness and cowardice towards opposition.

I am not simply saying that our current governments are traitors because they let their own people die, when
they clearly knew who they were bringing in. No, I am clearly saying that our current traitor governments have
deliberately sponsored, armed and trained these extremist group in order to have an excuse and justify total war
against the middle-Eastern people. This is all part of the greater Israel project, a well known and documented
messianic plan to please the phantasms of a handful of psychopathic lobbyist Jews!

Let's look at this from a more distant point of view. False flag attacks have been used throughout history.

1) Some of the most renown examples are of course the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, organized and used as an
excuse to drag the neutral people of the U.S.A. into a war which they didn't want, during the first world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

2) Pearl Harbor, where the Jewish controlled government of the U.S.A. openly provoked and dishonored the
Japanese government by freezing their commercial assets, in violation of the international rights. They sponsored
Nationalist China, the enemy of Japan during the war. They basically did everything they could to force this
attack on Pearl Harbor. The day of the attack they literally let the Japanese execute their assault, claiming they
didn't know or thought it were American planes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-0gJMk1cU

3) There was also the Vietnam war which was instigated by Henry Kissinger, yet again a Jewish Zionist elitist psychopath.
He is also a great optimist of the concept of the "New World Order" The excuse was the incident of the Gulf of Tonkin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fJ58MXHZlA

4) The Lavon affair to blame terrorist attacks committed against American and British-owned civilian targets.
This was to justify a full out war against Egypt and permit Israel to grow it's stolen share of lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

5) Another time when the Jews try to blame Egypt was the famous "day Israel attacked America".
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html

6) Of course one of the biggest and most well know false flag attacks of them all is 9/11. I believe more than enough people
have proven this to be an inside job and there is very strong evidence that the Mossad, the Israeli secret services were
behind it. This is a rather good conference made by professionals, showing how strong the evidence is that the U.S.A. set
up this plot. This justified full out war against "terror" upon helpless countries who don't even know us namely, Afghanistan,
Irak, Libya, Lebanon, Syria today, Iran tomorrow and ultimately wipe out the whole of the middle-East in order for Israel to grow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Are the Charlie Hebdo attack and the new Paris attack any different? Do people truly believe that our governments didn't
know what kind of people they were bringing in? This is highly unlikely. As the below deviation shows, it was already known
that we were bringing in "terrorists", some of whom are soldiers from ISIS/Islamic state/Daech. Heaving these information,
our governments should have refused them the access of our lands and yet they did quiet the opposite. They tried their
best to make us feel guilty about a poor little Syrian child who drowned on some unknown shore.

If there is something that we have learned from these false flag attack is that our "democratic" governments will not hesitate
the least to send us all to the slaughter if we refuse to accept their planned wars. They will always use their media
propaganda to manipulate the people towards self-destruction and misery. On question must be asked; Who profits of this
crime? Is it Muslims who benefit from it? Is it the Aryan Europeans? Obviously claiming so is ridiculous. There is only one actor
on the scene who benefits from it, and that is Israel.

The greater Israel project has never been a secret. It was thought by the Zionists who find their roots in Theodor Herzl's
vision of a messianic promised land. They tried to get it by the Ottoman Empire before the first world war. They then made
a pact through the Rothschilds with England which became the Balfour declaration. This led inevitably to the second world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The Jewish Zionists obtained Palestine and started to commit ethnic cleansing against the native population. These Jews
knew that if they don't rapidly grow their country in size they would never be self-sufficient to continue to exist. That is why
they are pushing these war agenda's in Western countries but the problem is that they need a good excuse in order to ruin
our countries through war for their interests. Their tactic is very simple. Subordinate our Aryan European interest by their
own and the only way to do this is by provoking such "terrorist" atrocities upon us. Yesterday they promoted the idea that
multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicism were a great chance for us and today they promote the idea that these same people
who THEY brought over here are the biggest evil of all times? It looks like we are so seriously gullible and manipulable that
we change our minds to whatever new propaganda they throw at us.

...
Today I will be a prophet.
I claim that they first tried to manipulate public opinion with the Charlie Hebdo attack. These Jews saw it didn't work and
now they are simply trying harder and bigger. If this time also, we do not fall into this trap, then I openly prophetize that
there will be yet another, much bigger attack! They will continue until they get the sheep folk to obey their Zionist desires!

The Jewish media has started to make it's disgusting propaganda to brainwash the masses. They try to confuse ISIS terror
with the Palestinian defenses. Do you notice the sentences "Je suis Charlie", "Je suis Juif" ("I am Charlie", "I am Jewish") at
0:46? They are so obviously trying to manipulate us that it becomes insulting to us. They like to play the game where they
pretend to be the same as us when those same people are clearly the ones who brought this upon us! If these migrants are
terrorists then why have these Jews done everything they could to bring them to our lands?!
There is only on possible explanation.

There is only one clear solution that everybody is too afraid to speak of. We must overthrow these governments of traitors
who vow allegiance to a foreign nation, a foreign race, a foreign religion and who works against our own interests.
Then we need to send many of these migrants back from where they came even if they are born here, there is no excuse.
If we had been more self-conscious we would never had let any migrants in and we would not have to live this through.
One day this will have to be done otherwise this will mean the destruction of our people and with it, the destruction of our
civilization, culture and morals. Let's just not be fooled by a simple facade. We must act, yes! But we must not attack the
wrong enemy. Our true enemy isn't thousands of kilometers away in the middle-East! Our true enemy is within our midst.

Well be to you all,
Hail victory,

Der Himmelstern

bluetrinity #fundie christianforums.com

I would do exactly what I pleased all the time [if God didn't exist]. If I needed money, I would steal it from my shareholders or my bank. If I needed a woman, I would lie, cheat and steal to get one. And since I am fairly smart, I would probably get away with it. At least for a long time. And, if I get caught, I would lie and blame others, like the media, my parents or my ex-girlfriend. I would every moment of my life be concerned with myself and my own personal needs and desires. I mean why shouldn't I?

4evrHis #conspiracy rr-bb.com

I really don't care where he was born anymore. I just want them to address the issue about his Indonesian citizenship. IMHO I don't believe he is an American citizen. He wouldn't release his college records or medical records. Why ?Because his college records would prob. reveal he received foreign student financial aid. And his medical forms would probably reveal where he was born. Its all very sneaky!!!

Think About It #conspiracy thinkaboutit.online

The primary shooter was a Corsican hitman Lucien Sarti who shot JFK in the head from the grass knoll and he used a hollow point bullet and it blew JFK’s head apart. This is why the brain had to be lost. But Sarti was only one of 3 hit teams in Dealey Plaza, all consisting of foreign contract killers, who were connected to the Trafficante crime family, who were also deeply connected to the CIA, who in turn served the globalists.

There are witnesses, on tape, that confirm every preceding sentence. The hit was ordered by David Rockefeller.

After JFK’s death, everything changed (eg. nuclear arms race increased, the Vietnam War began in earnest, the Oil Depletion Allowance tax deduction was fully reinstated, JFK’s C-Notes were taken out of circulation and the NWO marched on and Rockefeller became even wealthier).

Why bring up the parallels to JFK when discussing this last false flag? I am already seeing a pattern where America is again stuck on the forensic evidence. I know the event is only moving into the 4th day at this point, but the “gaps” in the official narrative are there for all to see, at least those who have eyes that want to see.

Like many other black stains on our history:
texas chainsaw massacre
jim jones jonestown massacre
indian massacres in america
sand creek massacre
school shootings
port arthur massacre

The Las Vegas shooting will be among them.

Let’s look at the forensic evidence….

We are asked to believe the unbelievable. That this man, from the local town of Mesquite, had adjoining hotel rooms on the 32nd floor and over a period of several consecutive days, he stockpiled ammunition and at the latest count over 30 guns.

How did he conceal the guns from hotel security and most importantly from the maids who should have been servicing his rooms?

Would it be enough to “just put the do not disturb sign on the door?” That might work for one or two days, but several days? After several days wouldn’t the maids say something to their supervisor that the man in the two adjoining rooms is refusing maid service. Shouldn’t that have triggered hotel security?

And if the maids were in the rooms, where would the guns and ammunition been hidden? Remember, this is Vegas where security is trained to recognize and respond to threats because of the high stakes nature of the business.

We are asked to believe that an “out of shape and portly” 64-year-old man managed to expertly lay down highly effective automatic weapons fire, which ended the lives of 59 people and wounding nearly 600 innocent victims?

Meanwhile the accused assassin fired off thousands of .223 rounds. these rounds were fired from 400 yards away and as a result would have been outside their effective range. In addition, no shell-casings were “magically” cooled before they hit the carpet in the kill zone. Because if they were not cooled, they would have burned holes in the carpet.

“This was accomplished, we’re told, by one man firing 10 rifles… wait, no, 27 rifles all by himself, without any military training whatsoever. This same man set up a James Bond spy camera in the hotel hallway to monitor police in an attempt to defend himself against the inevitable police assault, then he just changed his mind and shot himself the moment the cops showed up… all for no apparent reason.”

The media has NOT successfully answered the question of how the assassin moved the massive amounts of rifles and cumbersome and weighty ammunition boxes past hotel security.

This wasn’t just a hotel. This was a Vegas hotel in where the security is “armed to the teeth and trained” to see these kinds of events. Why?

Because they have their gaming operations to defend.

The fact that this much killing material was smuggled unnoticed past trained security is NOT believable.

Adding fuel to the fire is the idea that this man installed NSA style security cameras in the hall to get ready for the police assault and then he turns the event into a suicide mission? This isn’t believable either…

Several military people have said, the type of gun that was used in the killing, from listening to the tape, over half of the “experts” identified the gun they heard as a MG 60 with belt.

This gun is very heavy and requires a belt. Only a very strong person could use this gun, shooting with one arm, while feeding the belt into the gun with the other arm…

And we’re asked to believe that this portly 64-year-old man accomplished this feat and fired the gun with incredible accuracy?

All of these massive casualties couldn’t be caused by .223 rounds that we are being told the assassin used, according to the official narrative.

Most likely, they were actually heavier rounds fired from something like a belt-fed MG 60.

Regardless of the gun, where are the shell-casings and their after effects?

A couple sources have said, “that in the unlikely event that .223 rounds were used, a target would have been struck every 2.3 seconds given the length of the event…

All of this from a man with no military training who was also an overweight senior citizen.

Congressman Trey Gowdy was interviewed on Fox News and he expressed his lack of belief in the official narrative quite clearly. Gowdy said, “he did not see anyway that an event of this precise planning could be carried out by one person.” And I would add to that Gowdy said, one person with no military training.”

Scott Bennett posted a video on YouTube that was taken down by Google, which showed muzzle flashes on, or near the 4th floor, and as the “timing problem” would indicate, multiple shooters would be needed to have carried out this crime.

coincidence is? The dictionary defines it as “a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.”

How about the owner of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren, Endorsing Hillary Clinton after being a lifelong Republican? He Disses Trump.

The target? Thousands of country music lovers, usually known to have right wing values and many are strong Trump supporters.

This Massacre In Las Vegas and the Surrounding Facts Don’t Add Up!