Similar posts

Bradford C. Walker #wingnut bradfordcwalker.blogspot.com

If there is one thing you can fault the God-Emperor for, it is being insufficient in looking out for his allies, and online is where he's failed hardest. While I fully expect the God-Emperor to win a second term, it's going to take more work to get the message out online this time due to Big Tech aggressively rigging the game against him this time around. First by changing the algorithims to make discovery all but impossible, privledging Fake News over the alternatives outside the Death Cult's control. Second by going after each ally online in turn and deplatforming them, up to and including financial cutoffs. (Just ask Red Ice.)

It is unwise to expect the God-Emperor to handle this in the time available. The wise thing to do is what the Supreme Dark Lord, Red Ice, and others have done: build your own platfoms, and diversify your presence in existing ones. The latter is very easy to do; set up accounts on competing platforms of that social media type, and ensure that people can follow you there if your FaceTwitTube accounts get nuked. The former is where you're going to need to spend either time or money because you've got to set that up and keep it up; this is where you can do the paywalled value-add thing that Red Ice does for its members-only site and Unauthorized does for its subscribers.

I suspect that, for most of us, we're restricted to the latter strategy for now. Fortunately there is no shortage of alternatives; the catch is getting links before the eyeballs of the audience who are on the main platforms, which is why many of us have opted for doing newsletters via email. (Yes, I have been very bad at this. I will fix this presently.)

As for what to do about the God-Emperor? Besides re-electing him next year, it's to push him--HARD--to smash Big Tech with the power of the state. Will he? Yes, but I think the big reason for a lot of delays in promises like this is due to the need to turn the Federal judiciary, which he has done at all levels- especially on the notoriously shitlib ends like the 9th Circuit and the DC area District courts. (Why should be obvious, but Anonymous Conservative gets into more details.) In short, he wants what he does via Executive power to not get messed with by the courts, and that takes time.

Which returns me to us relying on ourselves until that task is complete. In the meantime, I would recommend getting lawyers to review the Terms of Service; if Vox Day can beat Indiegogo by using their own TOS against them, you can too. Welcome to the Rice Fields.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

Now, I don't like Trump's response to the post-Parkland media campaign either. And I can assure you that the response that I recommend would have been considerably more forthright than anything I've seen the Z-man or anyone else advise, which is apparently to do nothing and trust the states.

On an issue like guns, doing nothing is usually the best course. Most states are sensible on guns, so letting the states handle it is good for us.

Not necessarily. In any event, this is what I would advise instead of doing nothing and trusting the states to be sensible.

Arrest Dan Israel, take Nikolas Cruz into custody, stop the demolition of the school, and order an investigation into the Broward County Sheriff's Office, the Secret Service, and every other federal, state, local agency that had any contact with that school in the last six months. Then publish the results of the investigation and have the DOJ prosecute the various guilty parties.
Criminalize the public advocacy of gun control, using the anti-BDS template. Any television or radio station advocating gun control would lose its broadcasting license. Any corporation advocating gun control would lose its federal contracts.
Announce mandatory carry reciprocity between states on pain of losing federal highway funds.
Stop all federal funding to all universities, colleges, and schools that ban guns on campus.
Announce an executive order suspending all state and local gun control laws.

So, let's not pretend that I'm not as hard core and absolutist about gun rights as anyone else. That being said, John Derbyshire is right. Who else do we have besides Trump? There is no point in taking your ball and going home, because unless you are actually going to go out and take action to shut down the gun control advocates by yourself, the God-Emperor is literally all we have on the political front.

I'm not saying that we should support him in even speaking soothing words to the insane people who want to kill him and impose a violent dictatorship on a disarmed American people. I'm not saying that I think his actions are wise, well-advised, or even sensible. I'm not saying that one shouldn't feel discouraged, annoyed, or even angry about what looks very much like a foolish and unnecessarily damaging political blunder.

But I am saying that it accomplishes nothing to throw a tantrum and very publicly withdraw your support from the God-Emperor, especially when we all know that you're going to be slinking back and hoping that no one notices when you try to quietly clamber back aboard the Trump Train rather than be left behind with Ben Shapiro, Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Rick Wilson, and all the rest of the Never-Trump losers.

At the very least, wait until Trump actually does something rather than merely makes another of his self-contradictory public statements before you reach any firm conclusions about his actual intentions or the probable consequences.

Vox Day #conspiracy voxday.blogspot.com

The fact that the mainstream media and Youtube are peddling pure propaganda is underlined by their over-the-top reaction to the accusations that people like David Hogg are crisis actors playing a role to create a false narrative for the public.

If it was actually a "demonstrably false" charge, they wouldn't be threatened by it. If it were simply nonsense, they wouldn't be so desperate to shut it down.

From the article: Conspiracy believers think false flags are government operations that seek to divert or steer public discussion and policy.

From the online encyclopedia: The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.

The conspiracy believers are correct. That's exactly what false flags are, Operation Northwoods being but one of many historical examples.

Notice the ludicrously false claims in the linked piece. It's rather shocking that they actually seem to expect people not to notice them. Their "debunking" is incoherent. Literally no one claims that David Hogg is "simply too skilled" as a public speaker to not be a paid actor. In fact, the headline quoted right in the linked piece points out the precise opposite! It points out that Hogg is such a bad actor that he can't even remember his scripted lines. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is very clear to any professional fiction editor that these actors are reciting lines from a script. A very bad and poorly written script that doesn't sound even remotely like the way real people actually speak in high-pressure situations.

Q is right. These people are stupid. These people are government employees. This is what happens when people with an average IQ of 95 try to produce a live-action movie. And that is why the media has to try to shut down all dubious and skeptical voices, because the obvious questions that are naturally raised are so destructive of the Narrative that the mere asking of them is sufficient to destroy the Official Story that the media is trying, and failing, to uphold.

Who do you think is leaking the info?
Take a wild guess.
Analyze shooter (pawn).
Voices in his head?
We know.
We are taking action behind the scenes.
CNN was set up.
STUPID.

All of these emotionally manipulative events, from Sandy Hook to Parkland, are fake. They're not even remotely credible, and the more the media tries to clamp down on everyone who is simply asking obvious questions, the more obvious it is that they are in on it.

$45 million, in total, has flowed into Sandy Hook in the last two years.

This is why those who are committed to the truth must build our own platforms. And this is why the God-Emperor would be wise to put a special military commission together to investigate the Deep State's corruption and control of the mainstream media.

UPDATE: This is the video of David Hogg flubbing his lines that the media doesn't want you to see. Notice that he's not breaking down, he's just not remembering how to say them correctly. It's also interesting to note that Reddit is now threatening to ban redditors who so much as mention his name.

Vox Day #conspiracy voxday.blogspot.com

image

The Anonymous Conservative suspects that school shootings are directly related to the Deep State's increasingly desperate attempts to disarm the American public.

If Q is correct, and these school shootings only started once sending kids to therapy became fashionable because the shooters are being programmed while in therapy, there is no end to the disturbing implications. First is obviously the nature of the people in power who would think nothing of programming an innocent kid to murder, and ruin his entire life, while killing scores of other innocent children. These are astonishingly evil people, in full control of the nation from behind the scenes, if this is true.

Second is the idea that this is being done to further gun control. That means the gun control is only the initial objective. What is step two, once they have enacted the gun control? What are they planning which requires our population be rendered entirely incapable of resisting? What do they want to do, which they know is so horrific it would make everyone so enraged they would rebel openly if they tried it? Think how evil these people would be if this is true. Nothing is impossible. Demanding mandatory euthanasia at age 70? Mandatory abortions of all children after number two? Child sacrifices to Molloch for the benefit of the elites? Governmental kidnappings and forced organ transplants for the elites?

It sounds crazy, of course. But then, if we have learned anything over the last 10 years, it is that the conspiracy theorists are usually more or less right. Remember when you had to be a tin foil hat-wearer to believe that the government was electronically spying on everyone? Remember when the idea that government agencies were laundering money, running drugs, and walking illegal guns was totally beyond the realm of credibility?

Let's face it, any government that has been caught planning to commit domestic terrorism against its own citizens in order to justify a war against Cuba is capable of anything.

Fortunately, given the ongoing progress of the God-Emperor in his campaign against the corrupt bureaucrats, we should find out the truth regarding these sociopathic operations in the reasonably near future. I suspect this sort of thing only scratches the surface of what Q and others warn is literally beyond imagination.

The thing is, whatever psychopath came up with the inspiration for these programs completely failed to understand basic American psychology. No American with even a modicum of an instinct for self-preservation is going to a) disarm himself and b) trust the government to protect him and his family when c) the government has permitted 130 million aliens to move in next door and d) the police have no legal obligation to protect or defend anyone.

If there are more school shootings, then Americans will give up their schools, not their guns. All the media drum-beating is pointless, as it has been for the last 30 years, because any politician who comes out and endorses more gun control will be punished brutally at the polls.

It is worth noting that both the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff's Office were strangely reluctant to do anything that might impede Cruz shooting up the school, even though they had both been alerted to his intentions by Cruz and others.

...

Occam's Razor suggests that the reason the FBI did nothing to interfere with Cruz, Mateen, Hasan, or Lanza is because they did not wish to dissuade them from their actions. When both the logic and the evidence contradicts your assumptions, it is wise to question them.

Vox Day #sexist voxday.blogspot.com

[Context is an article on a rise of divorces between pro-Trump and anti-Trump married couples]

The God-Emperor is liberating men from their ill-considered marriages to angry, batshit-crazy women[.]

...

This is what software engineers describe as "a feature, not a bug." It's also Exhibit 47,339 in Why Female Suffrage was a Cataclysmic Mistake.

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

[A transcript of Matt Forney's speech at the recent Identitarian Ideas IX conference]

I don’t think I need to remind anyone that the election of President Donald Trump was a turning point in American and European history. For our entire lives, our overlords in the government and media have told us that we were on the losing side of history. That we were destined to fail. That the future of our civilization was rainbows, unicorns and chocolate chip cookies, fruits Frenching their boyfriends in front of empty churches, neon-lit mosques eclipsing the cities our forefathers labored to build, and finally, being finessed out of our neighborhoods by swarthy foreigners who stare at our sisters, wives and girlfriends the way lions stare at gazelles.

But for now, the arc of the moral universe has been redirected.

The arc of the political universe has also been redirected. One of the most important achievements of the past two years has been the total destruction of the mainstream American right-wing. My friend Edwin Oslan calls them “Conservatism, Inc.,” the alt-right calls them “cuckservatives,” but regardless of how we abuse them, they were the primary impediment to real, nationalist change in the West. It is they, not the left, who are the biggest losers in the age of Trump. Right now, the left is so excited about the prospect of “resisting” the President that they almost seem sexually aroused by it. It’s your National Reviews, your Weekly Standards, your Rick Wilsons and Rich Lowrys and rich finks in general who have lost everything in the God-Emperor’s ascent.

I’m not just talking about the neocons, the loudest, yappiest poodles echoing in the cuckservative kennel. There’s a whole world of inanity beyond the armchair quarterbacking of soft, pudgy Manhattan intellectuals renaming French fries to “freedom fries” or calling on poor men’s sons to fight their wars for them. Mr. Trump has helped sledgehammer the foundations of American cuckservatism, and we are now dancing among the ruins.

A common refrain during the election was that Donald Trump was not a “true” conservative. The myth of the post-National Review right-wing in America is that the United States was intended to be a different society than the nations of Europe, one bound not by blood and soil but by the liberties granted by the Constitution: the proposition nation. In the minds of the geldings who believe this myth, such as, for example, the guy at CPAC who denounced us as “left-wing fascists” a couple of days ago, Trump and the alternative right are a rejection of these core American values, a return to the bad old days of European nationalism, endless war and diminutive Austrian men with funny mustaches.

The problem with myths is that they have a bad habit of being false. The proposition nation so beloved of William F. Buckley and Norman Podhoretz is nothing but Saran wrap stretched over the casserole of white America. While it’s true that the Constitution represented a break from the European tradition of monarchy, the ideals that fueled the American Revolution were derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and implemented by Americans of European descent. Without Europe’s peoples or its philosophies, there is no Constitution, there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and there is no United States of America.

The “golden age” of immigration to Ellis Island, so beloved of cucks and leftists and a fundamental underpinning of the proposition nation myth, is itself a crock of garbage. As Jim Goad detailed in his book The Redneck Manifesto, during the 19th century, corporations lobbied the U.S. government to bring in Italians, Chinese and other foreigners to break the backs of labor unions and lower wages for the average worker. The lie that immigrants do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do has a far longer history than you think.

But myths cannot take root unless they contain some truth. You may not believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Romans didn’t nail him to the cross. Similarly, while the U.S. is hardly a proposition nation, bound together only by the Bill of Rights, its history as a colonial state has kept white Americans from forming a cohesive, rooted culture.

Rare are the Americans who are so attached to their hometowns that they don’t want to leave them. Packing your bags and moving to another state, even if it’s on the other side of the country, is as American a tradition as sportsball and diabetes. From the settlement of Jamestown and the landing at Plymouth Rock to the Louisiana Purchase to the California gold rush to the rise of the Sun Belt in the 1950’s and sixties, if white Americans didn’t like where they were, they went somewhere else. I know that when I was a kid, I dreamt of nothing more than getting out of my hometown of Syracuse, New York, that decaying Rust Belt ghetto midway between New York City and Toronto.

People who are constantly moving from point A to point B cannot put down roots and develop a sense of self. In fact, recent scientific research has shown that the brains of those who live in the same place their entire life develop far differently than those who migrate to new locales. White Americans never developed a unified sense of who they are because they’ve never stayed in one place long enough for the question to come up. And that’s before we get into mass immigration, media propaganda and the other myriad ways that cultural Marxists have tried to destroy the spirits of white Americans.

Now, we do have strong regional identities: as explained in the book Albion’s Seed, the United States was settled by four distinct groups from the British Isles, and our politics and culture is in many ways a continuation of the struggle between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads during the English Civil War. But no singular white consciousness has ever existed in the U.S. Ask a Swede, a Pole, or a Hungarian who he is and what his nation means to him, and you’ll get concrete answers rooted in cultural memory going back centuries. Ask the same question of an American and you’ll quickly find out that there’s no “there” there. At the moment, mindless consumerism is the only duct tape holding the U.S. together.

So, yes, the cucks have—had—a glimmer of a point: as a settler state of European mutts, the U.S. was not merely an extension of its fatherland. But that has come to an end, not because of Donald Trump or the alt-right, but ultimately because of the left themselves.

Years ago, when I was skeptical of white advocates and tribalism, I wrote on my old blog In Mala Fide that a political movement like the alt-right would never work because whites in the U.S. don’t define themselves by their whiteness, unlike blacks. A reader of mine interjected by saying that whites have already been defined as white, in the negative, by the left. And he was right.

To be white is to be the world’s whipping boy. It means being blamed for everything from poverty in Africa to environmental degradation to women not having enough space to sit down on the subway. It means being told to shut up and sit down, that your opinion is worthless because of your “privilege,” and that the eventual disappearance of your people and culture is a sign of progress.

To be white, straight and a man is even worse, because you’re told that your natural masculine instincts, your natural desires to bed and wed women make you an oppressive misogynist. In 21st Century Parody World, six-year olds are allowed to take dangerous hormones so they can become a funhouse mirror version of the opposite sex, but not asking your wife for permission before you kiss her can land you in prison for rape. And if you’re not happy with this arrangement, you’re expected to sate yourself with degenerate Japanese cartoons and pornography, the bread and circuses of the globalist empire. That’s how mad the Marxists are: they don’t merely want to destroy our culture and identity; they want to destroy the very things that make us human.

Sun Tzu stated that when you have surrounded your enemy, you must give him a way to escape, or else he will fight you to the death, having nothing to lose. The left never learned that lesson, because they’ve pursued whites—white men—everywhere they’ve gone, leaving them no quarter and no place to call their own. Even video games, long the province of virginal nerds, were not safe, which is what sparked the GamerGate movement three years ago, the first successful backlash against cultural Marxism in most of our lifetimes. The white men of gaming saw leftists trying to subvert their favorite hobby, one they retreated to after society rejected them, and said no more. Enough. This line you shall not cross.

It was this spark that ignited the pile of TNT that was the Trump campaign and the alternative right. The average Trump voter isn’t explicitly aware of all the issues that we are versed in. They don’t know everything that we know. But they know, deep down, that something is wrong. They know that fifty years of mass non-white immigration and globalist free trade have ruined them financially and placed their lives and that of their children in peril. And they see, day in and day out, the chattering classes tell them that they are the problem. They see liberal arts dilettantes in Brooklyn brownstones, rent paid courtesy of Daddy’s credit line, banging out “thinkpieces” every day claiming that all the world’s ills are thanks to those stupid white rednecks in Kentucky, Michigan or Pennsylvania, and as soon as they kick the bucket and give way to all these newcomers from Mexico, we’ll be all better off.

White Americans saw this repulsive display and they said no more. Enough. This line you shall not cross. And they turned out to support a champion who would fight for them. Donald Trump is the first politician in years who treats white Americans as a group with interests of their own, interests that are worth defending. While he is far from the alt-right ideologically, Trump’s nationalist presidency is aiding the maturation of white America from an empty, consumerist frontier into a people with an identity of their own, one that runs deeper than pop culture effluvia and waxing autistic about “muh Constitution.”

I’ll end with an interesting anecdote.

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of houses in upstate New York flying Confederate flags. Seems absurd on the face of it. Why are white New Yorkers adorning their homes with the flag flown by the Southern rebels that their ancestors fought in the Civil War? After all, you don’t see many Poles flying the Hammer and Sickle, or many Koreans paying obeisance to the emperor of Japan. Then it hit me: the U.S. has become so deracinated and so debauched that rural Northern whites are reaching for any emblem of culture that they can get their hands on, anything that they can call theirs.

To the cultural Marxists, the Confederate flag represents white America, the white America they seek to destroy and replace with foreigners, a symbol that drives them insane with hatred. To rural whites across the U.S., lambasted as the embodiment of everything wrong with the world, the Confederate flag is a gesture of defiance to those who would see them dead and buried. A symbol of implicit white identity, transcending the petty regional differences between North and South, united against the forces of globalism, multiculturalism, and degeneracy.

None of us can say for certain whether this a struggle our people will win. But I can say this: we will not lie down and die either. Regardless of how the next eight years play out, the dragon of white identity has been roused from his slumber, and he’s not going back to bed anytime soon.

As my friend the Bechtloff says, I’ve made my peace with God. Let’s dance.

Thank you.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

This is a particularly interesting article on the end of the Bilderberg era in light of some of the rumors that are supposedly coming out of the most recent Bilderberg meeting. And notice how it all just keeps going back to Leon Trotsky[.]

...

"Burnham renounced his allegiance to Trotsky and Marxism, in all its forms in 1940."

Sure he did. The Scarlet Pill, redder than red, is to grasp the fact that the Trotskyite communists, the World Revolutionaries, the Neoliberal world order, the New World Order, Bilderberg, the neoconservatives, the Never Trumpers, NATO, the European Unionists, and the Silicon Valley technocracy are all different aspects of the same thing. And their latest vision for global empire has observably failed, and failed faster and more conclusively than anyone would have imagined.

It will be very interesting to learn if the elite can learn from its failures or not. There have been rumors floating around that the European migration is to be reversed for fear that the whole thing will come crashing down amidst a series of large-scale civil wars. Maybe saner minds have prevailed, maybe the God-Emperor is behind it, or maybe it's just fake news.

Interesting times, to be sure.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[On Trump considering a harder stance against Assad due to the recent gas attack]

No one actually gives a damn about Syrian children, except that they not be permitted to reside in the West. It's unfortunate that the God-Emperor appears - appears - be falling increasingly under the sway of the Washington wormtongues whispering about being presidential in his ears.

He needs to get out of the White House and start listening to the American people again.

It's really rather remarkable how "the international situation" operates as a "hey shiny" distraction for politicians. People have been getting brutalized and slaughtered in the Middle East for 6,000 years. If humanity is really fortunate, they'll be getting brutalized and slaughtered there 6,000 years from now. To believe that it is any concern of yours, much less that you can do anything about it, is the height of folly.

And, of course, that's assuming that the whole "chemical weapons attack" isn't a false flag in the first place, which is very, very far from a safe assumption

Matt Forney #fundie gab.ai

[Are the alt-right turning on their God-Emperor? Will he be dismissed as yet another tool of the globalist establishment? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z!]

Plot twist: the REAL "4D chess" Trump was engaging in was convincing far-right nationalists to enthusiastically support what amounted to a third term for George W. Bush.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen such a rancid diaper-load of rhetorical diarrhea as Justice Stevens presents in The New York Times. He piles falsehood upon falsehood, lie upon lie, in a futile attempt to build public support for a direct assault on the 2nd Amendment and the unalienable American rights it was written to protect.

And since he observably has no respect for those rights, the God-Emperor would do very well to order the old man locked up for high crimes and treason on the evidence of his career on the court.

Peter Brimelow #fundie gazette.com

Violence in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12 led Colorado Springs officials and residents to take a closer look at VDARE, an immigration advocacy group with ties to the rally's white nationalist organizer that had booked a conference at Cheyenne Mountain Resort.

Under pressure from threatened boycotts, online criticism and Mayor John Suthers, the resort last week announced it had canceled the planned gathering next April.

Despite the cancellation, VDARE is standing behind its controversial contributor, Jason Kessler, the blogger who organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counterprotester who was killed when a reported neo-Nazi allegedly rammed his car into a crowd.

"If it hadn't been Charlottesville, they would find some other excuse," VDARE leader Peter Brimelow told Colorado Politics in an e-mail exchange Thursday.

Brimelow, who is the editor of VDARE.com, told Colorado Politics last week his organization was not involved at Charlottesville "in any way."

"We have a totalitarian left in this country," Brimelow said. "They would shut down the president if they could, so they might try to shut us down next April, but they might also find something more interesting to do."

Two days later, Cheyenne Mountain shut them down.

The tony resort said it canceled the conference but wouldn't say why, only, "We remain committed to respecting the privacy of guests at the resort."

In an e-mail exchange with Colorado Politics Thursday, Brimelow answered some questions:

How would you characterize the way VDARE has been pulled into the Charlottesville situation?

"Typical lying communist propaganda, connived at by the Establishment Left."

Any regrets about working with Jason Kessler?

"No. What Kessler wrote for us is justified on its own merits (although obviously far too edgy for your paper. That's why we have an audience). I'm not going (to) wimp out like the (Daily) CALLER.

"Kessler's not the problem. This purge has been coming for a long time - e.g. we all lost Google Adsense in the spring and the $PLC has been campaigning against us re PayPal for years. It's obviously co-ordinated like the Trayvon Martin scam - there's probably some listserve group somewhere like Journolist, If it hadn't been Charlottesville, they would find some other excuse.

"The amazing thing is that the GOP Establishment, Conservatism Inc. get mau-maued every time. Except the God-Emperor (President Donald Trump), bless him."

Are there any "next steps" in Colorado? Another location maybe? Court?

"Various possibilities have come out of the woodwork, including lawyers. We'll book somewhere else but don't know where or when yet (although CO in 2018 spring may still be possible)."

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[From "Where is the God-Emperor?"]

James Kirkpatrick wonders where the so-called leadership of the mainstream Right is in the struggle against the violent Left:

Saturday, however, was different. Antifa has been quite open about their desire to “shut down” the rally [Why The Bay Area Must Shut Down the Alt-Right Rally on April 15th, IndyBay, April 5, 2017]. So nationalists came prepared for violence, knowing the police would not protect them. And that’s precisely what happened—it just didn’t end the way antifa thought it would.

In short, Leftists started it, Rightists finished it.

What is really happening here: the American Right is finally learning to fight back, both ideologically and physically. They are breaking the taboos of the past. And powered by the freewheeling internet culture that spawned the new nationalism, the Trump supporters who rolled out to defend conservative speakers were dressed in colorful, often humorous costumes, as opposed to the grim, blackclad antifa, the staid enforcers of the status quo....

What’s truly incredible: even now, the American Right is still fighting with one hand behind its back, receiving no support from its supposed political leaders, including Donald Trump.

Though President Trump has gone out of his way to praise his non-white supporters, he has not once specifically praised the European-Americans who were at the core of his winning coalition. Even worse, he has not once defended his supporters who are being attacked on the streets and fighting in his name.

Trump may be President of the United States, but it is still very dangerous to wear a MAGA hat or Trump shirt in some cities.

Now, I'm not a leader of anything except the ELoE, but someone asked me, in my capacity as a known Alt-Right figure, if I would feel bad, or guilty, if blood were to be shed as a consequence of the Alt-Right's refusal to submit to the threat of violence from Black Bloc, antifa, and the post-American Left.

The answer, quite simply, is no. Not even a little bit. The course is set. The consequences are inevitable. The socionomic verdict is clear and the time of positive social mood, economic expansion, and peace is over. What we're seeing now are merely the first little steps towards the large-scale uncivil war that will be a significant part of the inevitable decline and collapse of the United States. Men have a responsibility to defend their families, their people, their nation, and their civilization, and I am very glad to see that there are still Americans, and Russians, and English, and nationalists of every civilized nation, who are willing to stand up and do so before it is too late.

The USA cannot be saved as a single entity because the American nation no longer controls the US state and has not done so for decades. Most of the European nation-states can still be saved, although the fate of a few, such as Sweden, may be in doubt. But that is because they are, despite being adulterated, still actual nations, whereas the USA is multiethnic empire held together by force, societal inertia, and deceit.

And now the lies are failing even as the centripetal societal forces gather momentum. Roosh sees four options:

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.

My expectation is a fifth one. I think uncivil war and partition coming on the heels of economic collapse is the most likely outcome. Warlords, corporate armies, and 4GW forces will arise. Some polities will be ethnically cleansed, others will be mixed, either by choice or by defeat. Remember, homogeneous societies tend to arise from larger heterogeneous forebears.

Bradford C. Walker #wingnut #psycho bradfordcwalker.blogspot.com

The livestreams of the protests are lead by organizers focused around the usual local sources of street-level Commie faggotry: our university campuses and related NGOs. They're the ones organizing the protests and controlling the messaging, so observing them is a wise thing to do since I bet that they are tied to Antifa if not a front therefor because they (including the organized livestreamers like Unicorn Riot) believe that they can still get what they want because they have amenable authorities on the inside to fix things for them.

That's not just Minnesota At tourney General Keith Ellison, who is an Antifa supporter and whose son is an avowed member, but also Governor Tim Walz and U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (both have adult children involved involved), and both Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey as well as St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter are fellow travelers. Ellison is now the point-man for the prosecution of the former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing the would-be martyr. Ellison is being pressured to upgrade the charge from Murder in the 3rd Degree to Murder in the 1st Degree; the higher the degree, the higher the threshold for achieving conviction due to the greater severity of the charge, and thus pressure of this sort produces counter-intuitive results- it increases the odds of acquital.

And that will likely spark a new round of rioting if there is a new street-level team ready to launch them.

If.

I have good reason to believe that this is not the case. At most there will be some violence that local authorities will be able to quell easily. The designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization (not "domestic", just "terrorist") allows U.S. Attorney General Barr to assign all 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces to deal with Antifa and roll up its entire operational network. This includes people not formally affliated with the group, associates of the group, and so on; the sudden and wholly unexpected spread of the rioting to foreign countries makes a very strong case for international ties as men and material (especially money) has to cross those borders to make that happen, and that means a re-designation to "international terrorist" which makes things even worse for the criminals.

This threat, despite the theater, is waning as I write this. The rioting will end in the United States before the month of June is over, but that is not all that will be done; because the God-Emperor is insisting that this be handed by the mayors and governors, despite his mustering of Federal resources, he is exposing how these local and state officials are incompetent at their jobs or are actively treasonous to their citizens. The "catch and release" policies are now being highlighted as contributing to the problem where things are worst, and as such the optics for the G-E's enemies worsens by the day as other enemies flush themselves out in irrational bursts of heresy and sedition. (e.g. the heretical witches crying about Trump's visit to St. John's in D.C.)

And as for Trump, I don't care that your pet cause isn't being catered to--VDare, Gab, etc., that means you--because bigger stakes are on the table and the G-E is playing to win; grunts don't get to gainsay the boss, and you're all grunts. Pray you're not among the casualties when it's over, shut the fuck up, and shoot Left.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

The threatened Alpha

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

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

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

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

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

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

This is a brilliant application of what Big Social is doing, only instead of allowing the hand-picked SJWs of the Twitter Trust and Safety Council or the Facebook-endorsed SPLC to do the restricting, the Chinese government will do it. And why not? The basic principle has been established and broadly accepted, from Twitter to the Her Majesty's Government. As Q said, "why are trips allowed?"

Imagine if the God-Emperor and his Grand Inquisitor were to launch a similar program in the United States. After all, who has proven themselves more untrustworthy than Facebook? How could the SJWs legitimately complain if Mark Zuckerberg and his executives found themselves placed under permanent restriction? This principle of "once untrustworthy, always restricted" is merely an adaptation of Facebook's own approach to banning thoughtcrime and legally controlling the public discourse, and it represents a welcome return to pre-Enlightenment philosophy on the part of a people who were always rightly dubious about it being genuine. There can be no "freedom of speech" in any non-Western, non-Christian, non-American society, because the concept doesn't even make sense in any other context.

If you wanted to keep what passed for free speech in America, then you shouldn't have permitted entry to Catholics and Jews, followed by wave after wave of various peoples whose beliefs and cultural traditions are entirely antithetical to the concept. And given those waves of immigration, you can't be surprised that it's no longer even possible to publicly state that a man is not a woman without negative legal and social and employment and financial consequences.

[Wait, Catholics aren't western and Christian now?]

The devil, of course, is in the definitions. But the devil is out. Let's not shed too many tears for the SJWs once they discover the difference between "influence" and "power", for as another Chinese leader once said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun". It does not come from control of a momentarily popular software application.

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

Syncretistic Stupidity Award

Wulf Ingessunu #fundie #magick inglinga.blogspot.co.uk

Ever since seeing this ancient stone which I have called by the name White Stone of Ing the design of the carvings has eluded me, even though I have always seen it as being familiar. The Ing-Rune in its English version can be seen as two Edel-Runes joined as one, which looks very much like an ancient symbol for the Divine Twins - joined at the head. Although the central 'cartouche' is rectangular and not diamond-shaped the 'arms' and 'legs' connecting at the top and bottom do suggest a very similar image.

I can now see some importance in the stone itself, which is a White Stone, since the three major religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all connected to the Black Cube which suggests darkness and matter. Could it be that the White Stone is the counter-religion to the darkness and matter based around the Black Cube or Black Stone? I have shown before how Revelations shows how the finding of a 'White Stone' would lead to a 'new name of God', i.e. the name of the god or archetype who rules the New Age. In this case the god Ing is the name found on the stone. The importance is obviously that of the 'White Stone' which is the colour of purity.

The message 'Gift of Ing' is found on the stone, with this being linked to 'Fire' and to the meanings of the Ken-Rune. The Ken-Rune also represents the Fire-Serpent which is linked to Ingwe and the Rune of Ingwe. Agni of the Vedas is linked to the Aswins who are the Divine Twins; both are associated with friction-fire and the kindling of the Sacred Flame. Here we seem to have a connection between Ingwe and the Divine Twins, if I am right in seeing the twin-Edel-Runes in the symbolism of the stone.

There is of course a very strong connection between the Ing-Rune and the Edel-Rune since the former is the Rune of the Blood and the latter is the Rune of the Homeland. The Ing-Rune, as stated here, is in itself twin Edel-Runes which form the ancient symbol of the Divine Twins joined at the head. The Edel-Rune has the shape given to the Greek god Atlas, the God of the World Pillar. The globe is the world, held up by Atlas. Both runes also contain the message 'Gift of Ing', something which has never been explained. Both the Rune of the Blood and the Rune of the Homeland are connected to Ingwe.

Of course, with such figures as Hengest and Horsa we naturally assume that the Divine Twins are always both male. In the case of Hengest and Horsa, who are the founders of a nation, this is obviously true since they parallel Romulus and Remus and other 'twins'. But there are various different aspects of such figures, and there may be a case here to consider that Ingwe is the male 'twin' but the other figure is perhaps female. In this case we could guess at the sister of Ingwe - Freya. Twins are not necessarily both the same sex. There is also the legend of 'Od' to consider here, for Freya loses her 'Od' and searches to find him again. The name 'Od' forms part of the Od-al Rune.

Mercia Eliade hints that fire is held within the 'Eternal Feminine' where man may seek to find it. It is perhaps significant that the Ken-Rune on the stone is a variant used by the Anglo-Saxons, and not the usual rune-shape which has an upright stave with a downwards or upwards pointing offshoot. In fact the alternative can be seen as an ur-glyphic Ur-Rune with a vertical line above it - fire with smoke going upwards. We know that Freya is also associated with fire since she wears the Brosingamene Necklace, the word 'brosinga' being associated with fire.

The ur-glyphic Ur-Rune thus suggests the Primal Fire and the CGF version of the Ken-Rune is shaped as an Ur-Rune turned sideways. I have shown how the English Ing-Rune can be seen as either an Ur-Fusion or Ken-Fusion which parallels the ideas that I have looked at here. Indeed, the shape of the White Stone of Ing also suggests an inverted Ur-Rune at the top and Ur-Rune at the bottom.

Gyfu is the Rune of Gefion who is the Gift Goddess and an aspect of Freya; we have thus Ingwe and Freya shown within the two runes which make up the phrase 'Gift of Ing'. The 'Fire-Rune' (Ken) is actually linked to the Ing-Rune, suggesting a closer link between these two runes. This may be stretching a point too far but these two make the word 'ken(n)ing'. This is likely a coincidence though we cannot rule out that it is synchronicity.

Ingwe is of course also known as Frey, a title meaning 'lord'; Freya means 'lady' which makes up the pairing. Indeed, this is no doubt where Wicca gets its 'Lord and Lady' from originally. In the law of the Waene (Vanir) sister and brother can also be married through a Sacred Wedding. Both Ingwe and Freya are linked to the planet Venus which is the Morning Star and Evening Star. It is most likely that Freya is the Morning Star and Ingwe the Evening Star, though of course the planet is one and the same. Whatever the case Venus is connected to the concept of resurrection.

If the 'Gift of Ing' is the Primal Fire then Ingwe is clearly associated with the Vedic god Agni. Agni is in fact one of the original 'trinity' of gods prior to the later Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. I believe that with the name 'Ingwe' we are going way back into very ancient times, maybe even linked to the title 'Igg' given to Woden when he hung upon Iggdrasil. Noting the following we can see a pattern emerging here -

Ingwe & Freya
The Divine Twins
The Rune of the Blood
The Rune of the Homeland
Ingwe was known in these islands well before the later Germanic invasions or incursions.

The 'Gift of Ing' is the Primal Fire or Creative Fire which provides not only 'Light' but also the heat needed to germinate new life. The White Stone of Ing has obvious connections to the creation of the English Folk-Nation through the idea of 'Blood and Soil'. The connection here between the Divine Twins - Hengest and Horsa - are obvious, for they are the 'Founding Twins'. The White Stone of Ing has obvious connections to the idea of the Resurrection of the English Folk-Nation. It is also connected to the White Dragon of the English. This 'resurrection' is linked directly to the sinking of ancient At-al-land. We know this through the importance of the Hale-Bopp Comet.

"In the end, K is something programmed into the computer code of the universe — a fundamental fore integral to the world, and designed to arise spontaneously, due to the designed nature of it. Once arisen, it guides the evolution of every self sufficient organism’s form and function. K may even be the fundamental force really driving the universe’s organizaiton, if not the underlying purpose of the entire Creation. In its most basic form, K is about the fostering of a specific quality within the Universe’s organization. The quality can be loosely be described as “greatness,” — encompassing such variables as complexity, ability, resiliency, sophistication, creativity, adaptability, etc.

If one examines the world around them, they will quickly come to the realization that, over the long haul, it favors K innately, and that this is likely an engineered design. God does not want to crack the hood on His Creation, only to look out upon a Universe of a worlds that all look like the world in the movie Idiocracy, filled with imbeciles denigrating the lone eloquent smart person. Indeed, were the universe designed to favour R-evolution would never have even made it that far. All God would see in a perpetually R-universe would be ever more rapidly expanding blobs of goo, each unit of goo competing fiercely with the others, to see which can expend less energy on greatness and complexity, to focus on repoducing more of an ever less-evolved goo."

I had just mentioned the word 'synchronicity' when I was beginning to run out of ideas that would complete this post. I had to look up my emails to sort out something for the coming Folk-Moot when I opened an email with a link to a site called 'Elfnationalist' which contained the above quote, and which compared what is termed R-evolution to K-evolution. What struck me so hard was the use of the 'K' which is connects directly to the K-Rune or Ken-Rune, and underlines yet another reason, and perhaps more important reason for the use of the rune on the White Stone. The basic meaning of what is being said is that 'R-evolution' is based upon quantity, equality, and the masses whilst K-evolution is based upon quality, inequality and an aristocratic order.

Again, speaking of 'synchronicity', the article here was about Tolkien's Elves, and the next section of my post was about Ingwe-Frey as 'Lord of the Elves'. The elves are depicted as Nietzsche's Superman or Overman, as the next stage of the evolution of Man. We are thus back to the idea of 'resurrection' and the ideas put forward here. The 'Gift of Ingwe' is thus the gift of Immortality and the creation of the Sun-Man or Sonnenmensch. It is the 'Fire of Re-Creation'.

The Ken-Rune is also the 'Rune of Kingship' and thus directly related to inequality and to the creation of the Divine Order of Caste. Ingwe is in a sense the Sacral King wedded to the land, to 'Sovereignty' (Freya). This is a very important concept since everything centres around Man and the Earth, to the mystical link between Blood and Soil - the Edel. The key to the 'awakening' is The Hooded Man whose rune is the Edel-Rune!

One last comment here. Does not the phrase - '...imbeciles denigrating the lone eloquent smart person...' ring true when we look at every form of attack upon anyone who stands up against this rotten, corrupt, degenerate system? We see this at every turn where anyone with a bit of common sense and intellect is ridiculed by the 'imbeciles' who make up the masses, the 'mob', the 'herd', the 'people' - the representatives of the multi-racial system that brooks no opposition nor criticism to its falling world.

This we must remember - they represent a falling world, a world quickly falling into decay and ruins, a world on the brink of destruction. Their own greed and foolishness will bring about their own destruction. The 'Black Cube' will symbolise their own destruction. The 'White Stone' and the 'White Dragon' symbolises the victory of Light over Darkness! The White Stone of Ing is held within the ancient Isle of Albion - the Isle of the Elves.

Elvis is King #fundie rationalwiki.org

It is quite simple, sir. Please consider that gender is assigned by God in the womb, and there are only male and female (Genesis 1:27) and that is simply all that really exists. The Cult of Transgender tends to force those who even have the slightest inclination they are something other than what God made them, they suck them in. Then they lobbied the psychological institutions to push so-called "transitioning" as the ONLY remedy for gender confusion, which is caused by the fluoride and the birth control hormones in the water. When people realized they have made a mistake, they seek to undo the bodily mutilation they were indoctrinated to undergo and the Cult of Transgender shames and rebukes them and ignores their existence so the mental health professionals they lobbied continue to go ahead and push teenagers on hormones. Also of note is that most Transgenderism in men is caused by autogynephilia as well as social rejection, and can be the result of a co-morbid disorder such as autism, which is caused by the mercury in vaccinations that kids are pushed on at such an early age. So-called Transgendered folks have a suicide rate of 41 percent, and sex changes only increase this rate. We need to treat the mentally ill far better than we do, but the liberals keep on pushing this ideology that you can exercise veto power over the will of God because mere man thinks he IS God nowadays. What a shame, really. --Elvis is King (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Randy Alcorn #fundie #psycho epm.org

Question from a reader:

Is there any consolation for me concerning my parents who both died without a personal belief and faith in Jesus? It is all very well for me to know that I have since been saved, but I still feel deeply upset about the outcome for my parents whom I love dearly. How can you not grieve in Heaven while knowing your parents (and anyone else for that matter) will suffer so terribly for all eternity?

Answer from Randy Alcorn:

Many people have lost loved ones who didn’t know Christ. Some people argue that people in Heaven won’t know Hell exists. But this would make Heaven’s joy dependent on ignorance, which is nowhere taught in Scripture.

So, how could we enjoy Heaven knowing that a loved one is in Hell? J. I. Packer offers an answer that’s difficult but biblical:

"God the Father (who now pleads with mankind to accept the reconciliation that Christ’s death secured for all) and God the Son (our appointed Judge, who wept over Jerusalem) will in a final judgment express wrath and administer justice against rebellious humans. God’s holy righteousness will hereby be revealed; God will be doing the right thing, vindicating himself at last against all who have defied him. . . . (Read through Matt. 25; John 5:22-29; Rom. 2:5-16, 12:19; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 18:1-19:3, 20:11-35, and you will see that clearly.) God will judge justly, and all angels, saints, and martyrs will praise him for it. So it seems inescapable that we shall, with them, approve the judgment of persons—rebels—whom we have known and loved.

In Heaven, we will see with a new and far better perspective. We’ll fully concur with God’s judgment on the wicked. The martyrs in Heaven call on God to judge evil people on Earth (Revelation 6:9-11). When God brings judgment on the wicked city of Babylon, the people in Heaven are told, “Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you” (Revelation 18:20).
Hell itself may provide a dark backdrop to God’s shining glory and unfathomable grace. Jonathan Edwards made this case, saying, “When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state, so exceedingly different from it.” He added, “They shall see the dreadful miseries of the damned, and consider that they deserved the same misery, and that it was sovereign grace, and nothing else, which made them so much to differ from the damned.”

We’ll never question God’s justice, wondering how he could send good people to Hell. Rather, we’ll be overwhelmed with his grace, marveling at what he did to send bad people to Heaven. (We will no longer have any illusion that fallen people are good without Christ.)

In Heaven we’ll see clearly that God revealed himself to each person and that he gave opportunity for each heart or conscience to seek and respond to him (Romans 1:18-2:16). Those who’ve heard the gospel have a greater opportunity to respond to Christ (Romans 10:13-17), but every unbeliever, through sin, has rejected God and his self-revelation in creation, conscience, or the gospel.

Everyone deserves Hell. No one deserves Heaven. Jesus went to the cross to offer salvation to all (1 John 2:2). God is absolutely sovereign and doesn’t desire any to perish (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). Yet many will perish in their unbelief (Matthew 7:13).
We’ll embrace God’s holiness and justice. We’ll praise him for his goodness and grace. God will be our source of joy. Hell’s small and distant shadow will not interfere with God’s greatness or our joy in him. (All of this should motivate us to share the gospel of Christ with family, friends, neighbors, and the whole world.)

Although it will inevitably sound harsh, I offer this further thought: in a sense, none of our loved ones will be in Hell—only some whom we once loved. Our love for our companions in Heaven will be directly linked to God, the central object of our love. We will see him in them. We will not love those in Hell because when we see Jesus as he is, we will love only—and will only want to love—whoever and whatever pleases and glorifies and reflects him. What we loved in those who died without Christ was God’s beauty we once saw in them. When God forever withdraws from them, I think they’ll no longer bear his image and no longer reflect his beauty. Although they will be the same people, without God they’ll be stripped of all the qualities we loved. Therefore, paradoxically, in a sense they will not be the people we loved.

I cannot prove biblically what I’ve just stated, but I think it rings true, even if the thought is horrifying.

Not only in Heaven but also while we are still here on Earth, our God is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:3). Any sorrows that plague us now will disappear on the New Earth as surely as darkness disappears when the light is turned on. “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain” (Revelation 21:4, ESV).

This is God’s promise. Let’s rest in it.

Of this we may be absolutely certain: Hell will have no power over Heaven; none of Hell’s misery will ever veto any of Heaven’s joy.

Pedro #conspiracy geoengineeringwatch.org

Yes, Paul. these "persons" are mass murderers and this fact must be UNDERLINED. the criminal powers (of cowardice) behind climate engineering are represented by the same "persons" who are and were responsible by all wars since the napoleonic wars. Only in both world wars, 90,000,000 persons were killed (large majority of them were civilians, and this was a genocide against humanity). Since the 1st WW, these groups responsible by the business of war have killed already at least 120 millions persons. And everything indicates that other major world slaughter is on the way. these are also the "persons" who are and were behind of everything that happened in the World in relation of nuclear "science". these are also the "persons" who are behind of the genocide that is happening in the Middle East right now (which started even before 9/11), and these are also the responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people, which is lasting for decades.

In fact this is very easy to understand; climate engineering kills Trees and Plankton, and destroys the Ozone. Without Trees, Plankton and Ozone we are doomed. And by the way, for the ones who are not aware of the fact; these "persons" that are behind climate engineering, and other businesses of destruction, are the representatives of the masonic organizations and of the masonic cult. this cult also represents a religion, this "religion" is a satanic cult. killing living things is their main business.

Atrociter #racist stormfront.org

[On Rachel Dolezal]

She suffered immensely as a child from her fkwit of parent's liberal choices. Most fathers would do their level best to keep black teenage males away from their daughter...that cnut moved them in next door!
No wonder she's completely off her rocker. Underlined by the fact she is still showing her (black)face out in public.

Linda Harvey #fundie barbwire.com

Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed Senate Bill 1062, a bill on religious freedom, or as I like to think of it, a bullying prevention law for grown-ups.

Why did she cave? Because Senator John McCain, other liberal Republicans, the shallow media, and amazingly, the NFL, joined the always complaining and usually inaccurate homosexual lobby in screaming about this bill, claiming it would lead to wide-scale refusal of services to homosexuals. A similar bill has also been unfortunately withdrawn in my home state of Ohio, at least for now.

The reality is, this fiasco was all about anti-Christian bigotry leading toward denial of religious freedom. And it’s mostly sodomy that is taking America to this dark place. Did we not understand the message of Genesis 19? The rabid, sexually corrupt mob is serious, they hate the authority of God and they will twist the facts, or just flat-out lie, to silence those who speak the truth.

Let’s understand a few basic facts. We already have religious freedom in our Constitution, so this isn’t a shocking concept. But that doesn’t mean this bill wasn’t necessary. First of all, it was a bill to strengthen a religious freedom measure already existing in Arizona. And we have a similar federal religious freedom bill passed in 1997 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton after nearly unanimous votes in both houses of Congress Were they all being “anti-gay” in approving such a measure?

No, it’s just that the whole country wasn’t yet subjected to the tyranny of the pink lobby, and politicians weren’t yet ducking for cover right and left. They are now.

Such bills have been made necessary recently to restore a “strict scrutiny” standard when applying First Amendment rights. Photographers, bakers, florists and others have been sued when they would not provide their services to homosexual couples for a so-called wedding. Homosexual activists want to force Christians to honor what we consider sin. Similar bills have already passed in 17 other states, so again, this shouldn’t be at all controversial.

Nextrush #fundie freerepublic.com

I have watched this pretense of conservatism play out in the GOP all my life.

Donald Trump was elected to change that by "draining the swamp" of corrupt business as usual Republicans who put business and banking interests ahead of the national interest.

His supporters love the POTUS and want him to take action that is real and meaningful and sacrificial to reverse the decline of this country.

Steve Bannon said when he spoke at Roy Moore's rally last week that to get to the Democrats we first have to get past the Republicans.

They must be replaced en masse and if that can't happen politics isn't going to Make America Great Again.

The Left-Progressive-Liberals are conned by the Democrats too because they are bought and paid for by the business and banking elites as well.

I read on Facebook a post the other day that said "Republicans aren't conservative and Democrats aren't liberal".

That guy gets it and more of us need to get it.

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

It is sinful rebellion for a wife to seek her own independence apart from her husband's authority. Men are controlling by nature, territorial and protective of what's theirs. This is my land, stay off it. This is my family, you talk to me first. That's a normal attitude for any man. If you want an equal relationship, then you are desiring a homosexual intellectual relationship.

Feminism is insane, wrongly labeling husbands as “controlling” for wanting to know where his wife is at. A man has every God-given right to inquire concerning his wife's whereabouts, activities, friends at all times. If you don't like that, then you have an unbiblical attitude. The sinful world rejects the Bible as being God's inspired Words. The heathen world doesn't recognize the Biblical right of a married man to “RULE OVER” his wife (Genesis 3:16). Feminists are rebels, who completely reject the Bible's teaching of wifely submission to her husband. A godly woman obeys her husband, giving him veto power over everything in her life.

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

In fact, it wasn’t only the Germanic women who exulted in the barbarian lifestyle, but some Roman women as well. Although the invaders may have laid waste to the greatest civilization the world had yet known, slaughtered tens of thousands, burned and destroyed centers of learning and thoroughly wrecked the economy, leaving millions destitute, they ushered in an era of women’s empowerment and equality. Amidst the smoking ruins of once-great cities and estates, Roman ladies cavorted and feasted with unkempt, tattooed Gothic warriors.

...

Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

The question, then, is whether feminists, when presented with the opportunity, would deliberately create the conditions of barbarism. That feminists romanticize a golden past of female empowerment, even going so far as to suggest that ape society is superior to our own, seems to suggest that they will. Perhaps, then, it isn’t so much that feminists want to change civilization, but rather – consciously or not – they aim to dismantle it.

If so, that may be exactly where we’re headed.

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

(proreason)
This illustrates one of the core problems with liberals of all stripes. They have no limits on their unhinged desire to control everybody and everything around them.

(aka Randy Yonkers)
The left is driven by toxic emotions.
They thrive on the control they get from making themselves and everyone around them miserable. They label destruction and misery "Progress". They manufacture pain and rage and sell it for profit, by taxing a guilted public and forcing them to pay for the "cure".

(Eskel Gorov)
The entire concept of "AGW" is preposterous. Even if there were an AGW "consensus" (which there categorically is not), it's irrelevant. Consensus is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of scientific process. Relying on those more educated than you are is just fine until science becomes corrupted by politics and the politician's eternal quest for more tax dollars from the uninformed. AGW is indeed about politics, wealth redistribution, and crowd control. We can and should be better stewards of our planet; but, we don't need to abandon all scientific process and commit suicide in order to do so. This stewardship has little or nothing to do with CO2. Regardless, a consensus of people from NOAA, NASA,and the IPCC who have all been caught red-handed altering data to meet their failed modeling assumptions is worthless on its face. Failed models, failed theory, end of story.

(redpilldebtslave)
CO2 is plant food. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and the earth is covered by a bunch of it. Imagine if they went after water like they do the energy industry. We need politics to stay out of science. This all fell apart when they got caught falsifying data. Follow the money.
Leftists are the science deniers! LOL! Too funny!

(ricocat1)
Those liberals who are concerned about CO2 should hold their breaths until they turn blue. Don't exhale. No CO2. No liberals. Problem solved.

(Trump Train aka Honey Badger)
These liberals idiots would have rather breathed nuclear fallout by voting for HRC... end of the planet for sure!
There is no greater contaminant then of one’s mind, you can thank the liberal ideology for that!
Our youths minds are being poisoned all across the campuses in America by these liberal professors.
President Trump already saved the planet by defeating the nuclear holocaust know as HRC, ending the Paris Accord, slashing the EPA and ending big bureaucratic regulations!

(Johnny)
these people are seriously mental defects and delusional,, they dont stop to think who is going to fund these places without republican support,, liberals arent going to part with weed money to keep the lights on

(proreason)
Allow me to crystalize your comment a bit more. I think it has a core that is a real insight. You said: "these people...dont stop to think".

Liberals are too p*ssed off at everybody else for not complying with their manias to think about anything other than enforcing their will.

(Pleiades R)
"bite the hand that feeds them" comes to mind

both comments so valid, so many liberals I know think work is beneath them, they spend money on the latest cell/computer/clothing/shoes/entertainment/restaurants... then complain insurance, utilities, necessities are too expensive.... some are on assistance, but they own a "vape", a big screen tv and cable...

they make fun of me for having an old phone and not dressing expensively... I don't have cable or a tv.... but, I pay my own way...

amusingly they support open borders... if only they were destroying their own world, not the world we share...

(redpilldebtslave)
I often tell them they advocate their own destruction. By destroying the family and abusing the legal system, we have today's society. That is advocating for the leftists grand utopia. Leftists advocate their own destruction. Everybody must suffer as they do.
I usually say it just like that. They accuse me of making threats on the leftist sites. All I do is predict their futures.

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

Please support our Vets and Police! Boycott the Superbowl this weekend! #Boycottsuperbowl #PleaseStand

(Eric Simpson)
It's a consensus of ideology, not of science. Notice that nearly every conservative scientist does not believe the leftist scam.

(rennyangel2)
Not, "conservative" scientists but many REAL scientists who study cause and effect, are knowledgeable about history, and are not trying to impose their own views on outcomes or results.
There is a current complaint in the scientific community that too many "experiments" are not repeatable, as they should be if the same processes are followed, and I think the problem with replicating in today's science is because too many choose a pre-determined outcome and then force their "experiment" into the desired result. No wonder, one scientist has trouble producing the same conclusion, again.

(earlysda)
The problem in science is that they fell for a different god than the the Creator (Jesus Christ), and have been wandering in the darkness ever since.

(Reno Rivera)
Doesn't matter. The left lost on this one.

I don't feel sorry for the fickle, Rebekah Mercer. She's getting some payback here for betraying Bannon.

Also, she is not behind BB and never one who made BB popular.

I guess she is now since Bannon left and BB becoming effeminate with increased People Magazine type and news stories.

(earlysda)
Sadly, most of our youth are taught the doctrines of Evolution as "scientific fact", when actually, even Richard Dawkins admits: "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".

(Mash Draggin)
Science is being subverted and swallowed up by politics, and the fact that there are so many marxists at our universities is a big reason why. The left wants to use science as a political weapon. It's actually slowing down real scientific advancement too.

David Livingstone #conspiracy henrymakow.com

Transhumanism is a bizarre aspiration to achieve immortality, along lunatic lines like cryogenics, placing miniature robots in our bloodstream, "augmenting" ourselves as cyborgs, and even uploading our minds to the Internet.

Sound like the ravings of a mad scientist? Yes but they are being spearheaded by the likes of Google. They are in the hands of those who can exercise extraordinary control over our lives. One of Google's own heads of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, left, a Jew, is the revered modern-day prophet of transhumanism.

The truth is that a formidable conspiracy has taken place right under our noses for the last 50 years. While our attention has been focused on JFK, UFOs and 9/11, a plot to create the ultimate surveillance tool has proceeded unnoticed: the rise of the All-Seeing Eye, the personal computer.

Transhumanism is an occult project, rooted in Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and derived from the Kabbalah, which asserts that humanity is evolving intellectually, towards a point in time when man will become God. Modeled on the medieval legend of the Golem and Frankenstein, they believe man will be able to create life itself, in the form of living machines, or artificial intelligence.

Transhumanist themes have been reflected for decades in movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, the Terminator series, The Matrix, and Transcendence, but is best encapsulated in the recent movie Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson, who takes a "smart drug" to achieve ever increasing intelligence, until she merges her mind with the Internet, to become a god.

This idea is rooted in an occult belief first developed in the sixteenth century by Isaac Luria, father of the New Kabbalah, and the godfather of Rosicrucianism.

Luria's idea, which proposed that man was evolving through time to become God, served as the basis for the Theory of Evolution, promoted by Thomas Huxley' X Club. Huxley's grandsons were Aldous Huxley, the visionary behind MK-Ultra, and eugenicist Julian Huxley, a founder of UNESCO.

Julian also wrote the introduction to The Phenomenon of Man by Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881 -1955), known as the Catholic Darwin.

Identified as the leading influence of the New Age movement, Teilhard is also regarded as the "Patron Saint of the Internet." Teilhard influenced Marshall McLuhan, Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick and Terence McKenna with his theory of a "Noosphere," which would represent humanity's development of a collective consciousness.

Today referred as the "Global Mind," it underlines the plans of Google and the transhumanists to create artificial intelligence. By merging with the Internet, which will accumulate all human knowledge, and peer into every aspect of our lives, it will achieve omniscience.

This, the transhumanists believe, will serve as a new god, to unite the world in a communal purpose, and usher in the New Age, or what Kurweil refers to as The Singularity. To understand the Luciferian significance of these ambitions, McLuhan himself explained:

"Electric information environments being utterly ethereal foster the illusion of the world as spiritual substance. It is now a reasonable facsimile of the mystical body [of Christ], a blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ. After all, the Prince of this world is a very great electric engineer."

elidyl #fundie dailykos.com

Interview with Gen McMaster.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/military/article133566199.html

The Taliban: “these people are the enemy of all civilized people …”
Their vision: “if you listen to them, just as if we were to listen to the Nazi Party in Germany in the late 1930s, they tell us what they’re going to do if they’re able to gain power.”
The mission: “we need soldiers engaged in these conflicts—to protect our own vital interest and really the interest of all civilized people.”

So the guy views these issues as a battle for civilization, a battle between the civilized world and forces as brutal and inhuman as those of the Nazi regime in the 30s that led to a World War.

With this appointment, does anybody doubt that we are going to WAR (expanding current conflicts, opening new fronts, putting islamophobia at the cornerstone of our foreign policy and application of military force abroad).

I’m very troubled by this appointment. McMaster sounds like an ideologue to me. And someone pre-disposed (like Flynn) to understand current conflicts as a clash of civilizations. As I see it, he’s a perfect fit for this administration.

The Taliban who committed mass-murder against (Shia) Hazara and other ethnic groups, and who destroyed Buddhist and Muslim antiquities including the Buddhas of Bamiyan? You think opposing the Taliban makes one Islamophobic? You have GOT to be kidding.

McMaster speaks about a “clash of civilizations” and how this is what motives our military actions in the region. Why aren’t they just murderous drug lords who adhere to a misguided ideology.

You don’t think fighting wars that are a “clash of civilizations” is a recruitment tool to Taliban and ISIS and upends up our involvement and goals in the region. Folks seem to have forgotten their history here?

Did you actually READ the interview you posted?? Because there is nothing about ‘clash of civilizations’ in the sense that people like Bannon, Flynn, or Navarro might use it. McMaster simply argues that the three Taliban factions are dangerous, and should be taken as seriously in terms of their goals as the Nazis should have been in the 1930s. Given the history of the Taliban, I think that is fair. Do you want to defend the Taliban?

I'm a ramblin' man #announcement

This'll probably be my last Shy Says post here. After this, they'll have their own separate blog hosted on the site.

Also, I typed this up more or less stream-of-conscious, and afterward I put aside tags around the parts where I strayed too far from my original topic. I haven't done anything resembling proofreading any of it. But I'm letting it stand as it is for now.

Something I really want to do but don't know how to go about even figuring out where to start is making public all of the statistics that I've collected from what the comment filter evolved into. Funny how The Frog thought he 'won' because he made me waste my time making that filter. In reality, I love statistics, especially corpus statistics, and I obviously love programing, so it should go without saying that I legitimately enjoyed making the filter, so much so that it's morphed into something well beyond its original purpose. It now analyzes comments in other ways besides detecting Le Frog and other trolls and even does the same kind of analysis on quotes too. Unfortunately, it ain't easy to put all of the data and statistics together in a user-friendly form that's easy to read, browse, and manipulate so you guys can explore and have fun with it.

That's not to mention the problem of organizing the code and getting it into a form that can even run on the current host. For the curious, the filter started its life as a well-organized and structurally coherent set of three VB module files and one C# class file. The C# class was later translated into VB when the quote comment page was, since it is closely tied to it. It originally intercepted comments with unusually high, low, or average troll scores and sent a copy of them to my FSTDT email so I could add them to the corpus of training material. It would then discard comments and perform a progressive IP ban if they had a high score, or returns comments back to the quote-comment page code to be posted as normal if they had a low or average score.)

Now it's become a disorganized, ad-hoc set of seven VB modules, three Object Pascal* unit files (compiled in either Delphi or FreePascal depending on the operating system I'm compiling on), one Ada file mostly written by my BFF / modly minion Mikey, and two JavaScript files that I wrote to run in Node.js when I was testing out how well it worked with databases (the verdict on that: comme ci, comme ça). Code in three two of those languages won't even run on the current host. I could probably get the Object Pascal to compile with Delphi.NET after some adjustments. The code only started branching away from things like "written in one language" and " organized structure" after I started analyzing comments for fun and the whole thing was taking on a life of its own. Around that time, it also somehow began to take on a secondary role as personal playground for experimenting with programming languages.

[aside]*I'm using Object Pascal here in the sense that a lot of Pascal-dabblers nowadays use it, i.e. to describe a modern and quasi-standard dialect or "style" of writing Pascal code that can be compiled by at least both Delphi and FreePascal, and possibly other Pascal languages (e.g. GNU Pascal) if you adhere to a stricter subset of "Object Pascal" in this sense. Confusingly, Object Pascal is also originally what Borland called the last couple versions of its Pascal compiler for DOS (whose very last version also apparently had a hilariously bad, half-assed Windows port). Indeed, this old-school Object Pascal is essentially Turbo Pascal with object orientation (or a ridiculous attempt thereat in the case of the Windows port). Aside from their core syntax and lexicon, that Object Pascal and "Object Pascal" in the sense here are dramatically different. Most code more complex than "Hello world" written in the latter is not compatible with the original Object Pascal in any useful sense unless it was intentionally written to be. And that's your programming-language history lesson for today.[/aside]

In addition to being written in as many languages as your average Dutchman can speak, another fairly major hurdle to making this little pet project public is that both the quotes and comments I've fed it to analyze (originally "train") and the interesting parts of the analyses thereof are stored on my private server in an SQLite database. Our current host Does Not Allow Using SQLite, despite their terms of use saying nothing to that effect or even suggestive of it. Apparently SQLite is Too Forbidden to even do that. TIL SQLite is Lord Voldemort.

Only the word and word co-occurrence probability data needed for the filter to run was stored and updated here on FSTDT in a secondary SQL Server database. (It still is, but hasn't been updated in a while and isn't currently being used.) This probability data is basically just how likely (or unlikely) certain words and co-occurrences of words are to occur in 'good' and 'bad' comments. These probabilities are the product of other statistical and meta-statistical analysis stored in the external SQLite database.

Getting the probability data used by the filter requires collecting statistics about a corpus of training data, the larger the corpus the better. Those statistics are stored so they can be subjected to statistical analysis of their own, and then those statistics are subject to further statistictaal analysis. That's two layers of meta-statistics. I originally decided against storing this latter data on the FSTDT server because I vastly overestimated the amount of space that would be required to store statistics about statistics pertaining to statistics of statistics about tens of thousands of words and the frequency they co-occur with other words. (How could you not??) Yo dawg, I heard you liked statistics, so I gave you some statistics collected from your statistics about your statistics...

We call this madness naive Bayesian filtering. To be a "non-naive" Bayesian filter, you must venture even further down this metastatistical rabbit hole.

TL;DR: Bayes Theorem is postmodern statistics.

Anyway, I think the corpus in the training database is a good representative crosscut of the actual FSTDT database. There's tons of cool, fascinating, and just plain weird stuff to gleam from it, like the fact that the fundie index of a post and the number of times the word 'when' appears in it appear to stand in direct correlation. Why?? Anyone wanna fathom a guess? Quotes also have way more hapax legomena (words that occur only once in a corpus) than comments do, but I don't find that nearly as interesting, because there are already a couple of very likely explanations. One, certain fundies absolutely love to invent "words" like abortuarydeathscortagandistism.* Two, a whooole lot of fundies just can't spell. Perhaps they try to hide that fact with word puree like homocommunofascofemininazis?**

[aside]*Protip: English is a mostly Isolating language, so we Anglophones generally prefer to create names for novel concepts by compounding existing words together into phrases instead of creating new words by adding prefixes and suffixes to other words or word roots. For example, to describe the practice of treating medical problems with things that actually exist in reality (as opposed to quackpot woo-woo), we coined the term evidence-based medicine instead of inventing a completely new word like vercomadhealancy (ver-com-ad-heal-anc(e)-cy, lit. "truth~reality | with~using | from~by | heal | having the quality of | the activity or state of"), no matter how much cooler and more phonoaesthetic vercomadhealancy sounds.

If that gloss is incoherent to you, read it backwards: "the activity or state of | having the quality of | heal(ing) | by | using | reality." In English, the order that a word's morphemes follow is generally a mirror image of the order that words usually follow in clauses and sentences. In linguistic parlance, English clauses and morphemes branch in opposite directions: clauses are head-initial (branch to the right of their head), while words head-final (branch to the left of their head). Oh, and only one morpheme of that word, heal, can stand alone, while all three of evidence-based medicine can. And that's your linguistics lesson of the day. And this is exactly why I love corpus statistics: it fuses my three favorite subjects: linguistics, mathematics, and in the modern age, computers.[/aside]

[aside]**True fact: I'm also a terrible speller, but I actually heed the little red underlines that tend to pop up a lot in the things I write.[/aside]

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

Dreher is saying that once you define what it means to be a human person in terms of the autonomous will, then the human body becomes an ancillary piece of existence which can and should be changed, forced upon or even mutilated so that it lines up with the inner self. The body becomes either a sacrosanct extension of personal identity or an errant clump of matter that distracts from your true self. What really matters is the personal will, the inner self-expression of identity; the body simply has to follow suit or get out of the way.

This lesson in metaphysics is helpful in understanding why many people who seemingly celebrate the apparent happiness and flourishing of life at any expense to moral norms also see no problem with the termination of unborn life when it is “inconvenient.” If the essence of humanness is what I feel, then it makes perfect sense for Caitlyn Jenner to say “This is who I really am” with no regard to biological reality. But then, if that is so, it also makes perfect sense to reason that an unborn fetus, which has no expressible inner will, but which does have a well-formed and beautiful body, should not be allowed to veto the self-determining will of anyone, much less the individual who would be “forced” to carry it to term.

Do you see what has happened here? The religion of personal autonomy has not just altered our morals or our social norms; it has radicalized our understanding of ourselves. Instead of being souls under the tender sovereignty of a Creator, with a body of His making, we now see ourselves as our own creation. How can that be, when we obviously don’t create ourselves? Well, we don’t create ourselves physically, but we do “create” ourselves in other ways, and if the physical body is not part of our true self–indeed, if it can actually be the opposite of our true self–then it doesn’t really count, and we really are self-created things.

Recently I was perusing the Twitter page of a progressive writer who identifies as bisexual and pro-choice. She wrote effusively in critique of a conservative evangelical blogger who had criticized her sexual ethics. Her main point was that her sexuality, her sexual identity, was not a debatable moral position. “My existence,” she wrote, “is not a moral argument.” In other words, this writer’s bisexuality wasn’t just self-evidently moral, it was actually beyond the purview of morals altogether; her sexual identity was her personhood, and her personhood did not require some sort of ethical justification.

What jarred me was that she then pivoted from this argument into a defense of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. She passionately argued that abortion on demand was morally fine and that any other reality was a viable threat on women’s health and freedom. It was one of the most astonishing feats of logical gymnastics I’d ever seen. Just moments after pleading that her personhood, expressed in her sexuality, was an objective fact and not subject to a philosophical examination, she openly denigrated the value of unborn life and subjugated its personhood to the self-determining will of adults.

This kind of radical cognitive dissonance can only survive on a steady diet of misnomers. Call it “transgenderism,” “genderfluid” or “becoming who I really am.” Call it “tissue,” “a clump of cells,” or “reproductive health.” Call it anything other than what is. A generation that is authentically seeking after truth does not have at arm’s reach a platoon of highly contemporary socio-psychological vocabulary. The sheer amount of effort that many put into obscuring reality suggests that we are running from our own conscience. We are not confident. We have to avoid the traps of honest language continually.

I’m reminded of what the demon Screwtape told his underling about temptation and language:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him away from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous–that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.

The illusion cannot last forever. Deborah Nucatola was giving us a wake up call. The arc of secularism is long but it bends toward profit, violence, and oppression.

Rodney Hand #sexist theheadofhousehold.com

7 Signs your girlfriend or wife is wearing the pants:

1) You have to ask her to have sex

It has sadly become the status quo that most men have to ask their wives to have sex with them.

Men speak of “getting lucky” with their wives, or their girlfriends “putting out”.

Every time I hear this, it disgusts me to the pit of my stomach – as it should disgust you!

Modern men forget that they have natural common-law conjugal rights, that were only persecuted from the 1970s onwards. In fact marital rape was only established in English law from 1991.

The most insidious part of this status quo is that by asking for sex, men instantly eliminate the #1 component of erotic tension – power.

What happens in a healthy relationship: you screw her at any time and place of your choosing, at your will. The very act of taking her against her will, makes her wet for you immediately.

2) You routinely cook dinner or do the washing up

Many otherwise healthy men routinely cook for their wives. They have been fooled into thinking “I enjoy cooking”, as they attempt to self-rationalise their shameful femininised behaviour.

Think about it from a different perspective. What other, more enjoyable and masculine activities could you be doing whilst your wife is cooking for you? You could be spending the time working on your business and other entrepreneurial activities, earning money! You could be be fixing up those odd jobs around the house that need doing. You could be training martial arts, preparing to defend your family against attackers, or teaching your son the importance of integrity and accountability! Why would a masterful man waste his valuable time in the kitchen?

Take a close look at what your wife is doing whilst you are cooking for her. Is she perhaps watching television – diluting her awareness of life in a sea of pitiful and malignant tripe – or wallowing in a glib and vapid ocean of foolish jibber jabber on Facebook? Or – let me guess – she is at work, or doing something relating to her career. All whilst you fill the traditional female role of staying in the kitchen and cooking food!

Sure, I enjoy cooking from time to time – I am an awesome chef. But I reserve my cooking skills for that rare occasion when I wish to demonstrate my mastery in that skill. My time on a routine basis provides a mu h more valuable return if invested elsewhere.

Don’t fool yourself that you enjoy cooking so much that you sacrifice your valuable time and thus your potential opportunities in life to do it. If that’s the case, become a professional chef. Professional chefs are the only exception to this rule.

What happens in a healthy relationship: the woman does all the cooking and cleaning and constantly looks for ways to improve her cooking to please you.

3) The world revolves around her career

This is a case guaranteed to be all too common!

If a couple has no children, there is no issue with the women having a job. However, this does not mean the entire world should resolve around her and her work!

If a couple have children, the women must put her career on ice until all the children are at school. Then, if she wishes, she can re-enter part time employment.

If the focus of her life is directed towards her job, what energy will she have left for you and the family?

Elevating her ‘career’ onto a special pedestal is the same as saying “I am more important than you”. For a women to prioritise her job is self-serving and narcissistic. By investing all her time in this ‘career’, she is investing all her time in herself.

In the natural world, a woman sacrifices herself for the long-term benefit of her family. She deploys her natural nurturing and care-giving instincts, for the betterment of the bloodline.

What happens in a healthy relationship: if the women works, it is a distant last-place to the needs of the family. Her world revolves around you and she loves it.

4) She expects you to follow her orders

I see it day after day. When you remove the veil from your eyes and behold the truth, you will see it too.

Men walking in the supermarket, as if on leashes. Their wives walk them as if dogs.

Whilst you unwittingly entered the relationship placing your trust in the theory of “equal rights”, the practice is far different. Women will rush to fill the power vacuum left in the absence of your natural male dominance and will literally begin to tell you what to do. It may start slowly, but it is a rapidly descending slope.

This may come in the form of direct orders, or dominantly phrased rhetoric questions, e.g., “Could you go and do this for me, honey?”

The reality is that women want to be told what to do and if you assert yourself as a good husband in this regard, she will be happier than ever before.

What happens in a healthy relationship: she does exactly as you tell her to do and if she needs something of you she requests it politely and respectfully.

5) She continually nags you

There is nothing more insidious in a women than nagging. This is exactly why men must spank their wives, to combat such emasculating and rude behaviour.

The media has steadily fed men the lie that “nagging” is somehow natural and expected. We have been programmed to believe that a wife is naturally a ‘ball and chain’ that will constantly ‘nag’ her foolish husband, who is ‘deserving’ of this derision. The implication is that the husband is weak and is being justly apprehended by his wife for this fact.

In fact, the complete opposite is true. A man takes the lead in providing for his family and his wife is there to offer her every assistance to him. A good wife is like her husband’s Personal Assistant and should be continually thinking of ways she can help to drive forward the direction that the man has set for the family.

What happens in a healthy relationship: she continually supports your every effort with practical assistance where she can

6) She talks down to you

This can start so slowly that many men do not even realise it is happening.

What would be gasped at 50 years ago as unforgivable petulance and disrespect, is now routinely acknowledged as expected behaviour.

The situation is compounded by subliminal programming from the media, where men are portrayed as buffoons and women as heroes. I stopped listening to the radio or watching the TV a long time ago. Next time you are watching some ghastly shite via these mediums, pay close attention to the dynamic between male and female co-presenters. Chances are, the women openly mocks the man, deriding him and reducing him to an emasculated caricature of a true male.

Many men are so used to being on the receiving end of this disgusting behaviour, that it may come as a shock to them to find that a true woman does exactly the opposite. Rather than talking down to her man, she praises his leadership and valuable male characteristics. She looks upto him and regularly reminds him of what a great job he does providing for her and the family.

Can you imagine what you would be capable of with a women like this behind you?

This is still the norm in non-Westernised cultures such as Singapore and India.

What happens in a healthy relationship: she lovingly praises and supports you, like your own personal cheer leader.

7) She won’t allow you to make decisions

One of a man’s most fundamental roles in a relationship is as the decision maker. He is entrusted to consider the greater good of the family. He is entrusted to follow his instincts for the long-term prosperity and survival of his bloodline. Whilst a man may often seek his woman’s input or guidance on major life decisions, ultimately the decision is his.

By claiming ‘veto’ rights on the basis of an ‘equal relationship’ where “everybody contributes the same”, the sly women establishes an unhealthy power framework where she has eroded the man’s most fundamental and valuable contribution to the relationship. A relationship is not a jury or a council committee, where votes are taken. A relationship is an exchange of power and resources, based on agreed terms.

Millions of modern men are living unhappy and emasculated lives, as they have naively forfeited one of the principal tenets of their masculinity: the ability to lead and direct a family.

The truth is that a good women wants to be lead by a good husband and will trust in him to make good decisions.

What happens in a healthy relationship: the man makes the decisions, based on his strategic direction for the family and in consultation with his women where he deems fit.

polakfury #fundie reddit.com

Civil Rights History Test

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY NOTE: All answers are "b."

1.What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

2.What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

3.What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

4.What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

5.What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

6.What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

7.What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

8.What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

9.What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party

[ ] b. Republican Party

10.What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

11.What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

12.What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

13.What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and had the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

14.What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina while governor, and Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

15.What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

16.What is the Party of President Barack Obama whose liberal socialist policies increased black poverty and devastated both HBCUs and charter school opportunity scholarships for poor black student after President Obama took office?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

17.What Party is against school vouchers and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party

[ ] b. Democratic Party

And they never did switch. Remember Hillary gave praise to Robert Byrd as a Hero.

sharaleigh23 #fundie groups.yahoo.com

I find it insulting to be called alt-right simply because I like what Trump is doing for this country. IMO alt-right are the KKK and extreme crazy people.

I'd like to know what it is that Trump is doing that is so objectionable? Same with Bannon?

You can bet any candidate we get that wants to clean out the lobbyists and corruption will be smeared like Roy was by our own party. Roy's only serious accuser admitted she forged the yearbook. Yes, he went out with young women 40 years ago or more...so did a lot of men. And since that time, he has been married and faithful, a good husband and father. And he would have voted for things we need. We could have found a better candidate, but Alabamians chose Moore to run against Jones. So Bannon worked with what he had. If it had been Mo Brooks, he would have worked with him too.

So please tell me, what is it that Trump is doing that our own republicans are so angry about? Same with Bannon? What in his agenda is objectionable to Establishment republicans? I don't get it?

S~

The Distributist #wingnut #dunning-kruger twitter.com

More needs to be said about the self-identity of western progressives. I would maintain that the defense of this identity (and its virtue) explains most of the insanity coming from the left today.

I notice two tricks, in particular, being used by leftists here.

First trick, linguistic, is the creation of loose words for their own political radicalism. These words are used to organize and galvanize when new, when discredited however they disappear and seem to apply to no one. We can see this in labels like “AntiFa” which the left has defended for years but now seems to be a figment of our collective imaginations. It also applies to general terms (“SJW” and “woke”). Who coined these? The left. But to hear their account they are right wing smears. This is process is complemented by the second trick, historical, that defines “progressive”, as by its essential nature, to be good, honest, and always winning. As such their history curves around counter examples and a self flattering triumphalist narrative is constructed. Whereas real identities (religion, ethnicity, and nation) refer to real things and therefore have real messy records of good and bad actions, the progressive identity need not worry itself with such troubling nuance. Any evil doer who called themselves a “leftist” or “progressive” in the past is vetoed from their history by definition. The inquisition & crusades will forever be part of “Catholic history”, but Eugenics and the Gulags are not and never will be part of “progressive” history. Progressivism is of course a religion. But these deceptive tactics give it the ability to do things we don’t usually allow. The first is the construction of impossible to meet historical moral standards. Since the left can never be held to account this is a fun excercise.

The second is an ability to shift standards in order to maintain its dual illusions (“always right and always wing”). For this reason neither the progressive moralist nor prophet ever need to doubt their work. But also as a consequence, the ideology itself is mercurial. Many have said that progressives see “progress as God” (e.g. it cannot fail it can only be failed) but the problem is deeper. The “God” the progressives worship has no nature, it is shifting, and ephemeral. There is no there there. Progressives have created for themselves and identity that always wins and that is always good, but the price they pay is that this identity is entirely EMPTY. It has nothing in it.

As such the progressive is the culmination the ne plus ultra of the rootless and stale modern condition, as sad as that is.

Can we not all strive something more authentic in our own identities?

Fin

Michael Snyder #fundie infowars.com

Because Barack Obama has cursed Israel at the United Nations, America is now under a curse. Friday’s stunning betrayal of Israel at the UN Security Council is making headlines all over the planet, but the truth is that what Obama has just done is far more serious than most people would dare to imagine.

Over the past several decades, whenever the U.S. government has taken a major step toward the division of the land of Israel it has resulted in a major disaster hitting the United States. This keeps happening over and over again, and yet our leaders never seem to learn. And despite the fact that President-elect Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and prominent members of both parties in Congress strongly urged Obama to veto Security Council resolution 2334, he went ahead and let it pass anyway.

Because the United States has veto power on the UN Security Council, nothing can get passed without our support. And it has been the policy of the U.S. government for decades to veto all anti-Israel resolutions that come before the Security Council.

But this time around, it appears that the Obama administration was working very hard behind the scenes to get this resolution pushed through the Security Council before the end of Obama’s term. At least that is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is claiming…

“From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “This is, of course, in complete contradiction of the traditional American policy that was committed to not trying to dictate terms for a permanent agreement, like any issue related to them in the Security Council, and, of course, the explicit commitment of President Obama himself, in 2011, to refrain from such steps.”

I am sure that there will be a tremendous amount of debate about to what extent the U.S. was involved in creating and drafting this resolution, but there is one thing that is exceedingly clear.

The ultimate decision as to whether or not this resolution would be adopted was in the hands of one man. Barack Obama knew very well that he had this power, and in the end he ultimately decided to betray Israel.

And now that our government has cursed Israel at the UN, our entire nation will be cursed as a result.

In the Scriptures we are repeatedly told that God will bless those that bless Israel and will curse those that curse Israel. When Barack Obama blocked a similar resolution that France wanted to submit for a vote in September 2015, it resulted in America being blessed, and we definitely have been blessed over the past 16 months.

But now that Barack Obama has reversed course and has betrayed Israel, we will most assuredly be cursed. In the days ahead we will see how this plays out, and perhaps we can get some hints about what may happen by reviewing recent history.

There have literally been dozens of instances in recent decades when the U.S. has been hit by some sort of immediate disaster when it has made a move toward the dividing of the land of Israel. The following are ten of the most prominent examples that stand out to me…

#1 The last time the U.S. government refused to veto an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council was in 1979. On March 22nd, 1979 the Carter administration chose not to veto UN Resolution 446. Four days after that on March 26th, the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty was signed in Washington. As a result of that treaty, Israel gave up a tremendous amount of territory. Two days later, on March 28th, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in U.S. history made headlines all over the globe. The following comes from Wikipedia…

The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979, in reactor number 2 of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (TMI-2) in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the most significant accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[2] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[3][4]

#2 On October 30th, 1991 President George H. W. Bush opened the Madrid Peace Conference which brought Israelis and Palestinians together to negotiate for the very first time. In his opening speech, Bush told Israel that “territorial compromise is essential for peace”. At the exact same time, “the Perfect Storm” was brewing in the north Atlantic. This legendary storm traveled 1000 miles the wrong direction and sent 35 foot waves slamming directly into President Bush’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

#3 On August 23rd, 1992 the Madrid Peace Conference moved to Washington D.C., and the very next day Hurricane Andrew made landfall in Florida causing 30 billion dollars in damage. It was the worst natural disaster up to that time in U.S. history.

#4 On January 16th, 1994 President Clinton met with President Assad of Syria to discuss the possibility of Israel giving up the Golan Heights. Within 24 hours, the devastating Northridge earthquake hit southern California. It was the second worst natural disaster up to that time in U.S. history.

#5 On January 21st, 1998 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House but received a very cold reception. In fact, President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually refused to have lunch with him. That exact same day the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, sending the Clinton presidency into a tailspin from which it would never recover.

#6 On September 28th, 1998 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was working on finalizing a plan which would have had Israel give up approximately 13 percent of Judea and Samaria. On that precise day, Hurricane George slammed into the Gulf Coast with wind gusts of up to 175 miles an hour.

#7 On May 3rd, 1999 Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was supposed to hold a press conference to declare the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital. On that precise day, the most powerful tornadoes ever recorded in the U.S. ripped through Oklahoma and Kansas. At one point one of the tornadoes actually had a recorded wind speed of 316 miles an hour.

#8 On April 30th, 2003, “the Road Map to Peace” that had been developed by the so-called “Quartet” was presented to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer. Over the next seven days, the U.S. was hit by a staggering 412 tornadoes. It was the largest tornado cluster ever recorded up to that time.

#9 In 2005, President George W. Bush (the son of George H. W. Bush) convinced Israel that it was necessary to remove all of the Jewish settlers out of Gaza and turn it over entirely to the Palestinians. According to the New York Times, the very last of the settlers were evacuated on August 23, 2005. On that precise day, a storm that would be given the name “Katrina” started forming over the Bahamas. The city of New Orleans still has not fully recovered from the damage that storm caused, and it ranked as the costliest natural disaster in all of U.S. history up to that time.

#10 On May 19th, 2011 Barack Obama told Israel that there must be a return to the pre-1967 borders. Three days later on May 22nd a half-mile wide EF-5 multiple-vortex tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri. According to Wikipedia, it was “the costliest single tornado in U.S. history.”

The UN Security Council resolution that was passed on Friday is the biggest betrayal of Israel in modern history. As I explained in my last article, I believe that America’s reprieve is now over and all hell is about to break loose in this country.

When Barack Obama blocked the UN Security Council from dividing the land of Israel in September 2015, according to the Word of God we should have been blessed as a nation as a result, and we were blessed.

But now Barack Obama has cursed Israel by stabbing them in the back at the United Nations, and according to the Word of God we should be cursed as a nation as a result.

And as surely as I am writing this article, we will be cursed.

Rabbi David Eidensohn #fundie sinaicentral.com

What Nobody Wants to Know about Homosexuals

All of us in the family-values community are up in arms against the Gay Lobby, but sometimes we forget that the enemy is not just the young guy with the earrings. The enemy is often right behind us: some kindly grandfather, a sweet teen, or a quiet parent. It is easy to arouse the troops when the druggies and perverts come charging over the hill demanding our children, but when child molesters are busy in our backyards, and we don't know enough to watch out, the damage can be much worse.

There are thousands of Americans fighting the gays while their children are away in sleepover summer camp. What they don't know is that their kids in camp are in great danger of learning the very things we don't want. Boys alone with boys in the summertime, when discipline is relaxed, and schedules are loose, is the biggest problem. Thousands of boys simple and pure will go to camp and come home much different. Summer is suspect because wherever children go swimming there are pedophiles panting behind. No, it's not pleasant to talk about. Years ago, I wrote a book about this. I got a call from a clergyman. He said, "A congregant came to me with your book, and he said, 'If I had read this book earlier, my child and all of her classmates would not have been molested by their teacher.'"

Nobody is safe. No age group, no parent, no teacher can be considered beyond the pale of suspicion. Never trust anyone. Arm your child with a warning, as I do, about the "piggy-men." One day my kid came rushing into the house. "Tatee, tatee," he called to me, " a piggy man came after me." We ran outside and the piggy man just made it to his car a few steps ahead of me. He never came back to my neighborhood.

One day a man called me: "I've got him," he exulted. "I found out about a molester and I'm going to call the police and fix him." I congratulated him, but also, told him the facts of life. The man was stunned. He could not believe it when I told him that a parent who calls the police can ruin his child and the lives of the parents, because the Family Courts with their secular feminist anti-religious social workers and therapists will take control of the child's mind and run the family. A few hours later, the phone ran. "I checked out what you said, and I thank you," the father said. If you have to go to the police, make sure you have a good lawyer and a good therapist; otherwise, they will do what they want. In some courts, a parent is at fault if a child is sick, and then, the parent is treated terribly, and forced to undergo therapy at great financial and emotional cost.

A prominent educator had a molested son. He called the police and they arrested the molester. The molester got a good lawyer, and a little boy is no match for a good lawyer. The man went free, and the boy and family live in pain and disgrace.

All of this is said not so we despair but to get us to improve the situation, and not let the family courts be controlled by those who despise parents and religion. There are plenty of molesters in the religious community, and we have to know how to deal with them. We have to be sensitive to the pain of the molester, and know that his soul is aflame with guilt, at least with a normal religious person. We must be sensitive to the family of the molester, and not ruin the reputations of the family members. We must be sensitive to the molested children, and to all of those who could be victims. We must be aware of the terror of ubiquitous threats to our children, because only in that is our salvation. We have to fight for our children, and keep our eyes open. When you think you have heard everything, then you and yours are in big trouble.

Vaughn Ohlman #fundie letthemmarry.org

What do you have against courtship? We believe that Courtship teaches many false, un-Biblical principles in key areas. For example:

A) The sufficiency of Scripture: Courtship advocates specifically deny that Scripture is sufficient in the path to marriage. They propose that not a single Biblical marriage actually occurs in the ‘right’ way (since, of course, no Biblical characters courted). Or, occasionally, they believe that the ‘right’ aspects of the relationship just happened to be not written down by God.

We believe, on the other hand, that Scripture is sufficient. That we can find several examples of Godly paths to marriage, with sufficient details to follow.

B) Courtship denies the authority of the father over the marriage of their virgin children. While they often give a veto to the parents of the woman, they specifically deny the authority of the father of the groom or the bride to choose a spouse for their children.

We believe that Scripture teaches quite clearly that the father does have the power to choose a spouse for their virgin child; and we see this in several Scriptural examples.

C) Courtship advocates generally deny the continuing authority of the father over the married son.

We believe, along with the Reformers and the Church historical, that the jurisdiction of the family is the primordial and fundamental jurisdiction, and it is not interrupted by the marriage of a son. (A daughter, on the other hand, comes under the jurisdiction of her new husband)

[...]

Why not try reforming the systems of courtship and/or dating? It is important to recognize where these methods originate. Dating and courtship hardly come from auspicious beginnings: The term “dating” had reference to prostitution, while the term “courtship” was originally a system of organized adultery. These systems were designed, from their beginnings, to encourage lust, and no amount of changes can take away this essential character from them. As Christians, we need to start with the Word of God with the teachings, commands, and examples therein and build our methods from here. We should not take the methods of the world and try to backfit “Biblical principles” onto them as an afterthought.

[...]

What if the person objects to the prospective spouse? Is there an opportunity to veto? First, if there is any doubt, any risk of the person potentially rejecting the spouse they are given (being betrothed), there is a problem. A betrothal should not be contracted if there is any doubt that the man or the woman will not honor the agreement. A betrothal, according to the Bible, is a very serious thing. It is a covenant, a binding contract. It has many of the same obligations as a full-fledged marriage, though not yet consummated. To disavow the betrothal is willful abandonment and/or adultery.

Second, there is no decision to be made once a betrothal is final. There is no approval required or veto allowed. The time for input from them or others (if any is to be given) is before the covenant is made. It is much the same as or modern wedding ceremonies where it is asked if any has “just cause why they may not be wed”. Once they are pronounced “man and wife” (as is the case with a betrothed couple), it is the duty of all to “hold your peace”.

Third, it should be considered (again, prior to any covenant agreement) what reasons a person would have to object to the spouse they are given. Do we see such an example in Scripture, with Adam or Isaac, Joseph or Moses? We do see Jacob making such an objection (after he had enjoyed his wedding night, it should be added), but his example as a whole and this part in particular are hardly good or meant for emulation.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

God Only Wrote One Book... THE BOOK!!!

Look here again at Hebrews 9:19, “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.” There are eight words you ought to underline in that verse, so that when you look at that verse, they'll stand out to your eyes.

Here are the 8 words that you ought to memorize:

...HE TOOK THE BLOOD

...AND SPRINKLED

...THE BOOK

How many bloods are there? “THE BLOOD” was sprinkled on “THE BOOK”! Amen! So how many books can there be? Obviously, JUST ONE BOOK!!!!!!! Notice the singularity... “THE BOOK”! It's the blood sprinkled Book. The blood guarantees the veracity, the purity, the dependability and the truth of the Book. There can only be one real Bible in any language! According to the American Bible Society, there are approximately 900 different English Bibles! God's Word is not random. In English, “THE BOOK,” is the AV (AUTHORIZED VERSION) 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE!!! Notice the singularity. ....

THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!!

THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! GOD WROTE ONE BOOK... THE BOOK!!!!!!!

Psalms:12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Perhaps you ask, “How do you know it is the King James Bible?” Well, let me give you a brief history lesson. You know that there are two superpowers in the universe: God and the Devil. So then everything in the universe has one of those two for its source. There's no third source, right? So then everything that calls itself a “Bible” would have to have one of those two for its source. Since God's not the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33), then He only put out one...THE BOOK!!! Who put out all the rest of them. You got it... THE DEVIL!!!

GOP Tea Pub #fundie gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com

Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th
Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to
all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides
Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell
and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a
Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by
Republican Congress

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell
of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to
vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups
which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against
Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S.
troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists
seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated
administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875,
guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race,
signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican
support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat
President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act,
which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new
state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing
African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes
constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans
in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans
would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by
U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate
Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by
Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native
Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time
Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the
Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife
of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the
White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition
to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black,
appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden
until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls
for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in
office, FDR refuses to order it.

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry
Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and
criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a
friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing
of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s
three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential
nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in
Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights
leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican
Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from
Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President
Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR
to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs
Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour,
around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff
of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American
schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV)

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights
Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority
of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern
Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of
them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois,
to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally
rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order
authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan
establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal
education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan
Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of
Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably
with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The
most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to
lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common
sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition
their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies
in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil
rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website,
to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights
movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the
same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is
not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is
accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post
1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft,
Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists
retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly
galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is
that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted
the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of
what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at
the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan
documentary) for input.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64
act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the
integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the
“private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater
believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only
to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was
because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt
many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed
Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian
who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights;
it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate
Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy”
based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George
Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace
was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.
The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of
Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched
to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc
etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because
they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to
segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small
government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted
less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states
to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan,
sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were
*integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution
and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited
government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.
An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian
who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.
As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is
only the second person to serve as president of the three major
professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians,
American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/


Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!

Vaughn Ohlman #fundie rawstory.com

John Calvin defines the “flower of her age” (1 Corinthians 7:36) as “from twelve to twenty years of age”. Likewise, John Gill defines it as “one of twelve years and a half old”. And Martin Luther says, “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen…” We do not endorse marriage at ages as young as twelve. Our position is that, for a woman:

1. The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

2. The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is ready to bear children. Unlike modern society Scripture sees the woman as a bearer, nurser, and raiser of children. The ‘young woman’ is the woman whose body is physically ready for these things, physically mature enough to handle them without damage.

3. The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is one who is ready for sexual intercourse sexually and emotionally. Her desire is for her husband, and she is ready to rejoice in him physically.

(...)

[W]e know from scientific studies (as well as first-hand knowledge, in many cases) that the fertility of women (and even men, to some extent) goes down steadily after the age of 20, and dips even more sharply after 30 and 40. This is even more the case if a woman has reached such an age without having had any children yet. So, by reason of these facts, it is clear that it is best to marry much earlier than 30 to better fulfill the command to be “fruitful and multiply”.

(...)

Scripture speaks of the father of the son “taking a wife” for his son, and the father of the bride “giving” her to her husband…. It gives example after example of young women being given to young men, without the young woman even being consulted, and often, in some of the most Godly marriages in Scripture, the young man is not consulted….

Some use the idea of “consent” to deny the very relevance of the action of their authorities to bind them in covenant, as if a covenant was of no effect whatsoever and all that matters is what the person themselves decide. Others consider a covenant to be something substantial but that it is not really binding until the person themselves “consents”.

In contrast, our study of Scripture has shown that the Word of God considers a covenant made by an authority to be meaningful and binding upon the those under his or her authority. Biblical consent is not the “consent” of dating or courtship. It is not a “veto” power. It does not presume to cast judgment over their father’s actions. And so, a lack of consent of the individual concerned is a choice of disobedience, a breach of a vow and of a relationship. God has designed the marriage relationship (in particular that of the virgin daughter marrying the virgin son) to be a relationship initiated by the parents, in particular the fathers, of the young couple. This is the example that God uses constantly in Scripture, and even where an example strays from this, these principles are still kept in focus.

(...)

Bride price: What is it, and why is it important? Wouldn’t a bride price be like selling your daughter? A “bride price” is anything paid or given by the man or his representative at the time of his betrothal or receiving his bride.

Scripture certainly teaches about it, but it is not mandated, however, except in the case of a couple of laws. The law concerning bride price (Exodus 22:16-17) indicates that part of the punishment for fornication with an unbetrothed woman is the payment of a “standard” bride price for virgins, indicating that the bride price was a normal part of the marriage process.

The bride price plays a significant function: It shows the woman’s value, and the point isn’t that the father gets the money but that he keeps it for his daughter, if her husband should ever abandon her

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Harvey Weinstein (cough cough), is one of the moguliest of moguls in the history of Hollyweird. For decades, his credentials, rap-sheet protected him from long-whispered allegations of running a "casting couch" for ambitious young starlets looking for their big break, or just hoping to survive in Perverttown.

Jewish-Globalist-Zionist-Billionaire-Hollywood legend, Democrat Party mega donor, Holohoax promoter -- a true "made man" sitting at or near the apex of the Jewish power pyramid over America. And now, thanks to the shocking exposes published by Sulzberger's Slimes, the world is finally seeing the full extent of Weinstein's predatory madness.

There is no telling how many goy "shiksas" this Satanic swine couched or forced himself upon.

And the "casting couch" is only the least of it. Multiple allegations of rape, exposure & masturbation, and implied threats against potential whistle blowers are suddenly flowing forth from all quarters and being splattered across the front pages and TV screens of the Piranha Press. Though Sugar and I, er, "The Editorial Board" of The Anti-New York Times are pleased to see this MONSTER finally get his long overdue comeuppance, there is a vexing question that stumped us, for a little while, namely, "Why now?"

Who ordered the "hit" on Harvey Weinstein?

Why did King Sulzberger and his court suddenly take down King Weinstein? The truth was buried for so long, why not continue to cover up for a fellow Tribesman of high rank? Did Harvey expose himself to the wrong girl or something? Is there a higher ranking mobster that big mouth Swinestein disrespected? There has to be a reason for this "hit" because only a big Jew can take down another big Jew. It's a Mafia thing. And Weinstein appears to understand this.

Headline: Daily Mail (UK)
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary supporter Harvey Weinstein thinks a 'right wing conspiracy out to get me' is reason he has been revealed as serial sexual harasser (here)

According to the article, Weinstein believes he was “being set up by a team of people who are out to get him. "Nobody is claiming that the New York Times spent any money to get this story done but other organisations may have done,” a source told the Daily Mail.

If Weinstein is right about a "right wing conspiracy" taking him down, and the New York Times running with the story only because it was going to come out through other channels anyway, then what we are likely seeing here is a repeat of the Monica Lewinsky sex-scandal which Israel and US-based Israel Firsters used to impeach President Bill Clinton back in 1998. That operation was also referred to as "a vast right wing conspiracy" by then First Lady Killary Rotten Clinton. You see, the term "right wing conspiracy" is code language for Bibi Satanyahoo's gang. No one dares to say "Israel!"

Satanyahoo hated the Clintons for trying to force Israel to make a peace deal with the Palestinians. The current play against Democrat-Globalist King Weinstein strikes a similar blow against the Democrats -- punishment for the Party's support of the "Iran Deal" and Palestinian peace initiatives.

Here's the "smoking gun."

Headline: Breitbart (March 25, 2015): Obama Lackey, Anti-Israel Propagandist Weinstein Honored for Fighting Anti-Semitism (here)

"Hearing Weinstein speak regarding the need to fight anti-Semitism is particularly galling, given that both he and Katzenberg heavily supported wildly anti-Israel President Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Weinstein himself is fine with purveying anti-Semitism in films he supports. He produced and distributed Miral, an anti-Semitic diatribe straight from the Palestinian playbook. American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris said the film was a “blatantly one-sided event… the film has a clear political message, which portrays Israel in a highly negative light.” Weinstein then used his Jewish birth to defend the film, which uses every anti-Israel trope in the book. The Forward described the film thusly:

[T]he Israelis depicted onscreen — soldiers bulldozing homes and countering rock-throwing with machine-gun fire, wardens whipping political prisoners and settlers building homes in Arab population centers because, as one character puts it, “what they really want is all of Palestine” — don’t necessarily come across as the peace-seeking sort.

Weinstein, however, said that the film was wonderful.

Globalist Weinstein's "controversial" film, "Miral," portrayed Palestinians in a sympathetic way. That's a big no-no for the ultra-Zionist Likudnik scum at Bannon's Breitbart.

As it was with the Lewinsky scandal, we see Bibi's agents in the American "right" foaming at the mouth over Weinstein's take-down. Sean Hannity, FAUX News, The Drudge Retard, the "conservative" clowns of AM Talk-Radio, and Steve Bannon's boys at Israeli Not-So-Brightbart are all fuming overtime over this scandal. With the story already having been put together by sources unknown, there was nothing the Slimes could have done to protect Harvey from Satanyahoo's henchmen anymore. In fact, there may even be elements within the Slimes itself (or above the Slimes?) who are aligned with Satanyahoo on this operation.

Israeli asset Matt Drudge (cough cough) was used as a conduit for taking down Bill Clinton. According to Weinstein, "right wing conspirators" actually had put all the pieces together before the Slimes ran with the story.

It's not that Swinestein is "anti-Israel," -- far from it. But because he, like George Soros, like the Clintons and like Mr. & Mr. Obongo, leans toward the Globalist Left -- which Likud Party types see as an impediment to their ultra nationalist expansionism -- Globalist Weinstein got himself on Zionist Satanyahoo's hit list. Jew on Jew -- Zionist Mafia Family vs Globalist Mafia Fanily. It's really high-level greaseball "Kosher Nostra" stuff.

The ongoing Israeli-engineered crack-up of the Demoncrat-Republican't Globalist Establishment, ordered by Satanyahoo and tactically engineered by Israeli asset Steve Bannon, will likely take down more Globalists, of both parties, in the months and years to come, thus benefiting Donald Trumpstein greatly. But the higher purpose isn't just about "making America Great Again" (if it ever was that, at all) -- but rather, making Israel Greater.

Bottom Line: Jewish brother Weinstein was sacrificed, for Greater Israel. It's not personal, Harvey. It's strictly business.

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that more women are accusing Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment.

Boobus Americanus 2: It's amazing how this could have been going on for so long without him being exposed.

Sugar: Ssatanyahoo played this beautifully.

Editor: Maybe the Kosher Nostra will weaken itself through in-fighting.

Grace Kim Kwon #fundie christiannews.net

{From a story about the governor of Idaho vetoing a bill to permit the Bible to be used as a reference in public schools}


Too late. Most US children have access to the Holy Bible anyway. Glad this is not 500 years ago in USA. Americans must honor God and repect their parents and grandparents and remember how USA's creators created America 400 years ago. Villains always prohibit the Holy Bible, but God makes His Word available to mankind. He did it much through the American Christians before the nation became Sodomic. If bad people hide something, it's the very thing mankind must know. Honest and sincere people read the entire text of the Holy Bible instead of choosing to be brainwashed by bad people. Read the Holy Bible and educate yourself and break free from slavery. It includes today's Americans, not just the people of yesteryears or foreign countries.

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

Women today have been brainwashed by domestic violence literature to seek divorce at the first sign of abuse. I was recently reading a pamphlet from an organization called VARO (Victim’s Advocates Reaching Out). There are thousands of such non-prophet anti-violence and abuse organizations all across America. I couldn’t believe what the VARO pamphlet said inside. There was a listing of “signs of abuse,” with questions, and then at the bottom they requested for the reader to seek help at once if they answered” yes” to any of the questions. One of the questions was, “Is your spouse tracking your time?”

Another asked, “Does your spouse ever make any belittling comments to you in front of others?,” “Are you often criticized for little things?” Another question asked, “Has your spouse ever tried to prevent you from contacting friends or family?” One of the questions asked “Has your husband ever forced you to have sex against your will?” The implications are clearly against an authoritative husband who decides where, when, what, who, and why concerning his wife’s life, activates, and friends.

"Who’s teaching the women? We know that many socially conservative organizations are now teaching men to be good fathers. Think about it. Women are learning about issues of marriage and dealing with husbands through Women’s Studies courses (feminist and humanist propaganda), local “battered women’s shelters” (which disseminate more of the same in each community) and many other kinds of organizations that teach women to be independent—independent from husbands. Women are also taught by such organizations to know the incentives to divorce (propaganda and tactics that make divorce an easy lifestyle option for them). Most conservative organizations have been recipients of some of the same liberal, anti-family propaganda—many without knowing it." -Men's News Daily

You probably won’t like this; but a husband has a God-given RIGHT to decide who his wife associates with, where she goes, when she goes there, when she has sex with him, how she dresses, et cetera. Now a loving husband will be fair, and desire for his wife to have a happy life; but the husband should have veto power in a marriage. I believe a husband who loves his wife will want to let her do what makes her happy most of the time. However, in those few decisions where the husband and wife disagree, the wife is commanded by God in the Bible to submit to her husband (Colossians 3:18). I am not advocating domestic violence; but a husband who tracks his wife's time, whereabouts, and associations is NOT being abusive--he is RULING over his wife as God expects him to.

Tony Perkins #fundie joemygod.blogspot.com

It took a House and Senate override to do it, but Kentucky can finally celebrate the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill, whose sponsor was a state Democrat, cruised to the simple majority it needed to overturn Governor Steve Beshear's veto. Under the law, men and women of faith can no longer be threatened for acting out their conscience on issues of moral principle. In the end, Gov. Beshear, who was under intense pressure from the Left, caved to the false argument that Christians would use the law to somehow discriminate against homosexuals.

In fact, the exact opposite is true! This law was necessary--not because homosexuals were vulnerable to harassment--but because Christians are. As we've seen in small businesses and faith-based groups across the country, the Left's totalitarian tactics continue to trump Americans' First Amendment rights. Everyone from wedding cake bakers to high school teachers should be free to express their beliefs without fear of retribution.

Wulf Ingessunu #fundie inglinga.blogspot.co.uk

[On a post analysing the story of Ask and Embla from Norse mythology]

We can see not one jot of evidence in our Northern Myths to prove that Aryan Man (Northern Man) evolved from an ape. Nor do we find Aryan Man created from the mud of the earth as in the Hebraic texts. Aryan Man was created from the noble Ash-Tree which reaches towards the heavens - this is symbolic of the essence of the First Man into which the Flame of Life was placed. The vegetative basis of Man was formed from the noble tree that grows in the Earth, but which reaches to the heavens and the Gods. This was why Iggdrasil is the White Tree and represents the White Race at this level. Yes, it has been battered and beaten, decaying and is dying, but it will not pass away completely, for it will be regenerated after Ragnarok - or a 'sapling' of the White Tree will be found, as happens in the Lord of the Rings.

[...]

[bolded, italicised, and underlined in the original]

This post is of extreme importance since the details within it totally disprove the idea that Man (Aryan Man) descended from the apes or from mud-created beings. This is the key to arguing the origins of our Folk and to countering the lies propagated by the Great Enemy. The 'Aryan Race' may not exist as an entity today, but it is an archetype and it is a projection for the future. It is something to strive and struggle for, and in doing so go 'beyond' the mankind of today, to 'overcome' the 'man' of today, to reach to the stars for a new Race of Man. Origins are important, just as is Destiny.

Somebody.... #fundie godlikeproductions.com

No, sir, you were born with a perfect immune system that only becomes questionable when nutrition and lifestyle compromises said immune system.

If we were in need of hypodermic needles we would've been born with said hypodermic needles.

Please go to the CDC's website and read the list of ingredients (they will make known), then make an educated decision as to whether vaccinations are worth your health.

Disease is earned, not acquired....

Louis Pasteur admitted on his death bed that his germ theory was all wrong, as he ultimately stated, "The microbe is nothing, the terrain (your body) is everything.

Even Hippocrates stated, "Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food".

The book of Genesis 1:29 (your owner's manual) Eat only the seed bearing fruit and herb, it is to be our meat.

An alkalized body is impervious to disease. It is a proven fact that vaccinations destroy the immune system. DO THE RESEARCH...

Man has your ability to profit him in mind, not your salvation...

Your polluted digestive tract is the basis of all disease, not some external microscopic animals attempting to enter your body...

"The bigger the Lie, the more they'll believe". -Adolph Hitler

[all bolding, italicisation and underlining from original post]

Ann Coulter #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Ann Coulter: God Raised Up Trump To Save Us From 1,000 Years Of Darkness

Yesterday on “The Eric Metaxas Show,” Ann Coulter repeated her claim that God is using Donald Trump to save the U.S. — and all of civilization — from destruction.

Coulter started off the interview by defending herself from charges that she’s “divisive,” noting that Jesus Christ was divisive as well. “Yeah, I’m ‘divisive’ because I say things I believe, generally, so does Jesus, and liberals yell at me, that makes me ‘divisive.’ It’s the hecklers’ veto,” she said.

She went on to liken the media’s treatment of her to how it covers Donald Trump, whom she believes will save the U.S. and, therefore, the whole world.

“We are talking about the future of not only of America but of the last genuinely Christian country on earth and thus the world,” she said. “If we lose America, it is lights out for the entire world for a thousand years.”

Coulter explained that God has a role in lifting up Trump’s candidacy: “It is like the fall of Rome but, thank God, and I am not using the Lord’s name in vain, I mean that absolutely literally, thank God for raising up Donald Trump and giving us a chance to save the country.”

“Unless Donald Trump is elected, we’re never going to have another Republican president,” Coulter added, warning that having another Democrat in the White House would mean that “it’s over” and “the country is finished” because there will be a “Supreme Court of nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.”

If Trump loses, Coulter said, she will probably “stop wasting my time on politics” since “a Republican can never be elected president” if the country fails to enact severe restrictions on immigration.

“What is the point of talking about abortion or anything else unless you get Donald Trump in to build the wall, deport illegals, end this ‘anchor baby’ nonsense, stop importing 100,000 Muslims a year, in addition to two million Third Worlders per year,” she said. “It’s madness what this country has been doing.”

Coulter went on to say that President Trump should “deport [Sen. Marco] Rubio” and members of the advocacy group National Council of La Raza.

J. Bergeron #fundie amazon.com

[Response to a negative review of Pigs in the Parlor, a book which tells people how to cast out demons and encourages burning children's toys]

Look Mr. Bowman If you have ever sinned you got demons your are not as holy as you think you are. How many demons have you cast out Mr Scholar? Thats what I thought ZERO, because you would run like a scared chiken like most anti deliverance clowns. Yet you talk like your some kind of expert, and your not! Your full of pride thats why you do not understand it. I chalenge you to underline every time jesus cast out demons you well find that almost every page will be underlined. there were certain cases that people brought their loved one to jesus but not in all cases. Stop letting holywood give you ideas about how demons act. As far as childs suff toy being demonic did you know that doll comes from the word idol and idols do carry demons air head!

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

No one gets to become President of the United States without at least a partial blessing from one of the rival factions that constitute the kosher "powers that be." Unlike some of our brethren in the "conspiracy theory" TM community, Sugar and I, er, "The Editorial Board" of The Anti-New York Times, as much as we have supported the campaign of Orange Man, have always cautioned that elements of the ultra-nationalist, anti-Globalist Zionist International have thrown their weight behind Orange Man. The likes of the thoroughly despicable warmongers Sean Hannity, Not-So-Brightbart News, Matt Drudge (cough cough) and Julian Assange work primarily for Bibi Satanyahu, not the American people.

1- "Conceived in Israel," Breitbart News (Image 1 shows original cast posing with Bibi) boasts of its Jewish credentials: "Breitbart was founded by Jews, is largely staffed by Jews, and has an entire section dedicated to reporting on and defending the Jewish state of Israel.” -- Breitbart's Jewish CEO Larry Solov -- responding to an attack from the Clinton camp after Orange Man had hired Breitbart's executive chairman Steve Bannon as campaign manager. (here)

2- Orange Man won the endorsement of mega-Zionist Sheldon Adelson (cough cough) -- the casino mogul and "long-time friend" who once suggested that the U.S. drop an atomic bomb in the Iranian desert as a warning shot.

Matt Drudge is a Zionist agent, as are Gentiles Sean Hannity (shown in image 2 viciously attacking peace candidate Ron Paul for being an "isolationist") and Hannity's new friend, Julian Assange --- whose latest "leaks" helped to sink Killary Clinton.

With regard to Orange Man, the question here is not whether or not he will reward his Zionist-Likud backers; but rather: how far will he go to keep them happy? Will he limit the payoff merely to the controversial relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to contested/divided Jerusalem and the killing of any "two-state solution?" Or will Orange Man's Zionist agents, either with or without his consent, set us on the path toward war with Iran? --- an event that would turn into a disaster and certainly derail the expected "bromance" between Putin and Orange Man.

Only time will tell -- but the appointment of a Zionist fanatic who has already, on his own, started talking about "tearing up the Iran deal" and "increasing aid to Israel" -- as Ambassador to Israel is cause for us to tone down our on-again-off-again applause machine for Orange Man. Some excerpts from the article itself, co-authored by Isabel Kershner (cough, cough) and Sheryl Gay Syolberg (cough, cough) are very revealing.

Yentas Kershner & Stolberg tell us about how extreme David Friedman is. You see, only Jews are allowed to write critical articles about other Jews.

Kershner & Stolberg: He is president of the American fund-raising arm for a yeshiva in a settlement deep in the West Bank headed by a militant rabbi who has called for Israeli soldiers to refuse orders to evacuate settlers.

Analysis: Friedman is not content with what was already stolen from the Palestinians. He wants more and more and more.

Kershner & Stolberg: He writes a column for a right-wing Israeli news site in which he has accused President Obama of “blatant anti-Semitism,” dismissed the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, likened a liberal American-Jewish group to “kapos” who cooperated with the Nazis, and said American Jewish leaders “failed” Israel on the Iran nuclear deal.

Analysis: Evidently, even these yentas think Friedman is nuts.

Kershner & Stolberg: Now, David M. Friedman, an Orthodox Jewish bankruptcy lawyer from Long Island, is Donald J. Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel,..

Analysis: Orthodox, eh? Just like Orange Man's trusted and influential son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Kershner & Stolberg: Their (Trump & Friedman) relationship was cemented in 2005, friends said, when Mr. Trump traveled three hours in a snowstorm to pay a condolence call on Mr. Friedman after the death of his father, a prominent Long Island rabbi.

“He was very taken by Trump spending almost all day just to pay the shiva,” said Yossi Kahana, one of the two friends who described the visit, using the Hebrew term for the week of mourning. “Barely any people came, and here is Trump, coming and sitting with him and talking about things that are important to both of them, their values, their fathers and their legacies.”

Analysis: An admirable gesture on the part of Orange Man, but such personal closeness is not a good sign for the people of Palestine or Iran.

Kershner & Stolberg: A person close to the Trump transition who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the ambassadorship had been negotiated directly between the two men over many months. Mr. Friedman, who donated a total of $50,000 to the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee in 2016, according to federal election records, had been openly saying even before the election that the job — one of the most sensitive and high profile in the diplomatic corps — would be his, according to friends.

Analysis: So, "the ambassadorship had been negotiated directly between the two men?" Since when does the boss "negotiate" with the prospective appointee? And the talks took place "over many months?" That means that the negotiations happened during a time when few believed that Orange Man could win. Perhaps the "two old friends" and other parties unknown (cough cough) knew something in advance that the rest of us did not?

Kershner & Stolberg: Israel’s conservative settlement supporters and their American backers rejoiced at the selection, ...

Analysis: It's true, boys and girls. Orange Man is a hero to the Likudniks of Israel.

Trump has a huge fan club in Israhell!

Kershner & Stolberg: He refers to the West Bank by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria, ...

Analysis: As an "ortho," Friedman literally believes that the Almighty gave him "Judea and Samaria."

Kershner & Stolberg: something hard to imagine his predecessors doing publicly. Upon being nominated Thursday night, he said he looked forward to working “from the U.S. Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem,” rather than Tel Aviv, where the American Embassy has been for decades, under the State Department’s insistence that the holy city’s status be determined as part of a broader deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Analysis: Orange Man to the dispossessed Palestinians: "Kiss my New York ass!"

Kershner & Stolberg: Baruch Gordon, the director of development for Bet El Institutions, told Arutz 7 on Friday that it was “proud to be closely associated with Mr. Friedman,” calling him “a pioneer philanthropist and builder of Jewish institutions and housing projects in Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the ‘West Bank’) and throughout the country.”

Analysis: a "builder of Jewish institutions and housing projects in Judea and Samaria," eh? Ya can't get any more "to the right" than this Zionist!

The ever-interloping ultra-nationalist West Bank "settlers" are the most vicious little demons to be found in all of Jewry -- and, unlike their Globalist brethren, they absolutely love Orange Man.

Brave Orthodox Israeli settlers mock and abuse Arab woman.

Drunken Orthodox Israeli settler to British film crew: "Screw you, you Nazi! We killed your fucking Jesus and we are proud of it. .. This is my land you son of a shit. God gave it to me. ... I'll kill you and the Palestinians. Fuck you, Nazi.... God gave it to me and fuck you." (video here)

Kershner & Stolberg: Mr. Friedman’s connections to Israel date back to his bar mitzvah at the Western Wall.

Analysis: Friedman is not really going to be America's Ambasador to Israel, but rather, Israel's Ambasador to Israel. Talk about "rigged," eh Orange Man?

Kershner & Stolberg: A senior Palestinian cleric, Sheikh Ikrama Sabri, said during Friday Prayers that if Mr. Friedman managed to move the embassy to Jerusalem, “the U.S. is declaring a new war on the Palestinians and all Muslim Arabs.”

Analysis: What does Orange Man care about offending Muslims? Pardon the liberalese-sounding lingo here; but anti-Muslim bigotry won Orange Man a whole lot of FOXtard voters.

Kershner & Stolberg: Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served President George W. Bush as ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, was alarmed by the appointment.

“He has made clear that he will appeal to a small minority of Israeli — and American — extremists, ignoring the majority of Israelis who continue to seek peace,” .... “Friedman’s appointment as ambassador runs directly contrary to Mr. Trump’s professed desire to make the ‘ultimate deal’ between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Analysis: Orange Man knows damn well that without the Zio crazies and their formidable apparatus in his corner, he would never have been able to overcome the pro-Killary Marxist-Globalist faction of the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class). Let us hope that the political payback will be limited "only" to the sellout of the poor Palestinians, and not to a new collision course with Iran.

But if Orange Man, on the basis of some future false-flag attack, decides to start the usual crap with peaceful Iran, count on the The Anti-New York Times to write some really nasty stuff about him.

And Orange Man, if you're reading, be assured that if and when your "long-time friend," is faced with a choice between serving your interests or those of Satanyahu's ghoulish gang, you will be outmaneuvered and dumped like a red-hot matzah-ball quicker than you say, "Oy vey!" And the same goes for that snake-in-the-grass Orthodox son-in-law of yours.

Ivanka had to convert to Orthodox Jewry in order to marry fellow billionaire Jared Kushner. The influence of the young couple on Orange Man is common knowledge, as is the affection that Bibi "9/11 was good for Israel" Satanyahu and Orange Man have for each other.

sdrawkcabssa #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The new generation of shills who destroyed the truth movement.

In the last 5 years or so, a new generation of disinfo operatives successful hijacked the so called "truther movement" and turned it into a fertile ground for all kinds of con artists who either make indiscriminate money out of fringe subjects or who are on the gubmint payroll:

#Julian Assange, Monarch MK Ultra, controlled opposition, disinfo operative, con artist, MOSSAD/CIA/MI6 protegee.

#Edward Snowden, CIA disinfo gatekeeper.

#Bill Hicks aka "Alex Jones", disinfo agent, controlled opposition, gubmint operative.

#Eric Dubay (Flat Earth psyop), epic disinfo shill, gubmint agent.

#Fiona Broome (Mandela Effect psyop), satanist witch, MK-Ultra handler.

#Steve Bannon, satanist, gubmint stooge.

#Milo Yiannopoulos, homo shill, controlled opposition, gubmint operative.

#Mark Dice, shitbag shill and Illuminati wannabe.

#Russell Brand, homo, satanist, Illuminati shill, Monarch MK Ultra, disinfo agent.

#Tila Tequila, Monarch sex slave, Illuminati wannabe, disinfo agent.

#"Paranormal Crucible", disinfo channel, hoaxer and click-baiter.

#"Secure Team 10", disinfo channel, con artists, hustlers, professional hoaxers.

#"Third Phase of the Moon", same as "Secure Team 10".

#"B4 it's News", disinfo site, professional click baiters.

I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting a lot more names, some more prominent than others, so feel free to add to the list.

Don't forget all those fuckers from the comet ELENIN "Extinction Level Event" psyop, specially that con artist Thor guy.

Ross Olson #fundie creation.com

When I discuss the creation/evolution controversy, there are all sorts of interesting responses to the evidence. People are basically unable to answer the powerful logical and scientific case for creation. So, many eventually say something like this:

‘But if creation is true, why don’t all scientists believe it? All scientists agree that evolution is true.’ Others do not say this outright, but it is an unspoken criticism which they see as an automatic veto of anything that seems scientifically unorthodox.

Can the majority be wrong? Most people admit that the general public may be in error. But they doubt that the majority of scientists could be wrong. This implies that science is somehow different from other human enterprises, and that scientists are immune to the foibles of non-scientists.

History shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time. It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is. In fact, often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.

Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) found that by washing his hands between the time he examined dead bodies and the time he delivered babies, he could prevent certain illnesses in mothers and babies, and save many lives. He was appalled by the heavy death rate in Vienna maternity hospital when he worked there. He introduced antiseptics, and the death rate plummeted from 12 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Even though Semmelweis should have been declared a hero for this simple but powerful discovery, he was not. He was not even asked for his data. Rather, his idea was soundly rejected by his colleagues, and he was forced to return to his home in Budapest. Germs had not yet been discovered, and the physicians of that day had no theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenon Semmelweis was talking about. Even so, the idea would have been easy to test and was clearly of great potential importance. But they did not even consider it.

If we had quizzed the ‘dirty hands’ doctors at a particularly frank and honest moment, they may have said: ‘It just doesn’t make sense. If I can’t see it, it must not be real.’ Or, ‘What I don’t know can’t hurt me (or my patients).’ Or worse yet, they might have said, ‘If I admit to this, I will have to accept responsibility for untold past preventable suffering.’

Our past decisions may prejudice our ability to evaluate the present. A scientist who has based his career on calculating what happened during the first few moments of the ‘big bang’ will find it difficult to be open to evidence that the ‘big bang’ never happened. Great learning does not always make a person more honest and accessible, but it may increase the complexity of his or her rationalizations.

A young graduate student who believes in creation, but also knows that rejection of evolution would jeopardize his degree and career, may try to work out some intellectual compromise, whether it fits the data or not. (This is essentially a form of protective colouration which makes his beliefs invisible in that environment.) He is then likely to spend the rest of his professional life ‘agreeing with himself’. He may even ridicule those more forthright than he, partly because they prick his conscience.

Many scientists hold firmly to evolution despite the evidence. They know that without evolution they must consider themselves responsible to a creator. Their need to reject that possibility is so emotionally powerful that they hang on to evolution tenaciously.

Most of us assume the best about our fellow humans unless forced to think otherwise. Have you ever read a newspaper account of an event you know by personal experience, and found the story inaccurate or incomplete? You then probably wondered about the accuracy of other stories in the paper. Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions.

Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.

At one time or another, most children probably say to their parents (in support of some questionable activity), ‘But everybody’s doing it!’ Good Christian parents invariably say, ‘No, they’re not! But even if they were, you’re not, because it’s against what God wants for you, so it’s wrong.’ We should therefore become a bit wary if someone says, ‘But everybody knows…’, or ‘All scientists agree…’. They probably don’t. And even if they did, it might still be wrong.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[All emphases are in the original except for the underlining, which is used to clarify a quote]

If you haven't heard yet, World Vision has changed its hiring policy to allow individuals in legally-recognized same-sex marriages.

...

...World Vision has declared that a person can live openly, proudly, and unrepentantly in a lifestyle that the Bible calls "unnatural," "detestable," and "an abomination" and still be a Christian. Which is the exact opposite of what the Bible says:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6)

Don't miss the beautiful picture of the Gospel in these verses. Before Christ, we were caught in all kinds of sins that would keep us out of the Kingdom of God. But we have been washed, sanctified, and justified! We are not the same! We have been forever changed by the precious blood of the Lamb of God. In contrast, World Vision teaches that we can enter the Kingdom of God without being washed, sanctified, and justified, settling on a gospel that literally sends people to Hell.

Consequently, World Vision is no longer a Christian organization. It seems clear that Christian people should support Christian organizations over non-Christian organizations that do the same work. For contrast, let's examine this statement by Samaritan's Purse President Franklin Graham:

I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin.

The call to help the poor is an important one, and we must take seriously the biblical commands to do so. However, there is no reason to partner with the workers of darkness. The Bible is very clear on this point. In II Chronicles 20, The LORD sent a prophet to rebuke Jehoshaphat (king of Judah) for joining with Ahaziah (wicked king of Israel) to build ships. That's it. And if God cares about our associations when we partner with someone to build ships, how much more does God care about our associations when we do His work in His Name? This is what the Holy Spirit says:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. (II Corinthians 6)

For Conscientious Christians, the Boycott of World Vision starts today. We must not allow World Vision to proclaim a false gospel with our money. We must not support World Vision over Christian charities. We must not fellowship with darkness. We must not allow Christian Love to be mutilated, and Christian Compassion to be shipwrecked.

If World Vision wants to send people to Hell in the name of humanitarianism, they can do it on someone else's dime.

Louie Gohmert #racist conservativebrief.com

One top Republican in Congress is sick and tired of the Democratic Party — and he just made a serious move to take action.

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert announced from the House floor on Thursday that he has introduced legislation that would ban the Democratic Party from Congress because the party once supported slavery.

Gohmert also urged party leaders to change the name of the caucus, which he also said previously supported slavery.

The “Privileged Resolution” calls on Congress “to ban any political organization or party that has ever held a public position supportive of slavery or the Confederate States of America,” The Hill reported.

“A great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred,” Gohmert said. “Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan.”

Gohmert also included in his resolution more than a dozen instances of Democrats either standing in the way of civil rights reform or promoting racist policies.

These included Woodrow Wilson’s segregation policies in 1912, the Ku Klux Klan’s presence at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, and the prominence of Sen. Robert Byrd, who was one of the country’s most racist lawmakers.

“To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name,” Gohmert said. “That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.”

Gohmert’s comments came after the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation this week to remove confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol.

The vote was 305-113.

Seventy-two Republicans and one Libertarian, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, joined with all Democrats in passing the legislation.

The legislation would remove all statues of individuals “who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol.”

If passed by the Senate, the legislation would direct the Architect of the Capitol to identify and remove other statues of individuals who served as an officer or volunteer in the confederacy and deliver those statues to the Smithsonian Institution.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has previously said he does not support removing the statues.

Last week, President Donald Trump said he will veto the defense spending bill if lawmakers try to change the name of Confederate monuments or bases.

Trump said he would not sign a defense bill if there were any amendments that called for military bases to be renamed.

pfta2a #fundie reddit.cohttps

@AmesCG

Hey, on the contrary. If you recognize that you have a problem, restrain yourself from acting on it, and seek treatment, I have no problem with you.

Well that's better at least. You should not have a problem with most pedophiles than, though you might still have a problem with me.
I do not view pedophilia as a problem (I believe it is a sexual orientation) and I do not think I am a monster who needs treatment or else will eventually offend. I do not think I must avoid children or else my "monstrous" urges will overcome me. I do actively seek out social contact with certain children.
But I do restrain myself from sex or sexual contact with children and from watching CP. So I think I have the most important one mostly down. Though morally I do not think sex or sexual contact with a child would be wrong if the child were willing and enjoyed it (as well as a bit more of a list that would be kinda long so I won't put it all down

@AmesCG

Here I disagree with you very strongly. Sexual orientation is a preference for consensual sexual activity and children cannot consent to sex. "Child abuser" is no more a sexual orientation than "rapist" is.I don't think you're a monster, but I do think you should seek treatment and be careful with your interactions. Have a listen to this episode of This American Life about a group that tries to help people in your position. I think it might help you. Please consider it.
Not great. As I said, please don't come to conclusions about what might or might not harm people on your own. Please talk with someone about it. I understand that might be difficult but it's better for you and for those around you. I have to very strongly underline this point. You're wrestling with some serious things, and therapy or talking with someone you trust might help you, and prevent you from getting into serious trouble, while also protecting those around you. Really, there's no downside aside from serious discomfort, but that pales into comparison with the stakes here.

There is the crux of the issue. I believe children can consent to sex.
I believe this because it is undeniably true. Children can and do consent to sex and sex play with other children. In fact, most child psychologist view sex play as something that is beneficial to children and while the child should be taught that sex is private and should not be forced upon them or anyone else, they also think children should be permitted to engage in safe and age appropriate sex play.
So the issue it is not "children cannot consent to sex", but "children cannot consent to sex (or sexual contact) with someone who is more than x years older than them". I believe that a sexual relationship with between a child and an adult is not by definition harmful. Though I also believe the adult should take extra steps to insure safety and that the child is actually willing and not just participating because the adult wants them to.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Damn it! We really hate being right so often!

Subscribers of the almost-daily Anti-New York Times will recall that it was only a few days ago that we warned against the folly and danger of strategically conceding points of argument to evil liars. From our February 28th issue about coal company executives accepting the hoax of "Global Warming" TM and meeting with "Green" groups:

***** FLASHBACK ******

A proverb from your favorite philosopher here at The Anti-New York Times:

"He who allows an evil adversary to frame the debate has already hanged himself."

Never, for the sake of strategic expediency, yield an inch of truth to a pack of liars. Never! To use an analogy from American football, Team Satan will not stop advancing the ball with the "first down" yardage you have so graciously, cowardly and stupidly granted them. No way! They will instead use the easily-gained ground to launch a new set of bold attacks as they "move the chains" again and again and again until they have reached the final destination.

And what is the big "scandal" in the Fake News today? Answer: The innocent conversation between Attorney General (then-Senator) Jeff Sessions and the Russian Ambassador.

And why would such a conversation be considered as grounds for Sessions to resign? Answer: Because the meddling Russians hacked Demonrat computers and fed information that was damaging to Killary Clinscum to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

And what evidence is there that the Russians were actually behind these hacks and leaks? Answer: Even Donald Trump now admits it!

Do "youse guys" see what we mean about making concessions to the Sons of Satan? You see, just to shut his enemies up and relieve a bit of the pressure that was being brought to bear against him, Orange Man foolishly abandoned his very strong original position in which he dismissed all accusations against Russia as unsubstantiated. When nibbled at by the Piranha Press for "disrespecting the intelligence community," OM softened his stance by conceding that the Russians were "probably" guilty of hacking into e-mails, but that it didn't matter because Killary would have lost anyway.

"First Down and 10!"

The temporary relief that OM enjoyed by foolishly admitting to Russian meddling was very short-lived. As a direct consequence of that first concession, National Security Advisor Mike Flynn then came under attack for "talking to the Russians" during the transition period and "lying" to the VP snake Mike Pence about it. Flynn was then fired to appease the lynch mob. Another "First Down and 10!"

After tasting Flynn's blood, the Globalist agents in government and the Fake Media had even better field position from which to launch the next wave of attacks in the form of a coming "investigation" from which Sessions has just agreed to "recuse himself" from. Yet another "First Down and 10!" What next? A Special Prosecutor? A "Bipartisan Commission?" TM

Evidently, Trump "strategist" Steve Bannon isn't so clever after all. Or could it be the DC "power couple" of baby-girl Ivanka and her squirrelly Democrat Jew husband Jared that is de-balling "The Donald?" Thanks to OM's softening and Flynn's firing, the debate about Russian meddling is "settled" and cannot be be revisited. Those "yards" are lost forever. The new debate will now center around: "What did he know and when did he know it?" TM. Dadgummit! When will people ever learn to stop making cowardly concessions to the aggressive Left?! That "kinder, gentler" bullshine doesn't work with these demonic creatures.

Had OM stuck to his attack guns and repeated, over and over and over again, "Lies ... Lies ... Lies" and demanded an investigation into the fake intelligence instead -- the storm would have passed and his discredited accusers would have been the ones losing yardage. As it stands now, OM and his team are facing a new wave of attacks from an ever shrinking defensive position "in the shadows of their own goal post" -- with another enemy "First Down and 10" (or is it "first and goal" already?) fast approaching.

1. Communist Congresswomen Maxine Waters has predicted that the Russia Affair will bring Trump down.

2. Senate scoundrels McCain the Insane, UpChuck Schumer, and Sodomite Graham now intend to use this phony "proven" Russia Affair to stage a coup.

3. Soon, there won't be any territory left to defend.

Boobus Americanus 1: The New York Times is calling for Trump's Attorney General to resign for talking with the Russian ambassador while he was a Senator.

Boobus Americanus 2: I don't know if I agree with that position. This obsession with Russian connections is starting to sound like McCarthyism.

Sugar: Boobusss! You sstarted out with an intelligent comment, but then you had to frick it all up by taking a cheap sshot at the great Joe McCarthy. --- %#$&*% @#$%

Editor: Next to the Great One of Germany, Senator Joe is Sugar's favorite. Don't mess with him!

Joe Lawson #fundie timesnews.net

Modern day America is just about as immoral as Sodom and Gomorrah. The people of this day and age are unthankful and unashamed.

Back in my day, people shouted as they walked to church, and they shouted all the way home. Now people don't even go to church. They took prayer and Bible study out of the schoolhouses and brought in sex education and witchcraft. You parents that let your children read these Harry Potter books are guilty of witchcraft and idolatry and you're going straight to hell.

Instead of getting a thrashing for misbehavior, the parents, teachers and doctors today get these children heaped up on ritalin. You could give ritalin to a cocaine addict and they wouldn't know the difference. Then, they wonder why this generation has amounted to nothing more than drug addicts, fornicators and murderers.

Back in my day we didn't turn to a pack of pen-pushing pantywaists and labcoat Larrys to tell us how to live. We turned to the word of God.

It seems like every time I go to the store I see a teenage girl carting around three or four young ones. You used to not see that kind of thing around here.

The women in this day and age ain't worth marrying. The Bible says a beautiful woman without virtue is comparable to a gold ring in a pig's nose.

If I had my way, I'd have it to where these women and their children wouldn't get food or medicine through welfare. The Republicans tried to do this in 1996, but Clinton vetoed the bill twice until Republicans finally gave in.

You people ain't smart enough to come in out of the rain. I never thought the good Lord would let me live to see this day.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Those of you who have had some degree of understanding about the New World Order -- that fiendishly clever conspiratorial movement to slowly bring about a super-centralized one-world dictatorship -- have no doubt experienced the frustration of trying to convince family and friends that A: You are not "crazy," and B: The trans-generational monster plot to take down America is real and not even that well-concealed any more. The torment that comes with seeing the world as it really is, while the willfully blind ridicule you, is a terrible burden that we "conspiracy theorists" ™ have always had to bear, in spite of the world's stupidity and hostility. After all, "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine).

But what if one of the 20th Century's best known and most trusted news media "rock stars" was to confirm, on camera, the validity of our nutty "conspiracy theory" ™. And what if an equally famous woman, the First Lady of the United States at the time, who came damn near close to becoming our 45th President, then congratulated that same man for his honest remarks while expressing full agreement with his totalitarian world government scheme? Would the doubters still be laughing? Try using this piece on them, and let us know what kind of reaction you get.

The logo of Cronkite's CBS depicts the same all-seeing eye as the logo for the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order for the Ages) found on the back of a $1 dollar bill.

THE SETTING

CBS propaganda had dubbed the legendary anchorman "the most trusted man in America” and the people believed it. From those early 1962 days of TV News (when there were only three networks and no cable stations) through 1981, Cronkite's carefully cultivated marketing image as a grandfatherly sage was unquestioned. In those naive pre-Internet, pre-talk radio days, "Uncle Walter's" leftist propaganda was difficult for amateurs to detect -- but it was always there.

In 1999, Cronkite, who was by then retired, appeared at a United Nations room to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the openly pro-world government World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (watching by video feed), that he had always believed in world government but could not say so openly because of his position as CBS Anchorman.

Some excerpts, coupled with editorial analysis:

Cronkite: I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award and this organization because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.

Analysis: Norman Cousins was a Jewish-American journalist, author, professor and tireless activist for world government. The fact that Cousins offered young Walter a job with the World Federalists a "half century ago" confirms that Cronkite was always a Globalist-Socialist, if not a full blown "McCarthy-era" communist.

Cronkite: For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible to achieve. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

Analysis: Nonsense! Cronkite's reporting was always heavily slanted leftward. It was harder to notice in those days because the viewing public had few alternatives to compare with.

Cronkite: Now, however, my circumstances are considerably different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And by God I'm gonna do it! (loud applause)

Analysis: You see, now that the retired old man has got nothing to lose, he can finally and completely drop his mask of "objectivity."

Cronkite: Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law ...

Analysis: A "monumental educational and political effort." -- Cronkite is talking about mass brainwashing, beginning in grade school, such as is now the case with the Global Warming ™ / Climate Chamnge ™ hoax to usher in world taxation.

Cronkite: ... where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.

Analysis: An "individual violator" is any foreign government that dares to defy the New World Order. The term "brought to justice" means that the "violator" is to be killed.

Cronkite: For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized"? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.

Analysis: Classic projection tactic. It is the warmongering "one worlders" who have, directly or indirectly, engineered just about every major conflict of the past two centuries! (Read: "Planet Rothschild")

1. "Peace...Peace ...Peace" -- the phony mantra of Globalists like Norman Cousins.

2. The "Planet Rothschild" two-volume set blows the cover off of this monster plot to turn humanity into a global bee-hive of raceless alienated tax and debt slaves.

Cronkite: While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort in establishing peace.

Analysis: Here is the "inside joke." -- In the Globalist code language, "peace" ™ is defined as the absence of resistance to the Globalists. When all nations finally and unconditionally surrender to the New World Order (a global EU), then and only then will the Globalists finally stop their endless bombings, sanctions, bribing, blackmailing, coups, assassinations, "color revolutions," wars, and proxy wars against the "violators" -- thus bringing about "world peace." See the trick?

Cronkite: It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. ... We Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be to many a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith and a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessity. ... But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

Analysis: Cronkite leaves no doubt. He and his ilk seek the end of America (and all nations) and the emergence of all powerful one-world-super-state to be erected behind the phony platitudinous facades of "federalism" and "democracy" ™ and "peace" ™ and "human rights" ™. And if they don't get it done "peacefully," they will have no choice but to unleash an "eventual catastrophic world conflict." (World War III)

Cronkite: Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law --a democratic federal world government. ... Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

Translation: National sovereignty = chaos and anarchy. Nations = bad. World Government = good.

Cronkite: Ours is never going to be perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, if we have our way, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law.

Translation: Those who dare to defy our New World Order will be "dealt with" (Hussein of Iraq, Chavez of Venezuela, Qaddafi of Libya, Lil' Kim of North Korea, Assad of Syria, Putin of Russia et al.)

Cronkite: Consider... the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal.

Analysis: By removing the veto of Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) each of the major powers will be powerless before the General Assembly's mob rule -- a mob directly controlled by the top Globalist mobsters who will have by then discarded "hit man" America like a used-up lemon.

Cronkite: George Soros, in his recent book "The Crisis of Global Capitalism," has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget.

Analysis: There it is!!! Mafia journalist Cronkite and George Soros (a "capo" of the Rothschild gang) dream of a "one-nation-one-vote" system in which hundreds of Turd World mini-gangster states get to rob the "evil rich White people" of America and Europe blind while flooding the West with their dirt-poor and criminal elements -- all done "democratically," of course. (rolling eyes sarcastically) Mind you, this was stated 20 years before the Soros-funded immigration invasion that we are witnessing today!

For nearly 40 years, the notorious billionaire George Soros has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in radical leftist causes, Globalist political campaigns worldwide, and world government groups. Gangsters like Soros make and promote men like Cronkite.

Cronkite: Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law.

Analysis: "Binding, enforceable law" means that no power on earth, including the de-balled USA of the future, will ever be able to rebel against the New World Order. And that is why "liberals" are so obsessed with disarming all those millions of American "good ol' boys" who might find world government to be "a bitter pill to swallow." And you thought "gun control" was about "saving children." Ha!

Cronkite: Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing,

Analysis: "Reliable financing" means a system of world taxation. That's what the Climate Change ™ hoax and its proposed "solution" of imposing "carbon taxes" on "wealthy nations" is really all about.

Cronkite: ... a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment ....

Translation: Cronkite envisions a multi-ethnic global goon squad enforcing tax collection and compliance with the world system.

Cronkite: ... and human rights.

Analysis: More code language. When Globalists speak of "human right," ™, they are referring to the "rights" of their paid trouble-makers within any "violator" nation to subvert that particular government. When the target government is forced to crack down on the CIA-NGO backed agitators, saboteurs, terrorists and subversives, the Globalist media, led by the New York Slimes, will immediately accuse that nation of "human rights violations" and call for sanctions, bombing, war etc.

Cronkite: As with the American rejection of the League of Nations after World War I, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing.

Analysis: In order to avoid the sound logical and moral arguments against One World Government, Cronkite is setting up the straw-man of the goofy televangelist Pat Robertson.

Cronkite: Their leader, Pat Robertson, ....

Analysis: I didn't know that Pat Robertson was "our leader," -- did "youse guys" (New Jerseyese for the plural of you) know that?

Cronkite: ... has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. "Attempts for world order before that time must be work of the Devil." -- Well, join me, I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.

Analysis: Given the freaky fascination with the occult that many of these elites have been known to dabble in, Cronkite's shout-out to Satan might very well have been literal. Indeed, Cronkite was, for many years, the voice of Molech the Owl for the creepy-as-all-heck "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the secretive annual gatherings at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California. (here).

Cronkite: The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community.

Translation: We still have got a lot of brainwashing to do before the American people will accept the New World Order as a good thing.

Now, here's the kicker. After Commie Cronkite wrapped up his open call for treason and full NWO "democratic" takeover, First Lady, future US Senator, future Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential nominee Killary Rotten Clinton appeared on the big screen to congratulate "the most trusted man in America" on his treason award.

IN HER OWN WORDS

Clinton:
"Good evening and congratulations, Walter, on receiving the World Federalist Association's Global Governance Award. For more than a generation in America, it wasn't the news until Walter Cronkite told us it was the news. Every night at 6 o'clock, we listened as you explained the complex events of the day. ... You became a trusted member of my family and the families across America. For decades, you told us "the way it is," but tonight, we honor you for fighting for the way it could be. .. So thank you, Walter. Thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world. We are still listening to your every word. And with your continuing leadership, we can sail across these un-navigated seas into the 21st Century, and there is no better captain that I can imagine than you."

Cronkite and Clinton --- "the most trusted man in America" and the neurotic hag who, were it not for Donald Trump, almost became "the first woman President" -- just a couple of meaningless and non-influential "conspiracy theorists" ™, eh? Believe it, there are plenty more big names who think just like them. Actually, the entire PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) is on board with the America-busting New World Order, or at least afraid of bucking "the tide of history."

Now, as much as the pro-Globalist prostitutes of the Piranha Press, Hollyweird, Corporate America (and Europe) and Academia all love Killary and Walter (who died in 2009), that's as much as they hate Trump and Putin. So why do the "great and the good" of the bought-and-paid-for pseudo-intelligentsia all hate on Trump and Putin so much? Read the quotes below, and the world situation will begin to make more sense to you.

Trump: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. My foreign policy will always put the interest of the American people and America security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make.”

“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,”

Putin: "What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within....I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. "

Putin and Trump certainly sound like "violators" who need to be "dealt with" -- eh Walter? If you still think the New World Order is just "paranoid conspiracy theory," then there is little else that can be done to enlighten you --- short of an economic calamity and/or World War III with Russia and China (which kingpin George Soros had already strongly hinted at (here)). But if you are intrigued by this subject and would like to learn more, then please have a look at "Planet Rothschild" (also linked below). Your world-view will never be the same.

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.

Marc D. Carpenter #fundie outsidethecamp.org

[All italics and underlining original]

During the course of a sermon, a "pastor" (loosely-termed) came to 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and read it in the KJV: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Instead of exegeting the passage, this pastor said, "I'm not going to touch this one with a ten-foot pole." This is a true story; I heard him say it on tape.

Why did this "pastor" abrogate his "pastoral duty" when it came to the modesty of women? To anyone who saw how the women were dressed in his assembly, the answer is obvious: This "pastor" was afraid to get into specifics as to what constituted modest dress, because if he did so, he would face the wrath of the shamelessly immodest women of the assembly and would be called a "fundamentalist" or a "legalist."

Yet passages on the modesty and immodesty of women are found throughout the Bible. If God put them in the Bible, we had better not ignore them.

Why does the Bible focus on women rather than men when it comes to modesty of dress? As Solomon said, "That which has been, it [is] that which shall be. And that which has been done, it [is] that which will be done. And there is no new [thing] under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As it is today, so it always has been: the women of the world love the glitter and glamor. They love to behave and to dress in such a way as to be sexy and seductive. The men of the world love it and feed into it. It is a truly disgusting dance of whoredom.

Whorish dress has not stayed outside of the professing church. In most cases, the women in the professing church and the world look no different. Their "everyday" clothes are whorish, their "dress-up" clothes are whorish, and their "recreation" clothes are whorish.

But this is not how true Christian women are to dress or conduct themselves. They are to adorn (arrange) themselves in modest, proper clothing, with shamefacedness and sobriety.

[...]

Why are most women's clothes made the way they are? What do most fashion designers have in mind when they design clothes for women? All you have to do is listen to a women's fashion clothing designer talk about why he or she designed clothing a certain way. The fashionable clothing is designed to be purposefully sexual. Almost all the clothes in the women's clothing departments and stores are designed to make the woman sexually attractive.

There is no denying this fact. Look at the difference between men's and women's clothing. Why is there a much higher prevalence of low-cut blouses, shirts, and dresses among women's clothing than among men's clothing? Why are so many v-necks or scoop-necks in women's clothing? Why do many women's fashions try to bare something, whether it be a part of the back or the front or the leg or even the shoulder? You cannot get around the fact that these things are designed the way they are because the designers have wicked things in mind. Whenever my wife and I go shopping with our children for clothes for the females in our house (one woman and two girls), we get angry. It is disgusting to see that stores (even K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.) expect all girls and women, including my daughters and my wife, to dress like whores. Take something as benign as shirts. In the stores, there are separate sections for girls' shirts, boys' shirts, women's shirts, and men's shirts. One would expect, if there were no other motive than to clothe people, that the girls' shirts would be designed the same as the boys' shirts, and the men's shirts would be designed the same as the women's shirts, maybe with some color differences. But no - they are noticeably different. The first thing one notices is that the hole for the head is noticeably bigger for the female shirts. Why would this be? Is it because females' heads are bigger than males' heads? Of course not. Upon closer inspection, the hole is actually shaped differently as well as being bigger. What is it for? It is for the neckline to be lower on the females' tops! When one looks at button-down tops, most of the females' tops do not button as high as the males' tops. In addition, shirts for females are shorter than the shirts for males.

[...]

Little girls of the world learn that femininity means whorishness at a very young age. The dolls they play with have whorish clothing. The animated Disney movies they see always have the main female character dressed in whorish clothing (usually something strapless). It is all around.

[...]

Finally, there is the swimsuit. It is nothing more than underwear worn in public. Why is it that women would be ashamed to be seen in a bikini walking down the sidewalk in a city, but it all of a sudden becomes acceptable when there is sand and water? Do the standards of modesty change when one comes upon sand and water? These are the same women who would be very upset if someone walked in on them in their bedroom when they were only clothed in their underwear, but when there is sand and water around, the shame is gone. The hypocrisy is evident. Can a woman wearing a modern swimsuit in public ever say that she is obeying 1 Timothy 2:9? And how many women in a beauty pageant would qualify for shamefacedness? It should be obvious that beauty pageants of any sort, whether or not there are swimsuits, are wicked.

Christian women and girls - be modest, be proper, be discreet, be decent, be shamefaced!

Liptusg #sexist reddit.com

Many incels are neurally incompatible with the female personality

This is a topic which has earned some coverage in a lot of the 'proto-blackpill' manosphere communities of their day, and some which relate to it here, but I think it might be worth encapsulating into a more poignant declaration. That is, to address the seeming disparity ( From an outsider's perspective ) between the idealistic yearning to the harsh reality and bring them into reconciliation.

And that is, many of the men who are in the incel demographic ( And I say many because you can still be incel and possess a heavily neurotypical mindset or adhere to certain Bluepilled doctrines ) are both neurodivergent enough, introspective enough and wise enough ( regardless of cognitive ability ) to automatically set themselves completely apart from the spectrum of coexistence with femininity. More succinctly, hypergamy and unattractiveness aside, they just don't have what it takes to put up with the myriad faults of female nature and wouldn't actually be able to find common ground with women even while passing initial mate selection, despite instinctively yearning for the sex or affection.

In a Chad's body, they would be forced to emulate the lifestyle of the exalted Redpiller ideal, the plate-spinner, who pumps and dumps yet never settles down because he is disillusioned with women's behavior as people ( for good reason ) and can't really tolerate all the nonsense or immorality that comes with 'committing' or trying to love one. The 'girlfriend' of his dreams his a mirage, an organism that does not actually exist on earth, a unicorn that acts like a man, not like an actual homo sapiens female.

But let's elaborate more on what that female personality is, and why most of the incels who are, and I'm searching for a term which is actually hard to put into words here - who are ruminative ( a synonym of wise, actually ), not as impulsive, who find themselves operating in a mindset of taking a few minutes in any new situation to existentially ponder the meaning, consequences and rightfulness of their own decisions and those of others ( Something which is predominantly an atypical masculine and non-feminine approach by the way, just look at the gender of most philosophers ), if you find yourself resonating with that, then it is very likely that you will not resonate with femininity under any circumstance.

Any so-called 'potential partner' is going to be predictively broken up with just by witnessing her actions for a minute, before it even has to come to it physically, just like a calculator has the results to your math equation before you even finish going through the motions. The gap between masculinity and femininity is wide enough that keep in mind, even among NPC's, normies, with only a tinge of 'positive masculinity' at it's finest and a flat 0 at Wisdom score, it is still the number 1 factor in the breakup rates of couples and why they change relationships like socks. Whether it be the man realizing he's being used as a status object and getting sick of it or the woman deciding he isn't good enough for her anymore, they just either didn't have the foresight to see it or they never actually cared and well long-term plate spinning ( Or Chad-fishing ). Look at how surprised some of the participants in say, Jersey Shore are, when their relationship which was built on superficial normie trash breaks down over superficial normie trash. Does it surprise anyone else? Here's a secret for the smug women and bluepillers reading this - you are merely one level above them. Your superficial relationships founded on social status, body language, 'ambitions' and looks ( as much as you hate to admit it ) are just one tiny iteration above tan spray and club swagger.

Now let's elaborate more on what is female personality and why it's so discordant to any man who can't bring himself down to it's level. First of all, when I say female personality, I mean it - there is literally just one, it is, contrary to all protestations, a monolith. You know who's the chief proponent of this theory? Women. Every time a woman tells you "You don't understand what women want", or "No woman is ever going to touch you with a 10-foot of stick if you do X" and "Women like a man who is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" and "You creep women out when..", they're all confirming it. I bring it up to them every single time that they make an affirmative statement about women, and they always remain speechless.

Liking one horror movie over the other or preferring hiking over Netflix, being a ballerina or psychologist, wearing this crop-top instead of those short-shorts, political alignment, religion, none of these are necessarily core personality differences. You could manufacture a robot that does all of the above combined, programming to vote and to recite lines from books ( AKA female ideology and spirituality ) included. When it comes to truly 'groundbreaking' distinctions, AWALT. All the female dating profiles on reddit might as well be procedurally generated templates of each other, starkly separate from the male ones. When it comes to opinions, when is the last time that the women of AskWomen, of TrollX, of IT, of CreepyPM's, of Tumblr, anywhere, had a major debate or fracture over something to the extent male demographics do? What's the number of women coming here, or to ForeverAlone, or to Men'sRights ( While there are female MRA's like the HoneyBadgers, check out the ratio between female MRA's to male feminists ) or to MGTOW in order to get our perspective things in a non-confrontational way to the same extent men visit even the most radical female spaces to offer their whiteknighting support? When was the last time female IT users disagree with each other about men's role in the universe? When was the last time a woman went 'Nobody wants to date an X' and instead of getting 5000 upvotes and 'yu go gurl' from other women, got a debate from other women instead, similarly to how there are always men who would be willing to say they wouldn't mind something in a woman that even most people would, including extreme insecurities or mental illnesses or weight or clinginess or what have you? Ein gender, Ein matriarchy, Ein hamster.

Well, is the unified female monolith at least a force of goodness? It is not. Let us actually skip over the known and rehashed attributes of hypergamy, superficiality, manipulativeness, capriciousness, solipsism and frivolity which have earned femininity the scathing rebukes it's received from pretty much almost every society to ever walk the earth until the point where they leveraged sex in order to shame everyone from even thinking about doing it. Let's focus on how women perceive themselves to be on their 'best behavior', which, you might be surprised to find out, is not at all working in their favor coming as it is from a brain so philosophically bankrupt and so out of tune with the evolutionary higher faculties of ( And I don't mean intelligence, that is what they think it means, because they can't grasp it ) mankind that it doesn't realize why would anyone reject it's framework.

Pardon me in advance for the upcoming rant, but one can't really enter the female mindspace properly without it - "I want a man who has his shit together! You better have some ambitions, you better have some accomplishments if you want to be with me! I WANT ( I want I want I want I want I wannnnnnt ) a guy who isn't afraid to take what he wants, who is assertive and dominant and aggressive when he needs to be, don't be a fucking doormat, don't be NEEDY ew, although I myself am insecure about my body and need someone to motivate me for the gym and baby me in my DD/lg fetish teehee, oh and for god's sake have some SOCIAL GRACES. Be confident and charming, don't you know how important social graces are? I want a functional man, not a boy, you have to know what you're doing."

Speaking of the monolith, can you find any female profile on r4r which isn't like that in whole or in part, in spirit if not in the explicit and intentionally highlighted priorities? Try it. Now, the average woman looks at the above and thinks to herself "Yass queen SLAY", this is peak performance to her. She considers this to be the most wholesome, deep, reasonable attitude humanly attainable. Thanks to the decadent evil empire and gynocentric atmosphere that we've been under the spell of for a long time now, maybe even you might fail to see the absolute sewage that underlines the gung-ho tirade at first glance.

You know what I see? I seen an application for a sycophantic leech, not a love interest. A total obsession with materialistic, external pursuits and one's position in the societal rat race due to incapability of actually loving anyone for who they are as opposed to what they do, and seeing them as 'success objects' in the same vein that women complain of men only evaluating them as 'sex objects'. I see a total bratty, undeveloped obsession with one of philosophy's biggest vices ( Big surprise, remember the role of women in morality and philosophy? ) - judging a book by it's cover rather than it's content and caring to an extreme length about how someone says something as opposed to what they're saying, which is part and parcel of hindbrain herd behavior. Women are under the impression that their fanatic obsession in that regard is a virtue, and that a good man is one who adapts to it rather than discounts it. It is not, there's a reason why it doesn't figure so prominently in men's dating profiles. And finally, yet another glaring whimsical and infantile female habit which they credit to their superiority - the lack of willingness to give someone any leeway or acceptance whatsoever, to put principle and ideal above ego and feelings, once again, a cornerstone of advanced morality. And once again, something that almost every man instinctively does for women. Put aside the 'muh social skills' ( Or more correctly, women skills, because they're the only ones demanding all the crazy eggshell-stepping ) and 'muh assertiveness', and put themselves in the shoes of the other side, and try to find goodness at the most fundamental level that it really matters, because they have this non-Darwinian sensation and guideline deep down inside of "I should be magnanimous moreso than I am judgemental". Does that ever happen? You can tell from the dating profiles, the answer is obviously not. And that's what makes the female personality what it is.

And this is just one sliver of the grander shit-show. Plenty has been written about the shit-tests even once you're already in a relationship, the double standards, the branch-swinging if you ever fail the shit-test, the mental games, and all for what - the craved female submission state, which let me emphasize, is not 'love' in any sense. The condition which is reached whereupon the female has deemed you to be a successful status/gene leeching target and begins feigning ( Naturally she'll say it isn't feigned, until you stop being Chad to her, and become her "abusive and toxic ex" ) all the sticky affection and sexual favors associated with the 'positive' aspects of female personality, like a colorful and inviting carnivorous plant attracting a fly inside. But any incel which understands the entire process, upon it's carnal pros and philosophical cons, is also one who will never be compatible with a woman, even if he attained physical desirability.

Gregory Hood #racist amren.com

MLK Is Post-White America’s Founding Father

It’s a holiday tradition. Conservatives, including civic nationalists such Steve Bannon, praise Martin Luther King. Both leftists and white Identitarians say this is absurd. Both agree King was a dedicated socialist who worked with Communist Party members. King was also an adulterer, a plagiarist, and did nothing to stop a rape he witnessed. The rape incident was disclosed by a progressive reporter and biographer, who called the challenge to King’s stature “fundamental.”

This has had little effect on conservatives. Instead, they redouble their efforts to force Martin Luther King into the American and even the conservative pantheon. Heritage Foundation president Kay James tweeted: “Our founding principles would be the very tools we would eventually use to right our own wrongs. Dr. King helped us to prove we could do just that.”

The Heritage Foundation also published an article at its website, The Daily Signal, claiming that “our principles required that we solve our race problem.” King therefore becomes “our last Founding Father.”

Yet can the race problem be “solved?” Barring genocide (which at least some leftists intend for us), expulsion, or peaceful separation, the race problem can at best be managed. No society has ever “solved” the race problem. That’s why prophets like Enoch Powell warned against unnecessarily importing the problem to begin with.

Even the Daily Signal article implicitly admits this. “The Untied States at large had a race problem that traced back to when the first African slaves were first imported to Virginia in 1619,” wrote Dion Pierre. “It was not ameliorated when Abraham Lincoln’s Union Army dispossessed the Southern aristocracy of its slaves and remained acute in places like Birmingham, where King first established himself as the man that would lead the United States into the multiracial era.” It would have been better to avoid slavery and the “race problem” altogether, as well as the supposed necessity for a “multiracial era.”

Contrasting King with Malcolm X and other black nationalists, Mr. Pierre said that “King understood the temptation to fight identity politics with identity politics, but refused.” Mr. Pierre also claims King preached that “any form of race nationalism defied the ‘edicts of the Almighty God himself.’”

Of course, King explicitly defended racial preferences for blacks, which is the essence of identity politics. Considering his sexual behavior and his denial of Christ’s divinity, he didn’t take the “edicts of the Almighty God” too seriously either.

Mr. Pierre deals with this history by ignoring it. He simply asserts that King believed “character, not skin color, counted most.” Now, thanks to the last Founder, the descendants of slaves and former slave holders can all sing “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.”

Maybe Mr. Pierre even believes this. Meanwhile, in the real world, most Americans think race relations are getting worse. A huge black majority says the country hasn’t gone far enough in granting “equal rights.” Fifty percent of blacks say America never will. Desegregation and affirmative action haven’t appeased blacks and leftists. They increasingly blame racism for racial inequality, no matter what programs are introduced, resources redistributed, or statues torn down. No other explanation for racial inequality is possible in a country that refuses to acknowledge racial differences.

Most non-whites think their race or ethnicity is “central” to their identity. Whites don’t, probably because “American” and “white” are still implicitly linked. Thus, polls show whites are more patriotic while non-whites lead protests against historic American symbols like the Betsy Ross flag.

White identity is catching up with “American” identity. In the “multiracial era,” your passport is less important than your race. European-Americans have more in common with our Continental cousins than “fellow citizens” who don’t speak our language, identify with our history, or honor our heroes.

Conservatives awkwardly trying to fit King into the Founders’ mold must ignore what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and others said about race. Instead, they reduce our “founding principles” to “all men are created equal.” This is as stupid as saying King opposed racial identity politics.

Conservatives need King. To admit there is a conflict between King and Washington is to admit the problem can’t be resolved. It denies “American exceptionalism,” which to many whites is akin to denying God. Most whites can’t stomach religious hypocrisy the same way Reverend King and his pastor friends could.

Mr. Pierre is right about King being a “Founder,” though not in the way he thinks. A fraud and hypocrite in almost every aspect of his life, King cloaked his agenda in traditional American rhetoric that appealed to well-meaning, naïve whites. Now, the mask is off. Thanks to demographic change, leftists and non-whites no longer need to pretend. They can admit America was created by whites, that Martin Luther King was “radical” (in Cornel West’s words), and that American institutions must be fundamentally changed to serve the new population. King isn’t the last Founding Father, but the first Founder of the new, post-white United States. If King truly was the “Founder” of a nation, that nation has nothing to do with us.

Whether such a dystopian, dysfunctional polity can long endure is impossible to say. What is certain is that Sam Francis was right: “The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.” Deliberate refusal to understand is moral failure. Conservatives can no longer plead ignorance.

Anna Rountree #fundie 64.71.77.248

My Earthly Father’s House

As I continued forward, I saw many whom I knew within the crowd. Some were relatives who had died in years past. My earthly father was among them. But my eyes and attention were upon Him to whom I was going. I thought of Psalm 45:10—11: “Forget your people and your father’s house; then the King will desire your beauty.” I did feel that I was being transferred from my earthly father’s house to the abode of my Husband.

Also among those gathered were the angels assigned to me. Some I knew. Some I did not know. But I could tell that these were angels assigned to help me because they were smiling broadly.

My Father’s House

As I neared the little house of light created by my Father’s hands, I wanted to share my consent. I wanted to say, “Yes, yes, I agree,” to all three members of the Trinity. I felt as light as a wisp of air. I was a cornucopia of joy.

Jesus smiled at me as I passed one of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit stationed around the perimeter of my Father’s canopy.

My Assent

As I stepped beneath the canopy, I could contain my joy no longer. I began to walk through an acceptance. The movements were like a stately dance.

I circled Jesus three times, one encircling for each member of the Trinity. As I weaved gently between the mighty torches of the Holy Spirit, I overflowed with love for all Three.

Like Rebekah, I wanted to say, “I will go with this Man.” I began to sing a new song.

Song of the Bride

Hear, Thou great Redeemer blessed,
Deep within my heart find rest;
You who birthed me from Your side,
Then called me forth to be Your bride.
I exult in You alone,
And take Your heart to be my home.
Lover, Friend, Redeemer, Son,
Eternal Husband, make us one.

A Private Moment

When the third circuit had been completed, I took my place at the right of Jesus. I had publicly given my consent before a multitude of witnesses.

He looked deeply into my eyes and spoke privately to me:

Set Me as a seal upon your heart,

As a signet ring upon your finger.

Under His Covering

Gently a tallith settled over our heads. Jesus spoke again, this time in a manner that would bear public witness to all:

I betroth you to Me forever.

I betroth you to Me in righteousness and in Justice,

In loving-kindness and in compassion,

I betroth you to Me in faithfulness—and you will know God.

A Ring More Precious Than Gold

Then lifting my veil slightly, He took my right hand into both of His. He held my right index finger encased within His right hand as He spoke:

Behold, you are consecrated to Me.

A golden light encompassed my right index finger. From my finger the light spread over my whole being.

My Father’s hands of light became a brilliant cocoon. Besides Jesus, the only other one I could see was the Holy Spirit manifested in flaming towers. The light became more and more intense. I saw two white eagles cart wheeling.

Mahanaim

Then slowly, as in a ritual dance of birds, I felt suspended within the dazzling light and fire. It was as though Jesus and I began a stylized, courtship dance. I felt that I was vapor that could be inhaled, vapor that could be carried into fire and light.

This was light that could be breathed. It was light that was alive. It went through me as if I was not there at all. I became one with the light—in a dance with it. It was as though within the light and fire, I too became light and fire.

We were vaporous—blending, circling, homogenized yet distinct, fused but separate. The two became entirely one, then separate again.

Although this dance began slowly, it accelerated to a lightning speed. The dance was lightning—lightning, fire, and light, glorious in the extreme.

Lullaby to Creation

Then, as if in some suspended silence, I began to hear my Father sing. It was creative sound, a lullaby from the heart of Him who sings to His creation, from Him who holds all things together by the word of His power.

He had given the universe its sounds so that all might sing back to Him. In this rare, suspended silence, I could hear that singular sound released from all creation. From deep within Himself, our God, like a father rocking his child, sang lovingly to His universe.

I sensed the perfect unity within the Godhead, their harmony. By being brought into the Godhead, I began to experience their unity. I shared in their oneness. Jesus was giving me the desires of my heart. As He had sworn, in greater measure I began to “know God.”

Return to the Ceremony

From this suspended place, I became conscious again of the ceremony. My Father’s canopied hands, the seven torches of fire, Jesus, the attendants, the angels, and the redeemed all came back into focus. I was once again under the canopy with Jesus.

A jubilant shout came from those assembled. Together they proclaimed:

Consecrated!

Celebration

The throne room erupted into celebration. Dancers began careening past us, reaching out to wish us well. Jesus touched hand after hand. I was smiling but somewhat dazed.

Jesus looked over at me.

Then speaking with affection to those who were reaching toward us, He said, “Please excuse us.”

Smiling, He took my hand and said, “Come.”

Brian Wiggins #racist eurocanadian.ca

Canadians from the founding cultures, need to look beyond a conventional political solution. If Catalonia, Khalistan, Israel, Wakanda, “Farrakhanland,” Scotland, Kurdistan, Quebec, and “New” California, why not a homeland for European-Canadians in South-Western Ontario; the Maritimes; the Prairies, around Quebec City or the interior of beautiful British Columbia? It’s British Columbia, after-all.

We can’t be accused of discriminating against people we don’t live with. The massive transfer of wealth and the $35B-$40B fiscal costs of immigration will disappear. Infrastructure savings would be enormous. We’ll never have to worry about being branded racists or xenophobes again. Taxes will decline. Hospitals, currently operating at 135% of capacity in both the Fraser River Valley and the GTA, largely as a result of chain migration, will gradually decline to their intended 85% cap, and we’ll be able to move on our highways again. The Canadian environmental could heal. Employment equity plans will vanish, and organizations can get thousands of our kids out of their parent’s basements and into the workforce.

A new homeland for the founding cultures might seem fantastic or a pipe dream to some but consider that we are now, as of the credit crisis of 2008-09, at a significant historical inflection point. In their bestselling book, The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with History, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe describe the seasonal nature of history and foresee an inevitable period of decay that will destroy existing social and political institutions.

Steven K. Bannon, former advisor to President Donald Trump (and many others), agrees that a Fourth Turning began in 2008 with the global financial credit crisis and has argued that the administrative state must be dismantled in advance of the final climax. Canadians, too, should tear down everything that is no longer functional, including our pathological immigration policies and official multiculturalism. In order to renew, forests need fires and rivers need floods.

To be fair, sweeping theories of history are not as well received in academia. The Fourth Turning is non-falsifiable and has been a tough sell to professional historians who have now been co-opted into re-writing and revising history to allow for the occupation of formerly Western ancestral homelands by alien out-groups. William McLoughlin, a former history prof at Brown, believes that it is fantasy to think that “if you put enough data together and have enough charts and graphs, you’ve made history into a science.” Fair enough. Those sophisticated enough to lose money in the capital markets at any time, will confirm that the future is unknowable by definition. Nevertheless, the Turnings are much more than mere happenstance or data mining.

Readers who have stock market experience can find support in Elliot’s 5th and final wave of his grand super-cycle and with Nikolai Kondratieff’s wave theory. The cycle of crises also corresponds with cycles of war identified by Arnold Toynbee and geopolitical cycles identified by William R. Thompson. Keep in mind Vladimir Lenin’s comment that “In some decades, nothing happens; in some weeks, decades happen.”

There’s a lot to be concerned about. North Korea and Iran; the staggering mountain of immoral public debt in the United States and Canada and throughout the West; the crouching, racist and hyper-nationalist tiger dreaming of global domination and increasingly militarizing, with weapons stolen from the West, the South China Sea, or what I prefer to call the North Philippine Sea, are all potential sparks. The world’s greatest threat according to Bill Gates, is an influenza pandemic. The Institute of Disease Modelling predicts that a severe flu pandemic could kill more than 33 million people in just 250 days. Several concerning strains are already circulating.[iv]

Finally, in my view, there is a growing threat of a second civil war exploding out of the incredible divisiveness in the United States. Either of these four “sparks;” debt, China, a flu pandemic, or the outbreak of a second American Civil War or a combination of these threats could ignite the final Fourth Turning “climax” sometime between now and 2025, give or take, according to the theory.

The generational cycle cannot explain the role or timing of these individual threats. Nor can it account for the great events of history, like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Kennedy’s assassination, 9/11 or the Lehman insolvency. What the generational cycle can do, according to Strauss and Howe, is explain how society is likely to respond to these events in different eras. It is the response, not the initial event, which defines an era according to the theory. [v] According to Strauss and Howe, the crisis period lasts for approximately 20 years.

A financial collapse driven by a debt implosion is certainly plausible. Total debt in the U.S., for example, including Federal, State, Municipal and contingent liabilities in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is roughly $207 Trillion. In Canada, the Province of Ontario is a financial train wreck. The province will need to increase borrowing to finance another spending shortfall, adding to an existing mountain of debt, borrowed on our grandchildren’s credit cards, and is forecast to rise to $325 Billion, or more than $22,500 for every man, woman and child in the Province.[vi]

Newly elected Premier, Doug Ford, will find his hands to be tied but at least he has the right mindset and there is some hope that his populist surge will spill over Federally next year. To make matters worse, Moody’s has joined the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) and S&P Global is warning that Canada’s banking system, yes Canada’s, is facing a growing threat of souring consumer loans amid rising interest rates. Canada’s ratio of household debt to disposable income reached a new astonishing record of 171% in the 3rd Q of 2017 and the proportion of uninsured mortgages has increased to 60% from 50% five years ago.[vii]

It is my view, however, that the final spark for the Fourth Turning will be ignited by a Second American Civil War. Either way, the day of reckoning is coming. The chickens will come home to roost.

The Fourth Turning, whatever the final cause(s), has the potential to trigger a political upheaval beyond what we can possibly ever imagine. Strauss and Howe see a return to a more traditional and conservative social order as one of the outcomes. If history is a guide, the probability of retribution for former “collaborators” and for those who resist the new expectations for conformity will be high. There will be no assumption of compassion for the traitors and complacency will not be an option.

On the bright side, fertility rates will rise again, quality of life and prosperity will climb and public investment in infrastructure will surge. We will enter into a period of Peace, Order and Good Government but many nations are likely to be fractured and geographically divided by ethnicity as a consequence.

Yes, there is hope for a new homeland for the founding cultures. This may be our opportunity to take our nation back and hold those responsible for giving it away, without our consent, as traitors. Gird your loins for our next rendezvous with destiny.

Canada is over 400 years old. Our people have a DNA all our own. We belong to a unique and storied nation with its own official languages, religion, history, heroes, mannerisms, culture and identity. We don’t want open borders. We don’t want mass migrations to change Canada into something new. We don’t want to become a minority in our own land. We want our country back.

Canadian “elites” babble about “diversity,” about how much better a country we will be in 2036 when white Europeans are just another minority and we have become a “gorgeous mosaic” of every race, tribe, creed and culture on earth. To many Canadians, such a future entails the death of our nation. To Canadians, millions of African, Chinese, Indian, Arab and Islamic peoples settling in our lands means the annihilation of the historic nation we love, the nation that came into being to preserve us. We will never forgive politicians, whether by accident, or design, if they change our country completely and forever.

Many of these aliens who occupy Canada today have no “cosanguity” with either of the two founding cultures or the larger white European family. From the growing expressions of resentment, contempt and even hostility towards us, it’s clear they we’re not compatible.[viii] Canada is increasingly being filled with people who have absolutely no connection to the great historic Dominion of Canada. They can’t be faulted. Canada was never really created for them but as anti-white sentiment goes mainstream and all of Canada’s non-whites increasingly assert their own racial and ethnic heritage, what will keep Canada together when we lose our white majority? If Euro-Canadians had the same group loyalty as Sikhs, Muslims, Chinese and Indians we would never have permitted these aliens into our land to begin with.

Our ancestors did not create the heroic and adventurous Hudson Bay Company, fight on the Plains of Abraham, Beaver Dam, Stoney Creek, Lundy’s Lane, Michilimackinac Island, Queenston Heights, Paardeberg and Leliefontein, Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, The North Atlantic, in Defence of Hong Kong, The Battle of Britain, Dieppe, D-Day, The Liri Valley, Normandy, the Scheldt, Kapyong and Kandahar, and endure the enormous hardships and sacrifice of the Great Depression, in order for baby boomers to turn the country over to alien out-groups and foreigners who have nothing in common with us and who don’t share our values.

Canada is much more than an idea; it’s much more than a shopping mall. The Fathers of Confederation did not frame the British North America Act to celebrate diversity. It’s the “British” North America Act, after all. Canadians did not spill their blood and treasure around the world for multiculturalism and to become a marginalized, despised but “privileged” minority in the land bequeathed to us by their ancestors; our home and native land. Did we?

If we don’t stop this madness, and establish our own lands, Euro-Canadians will learn soon enough that the non-whites our hyper-altruistic elites usher into 24 Sussex Drive will not fritter away their demographic, political and economic gains in fruitless displays of moral superiority the way we have. A Canada run by non-white aliens and foreigners will be a shockingly different place. Competitive racial and ethnic altruism is not a game non-whites play.[ix] Canadians must force our traitorous elites to abandon policies that will, before long, destroy us all and everything that was bequeathed to us.

I should be careful what I wish for, but as far as I am concerned, the Fourth Turning can’t come soon enough. We are a people. We can create great things if left free to be ourselves and only we can be ourselves. If Canada ceases to be majority white country, it won’t be a country at all. Euro-Canadians should never give up on the idea that this country belongs, first and foremost, to us. We will fight back and the fight has, in fact, already begun. A cold wind is blowing. Winter is coming…

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Trump's one-two punch hits birth control, LGBT rights"

Thank God for our president! Please continue to pray for him. God bless him!!

(FOX news story follows)

WASHINGTON – In a one-two punch elating religious conservatives, President Donald Trump's administration is allowing more employers to opt out of no-cost birth control for workers and issuing sweeping religious-freedom directions that could override many anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people and others.

At a time when Trump finds himself embattled on many fronts, the two directives — issued almost simultaneously on Friday — demonstrated the president's eagerness to retain the loyalty of social conservatives who make up a key part of his base. Leaders of that constituency were exultant.

"President Trump is demonstrating his commitment to undoing the anti-faith policies of the previous administration and restoring true religious freedom," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Liberal advocacy groups, including those supporting LGBT and reproductive rights, were outraged.

"The Trump administration is saying to employers, 'If you want to discriminate, we have your back,'" said Fatima Goss Graves, president of National Women's Law Center.

Her organization is among several that are planning to challenge the birth-control rollback in court. The American Civil Liberties Union filed such a lawsuit less than three hours after the rules were issued.

"The Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their boss' religious beliefs," said ACLU senior staff attorney Brigitte Amiri. "We're filing this lawsuit because the federal government cannot authorize discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise."

Xavier Becerra, the Democratic attorney general of California, said he planned to file a similar lawsuit as soon as feasible. Other Democratic attorneys general said they were mulling the same step.

Both directives had been in the works for months, with activists on both sides of a culture war on edge about the timing and the details.

The religious-liberty directive, issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, instructs federal agencies to do as much as possible to accommodate those who claim their religious freedoms are being violated. The guidance effectively lifts a burden from religious objectors to prove that their beliefs about marriage or other topics that affect various actions are sincerely held.

"Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law," Sessions wrote.

In what is likely to be one of the more contested aspects of the document, the Justice Department states that religious organizations can hire workers based on religious beliefs and an employee's willingness "to adhere to a code of conduct." Many conservative Christian schools and faith-based agencies require employees to adhere to moral codes that ban sex outside marriage and same-sex relationships, among other behavior.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm, called it "a great day for religious freedom." But JoDee Winterhof of the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights group, depicted the two directives as "an all-out assault, on women, LGBT people and others" as the administration fulfilled a "wish list" of the religious right.

The new policy on contraception, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, allows more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women by claiming religious or moral objections — another step in rolling back President Barack Obama's health care law that required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost.

Employers with religious or moral qualms will also be able to cover some birth control methods, and not others. Experts said that could interfere with efforts to promote modern long-acting implantable contraceptives, such as IUDs, which are more expensive.

The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said the birth-control rollback was despicable.

"This administration's contempt for women reaches a new low with this appalling decision to enable employers and health plans to deny women basic coverage for contraception," she said.

On the Republican side, however, House Speaker Paul Ryan welcomed the decision, calling it "a landmark day for religious liberty."

The new policy took effect on Friday, but its impact won't be known immediately and may not be dramatic.

"I can't imagine that many employers are going to be willing to certify that they have a moral objection to standard birth control methods," said Dan Mendelson, president of the consulting firm Avalere Health.

Nonetheless, he worried that the new rules would set a precedent for undermining basic health benefits required under federal law. The administration has estimated that some 200 employers who have already voiced objections to the Obama-era policy would qualify for the expanded opt-out, and that 120,000 women would be affected.

Since contraception became a covered preventive benefit, the share of female employees paying with their own money for birth control pills has plunged to 3 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Many Catholic hospitals now rely on an Obama-era workaround under which the government pays for the cost of birth control coverage. That workaround can continue under the new rules.

Despite that workaround, there have been extensive legal battles waged by religious institutions and other parties challenging the birth-control mandate. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops hailed the new policy as a "return to common sense" that would enhance "peaceful coexistence" between church and state.

Doctors' groups that were instrumental in derailing Republican plans to repeal Obama's health law outright expressed their dismay.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the new policy could reverse the recent progress in lowering the nation's rate of unintended pregnancies.

"Instead of fulfilling its mission 'to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans,' HHS leaders under the current administration are focused on turning back the clock on women's health," said the organization's president, Dr. Haywood Brown.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified.Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND.

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!

ElliotsSecondAscent #sexist reddit.com

[Summary: False dichotomy between "looks are completely irrelevant" and incel crackpottery. Conspicuously silent on numerical results. Also a "wonderful" demonstration of neochauvinists' failures at understanding biology and a nightmare to format.)

The Black Pill backed up by hard data and facts.

Preface:

All cursive text is not my own, they are quoted from the articles sourced under every title.

Black Pill Edition: Female nature
____
The relevance of personality as a petulant farce
____
Small Appetizer
____
Before we start with the more serious studies let me present you a small appetizer to stimulate the intake of the Black Pill.
____
A couple of years ago OkCupid conducted an interesting experiment. January 15th, 2013 was proclaimed by OkCupid as “Love is Blind Day” to celebrate the launch of a blind dating app released on that same day.

During “Love is Blind Day”, pictures were removed from OkCupid for a total of 7 hours and so data was gathered and the way people interacted with each other visibly changed!


As you can see, there was more and deeper conversation with an increase in exchange of personal information. A vast improvement for everyone! So, it seemed.

Here’s what happened next:

• When the photos were restored at 4PM, 2,200 people were in the middle of conversations that had started “blind”. Those conversations melted away. The goodness was gone, in fact worse than gone. It was like we’d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight.

Summarized in this graph.

Starting from the moment OkCupid released the photos, conversations died down almost immediately. The conversation life expectancy dropped nearly 30% just two messages later in the thread when the photos were back on.

There was another also another smaller experiment, that can be summarized by this excerpt:

• We took a small sample of users and half the time we showed them, we hid their profile text. That generated two independent sets of scores for each profile, one score for “the picture and the text together” and one for “the picture alone.” Here’s how they compare. Again, each dot is a user. Essentially, the text is less than 10% of what people think of you.

The second graph.

The text makes almost no difference on how you’re viewed.

Lastly, there was also the experiment where Okcupid let people predict personality based on profiles. In this case a beautiful picture strongly correlates with a beautiful personality when you let people be the judge. Third graph.

Conclusion:

Photos have a greater impact on the course of a conversation than the intimacy of that same conversation, which displayed the personality of both correspondents. The text added to your profile meant to introduce your characteristics, plays an insignificant role next to the photo. Your personality will be established in advance primarily based on your photo.

source: https://theblog.okcupid.com/we-experiment-on-human-beings-5dd9fe280cd5

What is beautiful is good, really good.
____
It's commonly known that "looks matter", but have you asked yourself the question: How much do they matter? Especially in regards to the widely and heavily emphasized personality?

Let us take a look in some more professional studies who have pondered this same question.
____
In the year 2015, a study in Italy (subject: social psychology) researched the effects of attractiveness, status and gender on the evaluation of personality.

quote:

• Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model.

I chose this particular study, because it's recent and the first of it's kind. A myriad of older studies have already concluded that perceiving a person as good looking fosters positive expectations about personal characteristics (1).

• The effects of attractiveness are strong and pervasive. As Langlois et al. (2000) underline in their meta-analysis, attractiveness is a noteworthy advantage for both children and adults in almost every domain. Based on the “what is beautiful is good” effect (Dion et al., 1972), several studies (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991); Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 2000) demonstrated that this phenomenon functions as a stereotype, making the perceived link between appearance and personality larger than the actual link

In short, attractive people are perceived as having far better personalities even when that isn't the case.

• Indeed, people seem to assume that positive interpersonal qualities and physical attractiveness are systematically linked (i.e., a “halo effect”) (Andreoni & Petrie 2008; Callan, Powell, & Ellard, 2007; Smith, McIntosh, & Bazzini, 1999).

Off topic personal note:

It’s not that incels have bad personalities, they are perceived as such because of their looks. Now you’ll say that we possess misogynistic and violent attitudes but ask yourself, was this behavior preempted by the way we were treated or did we grow towards it?


Now to the final closure of this particular study.

• In general, results are in line with the ‘beauty is good’ effect (Dion et al., 1972), as people seem to believe that physical attractiveness implies positive personality traits, but the effects of attractiveness are different for men and women.

The results came in as predicted, with the exception that there were differences for men and women. Attractive men were perceived as more extroverted and open minded than attractive women, creating an advantage for attractive men.

In other words, it’s better to be an attractive man than to be an attractive woman.

• For Extraversion the effect of attractiveness is the same for women and men but is stronger for male targets. Attractiveness has a positive effect on Conscientiousness only for women whereas it increases Openness only for men.

• Thus, overall the “beauty is good effect” seems to be greater for men.

I will not go too deep in the status aspect because it was stated as rather controversial.

source for the cursive text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/


Female nature
____
Excellent genes or providing ability
____
The covering of personality serves as a foundation to grasp in a clearer manner for what I am going to say next. Now, what does a woman want when looking for a mate?

Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective.
____
Physical attractiveness and especially masculinity indicate good genetic quality, which is important for healthy offspring while ability to provide amplifies the survival rate of offspring because it needs sufficient resources to survive as well(2).

The reason why masculinity plays an enormous role in the mating choices of the human female, is because masculinity in itself greatly enhances physical attractiveness. However, a female's desire for strong masculine features may be influenced depending on whether she wants a long term relationship or a short term one on which I'll come back later.

• From an evolutionary view, extremes of secondary sexual characteristics (more feminine for women, more masculine for men) are proposed to be attractive because they advertise the quality of an individual in terms of heritable benefits; they indicate that the owners of such characteristics possess good genes. In other words, such traits advertise the possession of genes that are beneficial to offspring inheriting them in terms of survival or reproduction

Females may choose less masculine faces in some cases (for LTR) because they will often associate masculinity with infidelity, masculine men will not be perceived as good long term partners(3). A woman needs a loyal provider to raise offspring. Masculine men are still preferred for copulation however, because they possess the best genes to pass on.

• Increasing the masculinity of face shape increased perceptions of dominance, masculinity and age but decreased perceptions of warmth, emotionality, honesty, cooperativeness and quality as a parent.

YOUR PERSONALITY IS ASSESSED THROUGH YOUR FACE

This may be well and good, but women want men who possess certain personality traits too. Someone who they can form an emotional connection with is what they claim. Funnily enough, the way your personality is judged is through your face. You will not be liked for your personality but in fact for your face. People do not care for who you are but what you look like. As you already know: “The better your face, the better your so called personality”.

• Personality traits are reported cross-culturally to be among the most important factors in partner choice by both sexes [1,118]. If desired personality is so important, it would appear likely that personality attributions elicited by a face would affect its attractiveness. For example, women who value cooperation and good parenting may avoid masculine-faced men. Thus, instead of feminine faces being attractive and this attractiveness driving positive personality attributions, it may be that the personality attributions are driving the attractiveness judgements.

They are essentialy saying that your personality equals your face. Personality = Face

The meme is confirmed true.

• One study has indeed demonstrated that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness [121]. Individuals valuing particular personality traits find faces appearing to display these traits attractive.

Even when it’s not related at all, if your face looks like a certain desired personality it will be attractive to the person who desires that personality.

Being aware of this prospect makes women pickier than thought before. At first women emphasizing the importance of personality made them seem much less shallow since anyone, regardless of looks can possess a certain personality. Now it is not really a certain personality they are desiring, but a certain face that looks like that personality.

• Thus, desired personality influences perceptions of facial attractiveness in opposite sex faces, changing the result to: ‘what is good is beautiful’ [121].

source for the cursive text: : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/

THE INFLUENCE OF THE MENSTRUAL CYCLE

It's possible one could be thinking that none of this poses an actual problem because different women want different personalities, thus different faces. Following from that, most men should still have a shot.

Things are a little trickier than that, unfortunately.

During ovulation, when a woman is most fertile and the best moment for impregnation; her desires for masculine features increase significantly and so her chances for cheating in her quest for a sexy masculine man(4).

• Women prefer the smell of dominant males, more masculine male faces and men behaving more dominantly when at peak fertility than at other times in their menstrual cycle.

That’s not at all, during peak fertility they also prefer more masculine bodies and more masculine voices.

The perfect strategy for a female is to be impregnated by a masculine dominant man and be provided by less masculine more loyal and less dominant men.

• Cyclic preferences could influence women to select partners when most likely to become pregnant that possess traits that may be most likely to maximize their offspring's quality via attraction to masculinity or serve to help acquire investment via attraction to femininity.

source for the cursive text: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X07000360

For reference, from masculine to less masculine.

If you understand this, it’s far easier grasp how it comes that 8000 years ago when there was no civilization; 1 man used to reproduce for 17 women. I can only hypothesize the female copulated with the dominant masculine males while being provided by ignorant less masculine men(5).

Final conclusion:
____
You are not desired for your personality as man. You are desired for your looks, genes or ability to provide.

Fun addition:

It's been posted here some times before, but just to be sure.

http://www.webtoons.com/en/drama/lookism/list?title_no=1049

Black pilled fun to read manhwa.

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

Since I first discovered my desire for women, I have always taken this attraction for granted and held it to be an inseparable part of my straight, male identity. It has been just over twenty years since I began to lay awake in bed, imagining the female form and feeling a need for its presence. Although I knew that my need for women would eventually lessen, I expected it to last for the rest of my life. I saw it in my grandfather in his old age, after all, and expected it would be the same for me. I thought of it as an essential element of my masculinity — a part of my being that I’d both exult in and suffer for throughout my life.

However, essential or not, I thought of desire as external; separate from thoughts, emotions opinions and sense of self. I considered it involuntary, like the beating of my heart or the drawing in of breath.

Lately, I’ve begun to realize that the desire I’ve always counted on is a far more complex thing than a mere physiological process. It seems men aren’t the purely physical creatures I assumed, and that longing and need encompass far more than the switching on of a sexual response.

I often see explanations in popular culture for why men find themselves increasingly uninterested in American women. Some of these are quite compelling, such as the lack of femininity, the ever more aggressive and assertive nature of young American women, and the sense of entitlement that they display as though it were an expensive piece of jewelry. The raw, predatory sexuality encouraged on television shows for women has a distinctly unattractive quality; aside from certain anatomical features and minor differences in dress, these women display all of the characteristics of offensively forward and brash men. The hard look in the eyes, the strut and the lack of regard for others are now the mark of the superior woman. For many men, to desire these characteristics would require a change in sexuality — something homosexuals persuasively insist is impossible.

I see this as just another example of the shifting definitions of masculinity and femininity as society emerges from the Industrial Age. Recently, I reread Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and found myself amused by his devotional descriptions of the heroine, Lucy Manette, who epitomizes beauty, femininity and goodness. She is one of the least realistic characters in fiction, yet obviously was an ideal that Victorian Englishmen could relate to. This little doll with blonde curls, devoted to her husband and full of only loving and nurturing sentiments, was pure, unrestrained male fantasy. That impossible ideal lasted through the better part of the 20th century, but has clearly given way to something far different. Some blame feminism for the destruction of the concept of the exalted woman, but in fact it still exists! The exalted status remains, but the statue on the pedestal is no longer shaped and defined by the imagination and ideals of men.

The new woman on a pedestal reflects the conceits and fancies of adolescent female minds. She is their idea of beauty, power and freedom. Children occasionally appear as emotional props, and are conveniently cared for by nannies or others when the time comes for a night out on the town. Men slavishly follow and desire her, and she changes them as freely as though they were an article of clothing. On television shows such as CSI, she shows direspect to the dead, displaying her utter contempt for even the concept of dignity or decency. She takes her sexual and aesthetic advice from homosexual men, who have little use for the qualities that straight men admire and love in women.

This redefinition of the ideal woman has left a beast that possesses all the physical attributes that men desire in a woman, yet behaves, speaks and moves in a manner that most men find repulsive. Rather than a companion, she is an adversary. She offers not comfort, but contempt. This mutation from icon of male desire into receptacle of indulgence was the culmination of years of human self-deification: deification of our own desires, and deification of their objects.

Jim Goad #racist takimag.com

[From "Do Black Feelings Matter Too Much?"]

Atlanta was burning two weeks ago after a white cop in Minneapolis killed a black criminal who resisted arrest. Now it’s burning again over a white Atlanta cop shooting and killing a black criminal who resisted arrest.

On Friday night, police responded to a call about a black male who was sleeping in his car while in the drive-thru lane of a Wendy’s restaurant just south of downtown. After police arrived, the suspect, 27-year-old father of four Rayshard Brooks, allegedly failed a sobriety test. Footage shows him actively fighting the two white cops who tried to arrest him. He seized a Taser from one of the police and then ran. While running, he turned back and pointed the Taser at the cop, who responded by shooting him. It’s all on film—and none of it matters.

Of course, there’s no “national discussion” about the plague of black males resisting arrest, even though that’s been a feature in every last one of these high-profile Race Porn cases.

That’s because at this moment in the USA, black feelings matter more than anything else. An unwarranted concern for black feelings—don’t EVER make them angry—may be the wrecking ball that obliterates this country beyond repair.

Is it worth it?

Last week, Ireland’s prime minister Leo Varadkar expressed empathy for the poor blacks who are trapped in Ireland rather than luxuriating back home somewhere in Zimbabwe and said that “black lives matter, but also black feelings matter too.” Varadkar has also expressed more positive feelings toward an American black man named George Floyd than toward the white Irish teen who was stabbed last week by a black teen whose presumed cohorts celebrated the stabbing by proclaiming, “When we finished beating your boys we claiming your girls as our prizes.” To my knowledge, even though Varadkar has bleated loudly against “racism” toward blacks in Ireland and the USA, he hasn’t yet made a peep about this white Irish teen’s stabbing.

[...]

We hear that blacks built this country. I didn’t realize you were able to build the world’s sole superpower merely by picking cotton. If that’s the case, one is forced to wonder why they aren’t creating any cotton-pickin’ superpowers in sub-Saharan Africa.

We hear about the nine or so annual killings of unarmed black people by police, but never about the 5,000-8,000 annual black-on-black murders.

We hear about how blacks are supposedly “kept down” here, but never about the fact that on average, black Americans live 15 years longer than black people in Africa and make $15,000 more per year.

We hear about how the system exploits blacks. Funny, but all the stats I’ve seen suggest that they take far more from the public till than they contribute to it. Over half of black households pay no taxes at all, so exactly who’s the exploiter here?

We hear that blacks are constantly being violently terrorized by whites. We never hear the real interracial crime stats. Never.

[...]

My friends, I have a severe case of Negro Fatigue. I am all Negroed-out. I’m sorry, but I can’t feel sorry for them anymore. And a lot of people—far more than are brave enough to say anything about it—are feeling the same way.

If someone somewhere is even THOUGHT to have hurt black people’s feelings, the entire country will burn. And everyone knows it. If they didn’t know it a month ago, they know it now. Blacks have been conditioned and encouraged to express volcanic rage at the tiniest perceived slight. Black people now possess the heckler’s veto, and it is the law of the land.

I’ve seen what happens when Americans care too much about black people’s feelings. It’s happening right now before your horrified eyes.

Daniel Payne #fundie thefederalist.com

Trans Mafia Put North Carolina In A Chokehold
The LGBT mob threatens states with economic and social violence because they know it works. Its latest target is North Carolina, but it won't be the last.

The ongoing LGBT activism that has overtaken a large part of the United States puts us at a strange crossroads in our country’s history: for perhaps the first time in American history, a civil rights effort is in fact more authoritarian and intolerant than the structure of power against which it is rebelling.

Aided by media that are both incompetent and often transparently biased, along with a burgeoning corporate culture that has discovered the economic benefits of public moral preening, we have what Stella Morabito aptly terms the “LGBT mafia:” a profoundly illiberal social movement rather single-mindedly determined to stamp out even minor and inconsequential dissent from its orthodoxy. It’s not going anywhere. In fact, it’s getting worse.

Many of us were appropriately horrified a couple of years ago when Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was ousted from his position for, years before, having opposed gay marriage legalization in California. Two years later, the controversy surrounding Eich’s downfall now seems rather quaint in comparison—some histrionics, to be sure, and a silly display of activist vanity from OKCupid, but that was mostly it. The dismaying episode was nonetheless quickly over, and perhaps many of us thought we’d seen the worst of it.
The Hounds Smell Weakness

How wrong could we possibly get? Last month North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which mandates that men must use men’s restrooms and women must use women’s, unleashed the full fury of the LGBT mafia. It makes Eich’s ousting look like a tête-à-tête in a Parisian Enlightenment salon by comparison.

In response to this incredibly reasonable and commonsense bill, Bruce Springsteen cancelled a concert in Greensboro; dozens of corporations signed a protest letter; PayPal withdrew plans for an operations center in Charlotte; the composer Stephen Schwartz vowed that his productions—among them the Broadway hit “Wicked”—will not run in North Carolina; A&E and Lionsgate declared they will not film any productions in the state; and the federal government is deciding whether it can withhold billions and billions of dollars in highway, housing, and education funds.

All this because North Carolina affirmed what everyone believed until the day before yesterday: that we shouldn’t allow grown men into women’s restrooms.

We must give the LGBT mafia credit: their tactics work, and they know it. State governments and state governors are exquisitely sensitive to negative press, and many of them have folded in the face of this irrepressible onslaught. A year ago Indiana Gov. Mike Pence amended a state-level religious freedom law because of withering criticism from LGBT activists. The law in question didn’t actually do any of the things the critics said it did, but that didn’t matter: Indiana was an example, and Pence had to be broken to the saddle placed on his back.

In Georgia last month, Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a religious liberty bill that would have protected religious objectors from having to violate their beliefs, including from being forced to accommodate same-sex marriages. This was religious liberty 101 stuff, noncontroversial to anyone who takes the First Amendment even moderately seriously. Just the same, corporations began threatening boycotts and relocations if the bill passed. Deal acted accordingly and scuttled the bill. You could even sort of understand why he did it, at least when you adjust for spineless cowardice.

The latest scofflaw in North Carolina may also have made an impression to its neighbor to the south: Gov. Nikki Haley has dismissed a similar law proposed for South Carolina, saying, “I don’t believe it’s necessary.” (Just you wait, governor.)
No Tolerance for the Tolerant

This is not merely a state-level affair. In Wisconsin, a young woman who “identifies” as a man successfully agitated to run as prom king at her local high school. The school would not allow her to do so, so she and other students protested until “the decision was taken from the school level to the district level,” and the Kenosha Unified School District mandated that the school accommodate the young woman’s desires. A higher authority stripped what little autonomy the high school had in this important and sensitive area.

It should break your heart that this young woman is laboring under the delusion that she is a man. I know it breaks mine. Yet I am also angry at the school district that indulged her misunderstanding and imposed this misbegotten belief on a high school that had correctly assessed the situation.

We are living in an age of growing intolerance and prejudice: not from the scary white male conservative boogeymen who normally fill that role in the public’s perception, but from the ministers of liberal dogma themselves. Are you a clergy member who wants to uphold the ancient conjugal man-woman view of marriage? Tough luck. Do you want to protect your daughter from the predatory men who might take advantage of a well-meaning transgender bathroom access law? Sorry, you’re a bigot. Do you want to run your business in accordance with your sincere and reasonable beliefs? You’ll be run out of town.

This is the LGBT mafia. This is what it does. It is what we have to live with now. If your legislature or governor wants to pass some modest piece of legislation that protects your right to live as you please, then they’ll make your state an offer it can’t refuse.

James Wilson #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a liberal pretend businessman, star of a "reality" show lacking substance, and a professional wrestling heel who usurped the Republican Party's nomination through false promises, and a RINO who became the forty-fifth President of the United States. Since assuming office, Trump has largely followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.
Trump was raised in Queens, New York City, and moved to Manhattan to lead a failed business venture based on scams and he is a nominal Presbyterian who cares not for the things of God. Although he claims not to drink alcohol, his business and former residence Trump Tower sells cocktails in a bar because Trump has not heeded the clear teachings of the Bible against strong drink.
Trump is pro-choice, is for socialized medicine, hates the things of God, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch is even more liberal than Obama nominee Merrick Garland, and the Supreme Court was supposed to be a selling point for conservatives to vote for Trump. Gorsuch is an Episcopalian who attended the parish of a woman "priest." Trump said he wants to get more money in health care.
Trump is a friend of Islam, was open to celebrating Ramadan at the White House, and his "travel ban" excluded terrorist state Saudi Arabia in both iterations. Trump has yet to do anything substantive about radical Islamic terrorism, and creeping Sharia law in America and has supported liberal sodomite lover Ariana Grande under the guise of opposing radical Islamic terrorism. He has yet to endorse Koran burning.
Trump has yet to ban Islam, women "priests," and the evil succubus Taylor Swift who has seduced many with her perfectly circular and perky breasts and legs of Satan, despite Trump pledging to ban the liberal menace of pornography.
Trump picked closet homosexual Mike Pence to be his vice president, and has nominated false conservatives like pro-homo Rex Tillerson, pretend Christian Betsy DeVos, and pacifist Steve Bannon as well as Bush-era neocon goon James Mattis.
Trump has retained pro-sodomite executive orders of Obama. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This liberal administration will lead America further from godliness and into sodomy and eventual destruction.

Mirrors of Truth #conspiracy #racist mirrorsoftruth1.blogspot.com

<links removed to compress entry>
Donald Trump has Steven Mnuchin and had Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon, Anthony Scaramucci, and Dina Powell in his Administration and they were all top executives for Goldman Sachs.

The Goldman and Sachs families were from Bavaria. The Trump bloodline is from Bavaria. Ivana Trump was accompanied by Prince Manuel of Bavaria and Princess Anna of Bavaria for the Benefit Auction for the Jazz Musicians Emergency Fund in 2005.

Trump had a meeting with the Bavarian Henry Kissinger who wrote the National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200 a report on population control.

Trump-appointed Jared Kushner as a senior adviser and his company RealCadre LLC was financed by George Soros and Goldman Sachs. Jared Kushner is also a Kabbalist Chabad member.
[…]
Thousands of children have been held in former Walmarts and government facilities under the Trump presidency. Trump does not deny this. That is child trafficking.
Nearly 1,500 boys between the ages of 10 and 17 are spread across the re-purposed Walmart. Most of the boys have crossed into the United States alone while dozens more were separated from their parents under Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ new zero-tolerance policy.

A few days later after the story came out about the thousands of Spanish speaking immigrant children detained in former Walmarts and other government facilities Trump met with King Felipe VI of Spain. I previously stated in other articles that Spain which is ruled by the House of Bourbon runs Mexico and various Latin American nations like proxies and that the Spanish House of Bourbon owns many of the Mexican and Latin American drug cartels which are involved in human trafficking. The Bourbon and Franco families were also involved in stealing an estimated 300,000 babies from Spanish hospitals over several decades.

Trump is friends with Prince Roffredo Gaetani of Roman-Vatican Black Nobility and his ex-wife Ivana Trump dated him for years. The House of Gaetani produced two Popes. In the image above Prince Roffredo has his hands around the waist of his girlfriend Ivana and also around the waist of the sixteen-year-old Ivanka with Trump present at the party.

Trump purchased property for his casino from the mafia hitman Salvatore Testa. The mafia built Atlantic City and launder their criminal profits in casinos. The NJ Commission of Investigation report on organized crime, contractors, casinos, and construction describes Philly Mob owned construction companies working on the Trump-owned Harrah’s.

Trump-appointed Kellyanne Conway as Counselor to the President. Kellyanne Conway’s grandfather Jimmy “The Brute” DiNatale was an associate of the Philly Mob.

One of Siligato’s closest friends was James “Jimmy the Brute” DiNatale, identified by police as an organized crime associate who ran a gambling operation in and around the migrant labor camps and in several Latino communities in the Hammonton area. DiNatale, who died in 1983, “was like a second father to me,” Siligato said last week. Another sore point with police, Siligato said, is that in 1980, he and DiNatale were alibi witnesses for mob boss Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo in a murder trial in which Scarfo and two codefendants were acquitted. Siligato describes Scarfo as “an acquaintance,” but not a friend.

Trump hired Roy Cohn who worked as an attorney for the mafia bosses John Gotti, Tony Salerno, and Carmine Galante. Trump has also been friends with the mafia associate Robert Libutti. The Gambino-Genovese owned S&A Concrete was involved in constructing Trump’s building in Manhattan with Genovese boss Tony Salerno as an owner. Below is Trump with the mafia lawyer Roy Cohn.

Donald Trump with Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies the Duke of Castro and his family at Trump’s Mar a Lago. The Bourbon-Two Sicilies' ancestors which were the Dukes of Castro officially established the Jesuit Order under Pope Paul III. The House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies is also part owners of the Trafficante crime family of Florida. The Trafficantes have criminal operations and casinos in Cuba. Cuba is run by the Castro family just as the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies are the Dukes of Castro. Their cousins the Bourbon-Parma family have residences in Florida.

Donald Trump was a Jesuit educated at Fordham. Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump went to Jesuit Georgetown. None of them are Roman Catholic. Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies is a top authority over the Jesuits.
Before earning his degree in economics, he was a student at Fordham College at Rose Hill (FCRH) for two years.

The above image is of Trump with Felix Sater who has Russian mafia connections. The Russian billionaire and Communist Aras Agalarov’s son Emin Agalarov set up a meeting with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr, Kushner, and Paul Manafort. Aras Agalarov is a Commander in the Italian Order of Merit.

Daniel Szewc #psycho #wingnut 71republic.com

[From "The Case for the Physical Removal of Communists"]

There are some cancers that are best left untouched. Communism is not one of them. A free man shall not let another control himself and his honor. In fact, even the thought of compulsory education should cause a proud Westerner to take out his rifle against a tyrant that would propose such coercion. But, what shall we do, when the tyranny is in the hands of many, not the few?

As Konrad Berkowicz said exclusively to 71 Republic, “I’m not an ultras of freedom of speech- if someone was to urge publicly for people to rape women, then I’d lock him up. So if someone was publicly inciting the re-installment of an income tax, I’d have to think about it…” This perfectly illustrates a technical standpoint for looking at communists, as violators of law, order and morality.

Perhaps a better example is a future thief plotting to steal land from everyone in a country. However, the authorities let him off after his saying “But I’m a communist!”. A society cannot survive on freedom of speech that includes such incitements to violence. The very thought makes about as much sense as proposing a peaceful country without an army, or not excusing force in self defense. This is the direct ideological equivalent. If somebody violates or threatens to violate freedom, they cannot expect to keep their own.

Of course, one may pose another argument, that freedom of speech should apply solely to Homo Sapiens. In Latin, “Homo Sapiens” means “wise man”, and as we all know, communists are anything but wise.

There is a proposal, especially prominent in the Polish libertarian movement, supporting the “Day of the Rope”. At this point, libertarians seize power and cleanse the country from communists. As anyone can assume, removing singular supporters of communism that do not spread their ideology wouldn’t make sense. The banishment from a libertarian society would only occur for those actively trying to infringe upon the rights of those who do not consent. Peaceful communists, therefore, it is best to leave alone, as they harm nobody.

Let us quote Polish libertarian, late Stefan Kisielewski. “One black sheep underlines the whiteness of the rest”. Communists will always exist, but integrating peaceful ones into society serves a key purpose. By underlining the failure of their policies, a society may ensure that no such movement becomes mainstream.

Dana Vale (Member for Hughes, Sydney) #racist theaustralian.news.com.au

[Concerning Australian Parlimentary Veto powers for health products - in this case RU486 a prescription only abortion drug approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and available in over 30 countries including the US]

Ms Vale argued that retaining the Parliament's powers would stop Australia from aborting itself out of existence and ultimately becoming a Muslim nation.

"I've actually read in The Daily Telegraph where a certain imam from the Lakemba mosque actually said that Australia's going to be a Muslim nation in 50 years' time," she said.

"I didn't believe him at the time, but you know when you actually look at the birth rates and when you look at the fact that we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence by 100,000 abortions every year and that's on a guesstimate.

"You multiply that by 50 years – that's five million potential Australians we won't have here."

fan4sure #fundie rr-bb.com

I've been thinking about this for a while and have attempted to start a thread asking for help, but have backed out of it several times. I know our Father hates the sin, but loves the sinner, I know what the scriptures say, have them all underlined, bolded and committed to my heart. This is what I need to know and have decided to ask you all for your thoughts.

Homosexuality is so blatantly in your face these days and it's considered to be "chic" or "in" to be gay. If you speak out against it and go to the scriptures to make your point, you are called a bigot and hater. Everywhere you go you are surrounded by homosexuals and you can't avoid having to interact with them in your daily life. My hairdresser is gay, at the hospital/Dr.s office, etc.

Once my husband and I were in a popular home decor store and I was buying items to put on the Christmas tree. There were several gay couples (men) shopping too. I bumped my husband, putting some glittered pieces in my cart, and got glitter all over his shirt. He was mortified and grumbled at me under his breath while frantically trying to brush the glitter off his shirt. He stuck to me like a shadow and was rushing me to get out of the store. This is one of those times I laughed so hard tears ran down my legs!

Supporting Chic-Fil-A day on her facebook page my daughter was flamed by her supervisor for "judging others" and claims to be a Christian while supporting gay marriage and has gay friends coming up for a visit and wants her to meet them.

I've only been to this hairdresser twice but am thinking of changing salons. He doesn't discuss his private life and doesn't flaunt his gaydom, but there is no denying his lifestyle. How do you all handle everyday situations and are we to avoid interacting with gays? I guess the fact that I don't feel comfortable going there is my answer, but there are other areas in life you can't avoid.

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

GLOBO-ZIONIST 'FALSE-FLAG' ATTACK ON THAILAND

[...]

NY Times: Bangkok Bomb Attack at Popular Shrine Kills at Least 20

By THOMAS FULLER

The blast appeared to be the worst by far in a series of explosions that have disrupted the country since the military seized power in May 2014.

[...]

A bomb placed inside a Bangkok religious shrine frequented by tourists exploded Monday evening, killing at least 20 people (at least of 4 of whom were Chinese tourists). Flying body parts and shattered windows caused panic in the city’s most popular district. At least 123 people were injured (at least 20 of whom were Chinese tourists) in what Thai authorities called "a vicious act meant to target civilians" -- coming at a very busy time of day at the Erawan Shrine, a tourist attraction in the heart of Bangkok.

From the article:

"But Thai officials offered few clues as to who might have been responsible for the blast, which appeared to be the worst by far in a series of explosions that have occasionally disrupted the country since the Thai military seized power in a May 2014 coup."

Well, since Thai officials aren't saying "whodunnit", and since Sulzberger's Slimes sure as hell won't tell us, it's time for the dynamic duo of The Anti-New York Times to mine some data and put forth a viable hypothesis. Sugar and yours truly will throw out some "dots". We leave it to our readers to connect them.

Dot #1: Back in 2012, the Israelis wasted no time in blaming a botched bomb plot in Thailand on Iran. From The New York Times, Feb 6, 2012:

Israeli Envoy Links Bangkok Bombs to Attacks in India and Georgia

"Thai authorities said on Wednesday that the group of Iranians detained after an explosion tore the roof off their rented house was on a mission here targeting Israeli diplomats.

“It’s almost the same system that was used in Delhi and in Tblisi, which leads us to think that they are connected,” the ambassador, Itzhak Shoham, said in a telephone interview.

The Israeli authorities said the discovery of explosives in Bangkok fits a pattern of Iranian-backed attacks on Israeli targets.

Dot #2: Iran strongly denied the Israeli accusation -- same article:

"Iranian officials immediately rejected the accusation. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, called the accusation of Iran’s involvement “baseless” and accused Israel of trying to damage its relations with Thailand.

Dot #3: The independent-leaning Thai military regime is moving closer and closer to the Russia-China economic and military bloc as its relations with the U.S. deteriorate. From the Bangkok Post Feb 6 2015:

Thailand, China bolster military ties as US relations splinter -- Chinese defence minister vows no 'interference', Thai officials Say

"Thailand and China agreed Friday to strengthen military ties through expanded joint training, technology sharing, and discounted arms sales. A welcoming ceremony was held at the Defence Ministry." (here)

Globalist-Zionist Commandment: "Thou shalt not befriend China and Russia."

Dot #4: Iran and Thailand continue to expand upon their already friendly and close ties. From Tasnim (Iran), March 9, 2015:

Iran, Thailand Underline Closer Relations

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Thailand’s new ambassador to Tehran emphasized that the promotion of mutual cooperation in diverse areas sets a priority for the two Asian countries. (here)

Dot #5: Adolf Hitler is a big star in Thailand; and certain people are "concerned". (here)

image
Young Thais understand that you don't have to be White to appreciate the greatness of the Great One and his system (use the right hand when you 'Sieg Heil', sweetie -- you too Ronald.).

Hitler Fried Chicken! Waffen SS themed weddings! Student NS marches!

A government sponsored video teaches children to be disciplined and virtuous. It features Thai children painting a portrait of Hitler.

Hitler-mania is out in the open in Thailand, and the chosenites are "horrified".

Your intrepid reporter and his apprentice here rolling on the floor laughing in delight.

Dot #6: Because the location was a known 'hot spot' for Chinese tourists; this attack was a strike against both Thailand and China, and it comes just days after a mysterious and massive explosion in China - which we covered a few days ago. The Global Times, a Chinese newspaper, said in an editorial. “It is beyond the imagination of Chinese people that a blast could happen at the famous Erawan shrine,” “It has almost the same impact on Chinese tourists as if it happened in China. (here)

Get the picture?

From the May 23, 2014 issue of The Anti-New York Times:

"Well, it is still too early to tell in which direction the Thai military coup will turn, but it appears as though a pro-Western government is about to be replaced with a regime that Washington may not be able to fully control; like General el Sisi's in Egypt. Should an independent-minded government emerge in Thailand, it would represent the exact opposite of what happened after the Ukrainian coup.

The Globalist's interest and strategy in Thailand has to do with the general encirclement policy aimed at Russia and China. Thailand is to China what Ukraine is to Russia, sort of. Let us hope that whatever government the military installs in Thailand will be pro Russia-China, and anti Western.

That being said, the end game of this coup is still too early to call. Is the West really upset about what just happened? Or, is The Times feigning concern so as to cover up the fact that the coup itself may be CIA connected; with the intent of replacing one regime with an even more compliant, anti-Chinese one?

The proof will be in the pudding. Stay tuned. (emphasis added)

Well, the "pudding" is now done; and it appears as though your intrepid and prophetic reporter here (Sugar was not on staff at that time) was spot-on about the anti-N.W.O. flavor of the coup in Thailand (toot-toot). It's an all too familiar, and all too deadly pattern, isn't it? Defy the murderous Globo-Zionists; and "terrorists" will suddenly attack your cities and airliners -- as Sulzberger's Slimes throws the dirty attack in your face, on its front page.

Stay strong, Thailand -- and Malaysia, and Indonesia, and China, and Russia, and Nigeria, and Sudan, and Syria etc.

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times that terrorists killed 20 people in Thailand.

Boobus Americanus 2: That's horrible. I wonder who did it?

image
"Who elsse but the %&(^$#@ (^%s you blockhead!"

(Oh well; (face-palm) -- I see that your Thesaurus kick was as short-lived as your Bible study sessions.)

David J. Stewart #sexist jesusisprecious.org

A man has veto power to decide who his wife doesn't have as friends, but the courts view that as abuse. Biblically, a man is to rule over his wife with Christ's love, but he is still her boss when he doesn't love her as he ought. If we only obeyed the government when our leaders are perfect, we'd have total anarchy. If a wife doesn't clean the house, her husband is the only one who can rebuke her. Who else is going to do it? The court's consider that as “domestic abuse.” A feminist psychologist would diagnose such a lazy wife with “posttraumatic stress,” blaming the husband for picking on his wife. No psychologist will diagnosis a woman with lack character; but rather, send her to a psychiatrist for a drug prescription. This is how “the system” works. Literally, a wife can slack off and shirk her wifely duties and a husband has no recourse of action.

Is it any wonder why men don't want to get married these days? Think about it! A man's wife can deny him sex, refuse to cook him a meal, refuse to get him a drink, refuse to clean the house, refuse to do anything, and there's absolutely NOTHING he can do about it. Yet, she can easily obtain a free (government pro-bono paid) lawyer simply be alleging “abuse,” drag him into court, and the judge will crucify him. This is not justice! Destroying marriages is not helping society. Courts never require a couple to undergo a mandatory year of counseling before considering a divorce. The reason why is because the banksters can't steal your home if you call off the divorce. The reason why is because the New World Order can't succeed if your marriage is restored. CPS can't steal your children if mom and dad have a happy marriage. And the truth is, the heathen world can offer no real help for your struggling marriage, because they reject the holy God of the holy Bible. Psalms 1:1-2, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” The Bible has all the answers!

Rev. Austin Miles #fundie renewamerica.com

Under Obama's direction, America is beginning to look like a freak show. Watch videos of any "Gay Pride LGBT Parade" and you will see what we mean. Take a look around the streets, in newspaper reports and countless images on TV attempting to make gender bending acceptable, even desirable.

An example is a new commercial showing a personable "waitress" all primed up but speaking with a man's voice like this is perfectly normal. Transgender individuals are multiplying along with the demand to be accepted. They say, "We're just like you." NO THEY ARE NOT.

The Obama Administration has long worked to blur the lines of gender distinction, to tear down morality, which is the strength of a people, and is instead, hell-bent on destroying the traditional family.

Businesses owners can now be fined and jailed for refusing to make a cake or t-shirt with a homosexual message and that includes ministers who refuse to officiate at a wedding consisting of couples of the same sex, even though the Bible states clearly that homosexuality is a sin. But then again, Hellary has publicly stated that the Bible must be re-written regarding those topics for the good (comfort) of society.

Army chaplains are discharged from military service for mentioning the name of Jesus at a chapel service or funeral and for not catering to or promoting sodomites. This is by Obama's order.

The illegal in the White House did state, before his occupation of The Oval Office, that he would change America. He has certainly accomplished that. America is unrecognizable today.

Not only that, he has aggressively insisted that the world share and support his sexual obsession to the point of ordering U.S. Embassies throughout the world to fly the rainbow flag over each one. He has even demanded that uniformed military parades include carrying a rainbow flag. What's more, soldiers have been required to salute that flag of perversion.

And who can forget that military madness in which soldiers in a parade were ORDERED to wear red high heels with their uniforms. What a ridiculous image of The United States Army, thanks to Obama.

[...]

This fraud in the White House says we must be accepting of all, no matter how loathsome they are or what disgusting habits they exhibit. The Girl Scouts of America GSA now allows lesbians to become members and leaders as well as engaging in a disturbing partnership with Planned Parenthood.

So what is the purpose of allowing your children to be members of organizations that will simply teach them to be accepting of all the world's weirdness and perversions instead of raising clean-cut kids with high standards? But it gets worse. Now they allow Planned Parenthood to teach them about how to murder, which is called abortion, as a means of birth control.

What value is it to enroll your kids in these organizations that simply mirror what is now considered normal on the streets and to encourage it? This is what Jesus meant about 'being in this world but not a part of it.' (derived from John 15:19, John 17:14-16.)

[...]

Today the House voted to ban these barbaric late-term abortions. It is now up to the Senate. However, Obama, the most pro-abortion "president" in the history of America, has stated that if that bill passes, he will immediately veto it. This is the personification of evil.

The sub-human creature called Obama, can rightfully be identified as a charismatic monster that rose straight from the pits of hell. From hell did he come and to hell shall he return.

And the sooner the better.

Adi #fundie #wingnut faithandheritage.com

In a previous piece I noted how resistance against tyranny is a demand of the counter-revolutionary worldview. I argued that the use of political violence was not intrinsically at odds with the counter-revolutionary position. In this piece I would like to emphasise how this can by exemplified with a concrete historical example from the previous century. In the birthplace of the Revolution – where the Enlightenment found its greatest manifestation – France, we also saw the establishment of the first profoundly counter-revolutionary state in post-Enlightenment Europe: Vichy France. This state, which lasted from 1940 to 1944, was instituted by the French Prime Minister at the time, Philippe Pétain.

Pétain was regarded as a national hero because of his heroics in the First World War. Once in power, however, Pétain immediately moved to make peace with Germany and dissolve the Third French Republic, establishing the state of Vichy France.

The new state had to suppress those military forces who remained loyal to the old government and allied regime, called the French Resistance.

The Christian counter-revolutionary nature of the state was nowhere better exemplified than in its replacement of the revolutionary motto of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité (Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood) with its own tripartite motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie (Labor, Family, Fatherland). Pétain himself explained his counter-revolutionary opposition to the ideologies of the Enlightenment:

“When our young people . . . approach adult life, we shall say to them . . . that real liberty cannot be exercised except under the shelter of a guiding authority, which they must respect, which they must obey. . . . We shall then tell them that equality [should] set itself within the framework of a hierarchy, founded on the diversity of office and merits. . . . Finally, we shall tell them that there is no way of having true brotherhood except within those natural groups, the family, the town, the homeland.”

A national counter-revolutionary program, ironically called the Révolution Nationale, was implemented on the basis of the ideology underlying the counter-revolutionary triad. Charles Maurras, an outspoken counter-revolutionary Roman Catholic, was the program’s ideological father.

Maurras opposed the Enlightenment as a negative development on the West and the French people. He rejected equality and democracy and favoured a royalist, decentralized state with a national Church as protector of the moral order. On an economic level he favoured the re-institution of guilds – a kind of corporatism as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism. His theory of integral nationalism stood directly opposed to liberal civic nationalism in its view of the nation as an organic unity, albeit with a strong hierarchical structure.

The Révolution Nationale followed this ideology and made the following reforms in France:

– Measures to oppose the influence of Communists and Freemasons in the country
– Criminalization of homosexuality
– An ethnicity-based form of citizenship and promotion of ethnonationalism
– Corporatist reforms of the economy to oppose both capitalism and socialism
– A pro-agrarian policy that strove to curb the process of urbanization
– Restoration of patriarchal social and familial structures and tightening of divorce laws
– Intensifying the punishment for committing abortions
– Reinstatement of a Roman Catholic curriculum in secular public schools

Vichy France serves as a prime example of how counter-revolutionaries practically acted in reforming their nation and state in a distinctly non-pacifistic manner. Pétain was a war hero and not one to shy away from a physical conflict. The counter-revolutionary program implemented in Vichy France was even called a “National Revolution,” which changes nothing with regards to its counter-revolutionary nature given its anti-Enlightenment epistemic and philosophical basis. Vichy France implemented this all in the midst of strong opposition both at home and abroad. Even though the French government was not violently overthrown, it was a revolutionary shift in political authority that the men of Vichy France defended with violence against loyalists of the French Republic. It is a good example of a major political revolution in the midst of a brutal war, and it has a fundamentally counter-revolutionary character.

Modern-day Christian nationalist movements, such as those in Poland and Hungary and those now emerging all over the West, may in the very near future have to actively intensify their resistance to godless leaders in Brussels, and they would be right in doing so. It is our duty as children of God to engage in active resistance against tyranny – that is, to not remain content with being mere sociopolitical critics and a witnessing voice for the gospel, but, if need be, to actively engage in building the Kingdom of Christ proclaimed by that gospel.

Steve Pauwels #fundie barbwire.com

Chiropractors have gotta love the cultural Left – I mean, an attentive observer could suffer whiplash tracking the whipsawing, confused, self-contradictory tenets of modern, libertine Liberalism.

Consider the purple-faced reaction to the revelation that twenty-seven-year-old Josh Duggar (of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting) had inappropriately touched a number of young girls twelve years ago (his sisters and a babysitter among them).

Demands were seething: the now-married father of three should have been jailed for his malefaction. His openly Christian family — all of them, mom and dad, throng of offspring, their spouses, grandchildren — should be drummed out of enlightened company and lose their reality TV program permanently. Legal sanctions were even mentioned for the parents for what some observers consider an insufficient response to their son’s early-2000s’ actions.

Meanwhile, for decades society has been subjected to prurient progressives blowing out their cheeks and rolling their eyes at the mere suggestion of abstinence-based instruction for young people. “The kids,” we’re relentlessly, patronizingly tutored, ” are not going to listen. No matter what we say or do, they’re going to have sex!”

Take the the Daily Beast, which lately reported on a San Francisco “hero judge” who “rule[d] abstinence-only Sex Ed … illegal.” The same site exulted (“All Hail Scandinavia”) over a female doctor who demonstrated sex techniques for a classroomful of adolescents.

Best option? Train the panting lads to strap on a condom at some point during each tryst. Turn the young women – as many as possible, as early as possible – into fervid devotees of modern birth control technology. Sandra Fluke, anyone?

Humans, they imperturbably lecture anyone within earshot, are really just animals; “naked apes”, barely an evolutionary step above rutting canines. And kids? Especially TEENAGERS, for pity’s sake? Gland-driven little beasties. Incapable of keeping it in their pants.

Pubescent hormones uber alles!

Give the Duggar’s eldest man-child some credit for one thing — atrocious as was his misbehavior, reportedly no intercourse was involved — so no condom was needed at all! Doesn’t he get some props for that from the “do-it-but-just-don’t-contract-an-STD-or-get-anyone-preggers” set?

Admittedly, he didn’t keep his hands to himself — but, according to the kids-are-gonna-be-randy fatalism predominating trendy Left-Think, did he actually have any choice? Remember, teenage boys in particular are going to be teenage boys, right? Or so we’re unflaggingly informed.

On the other hand, if Josh Duggar’s baying denouncers insist he should have been expected to “Just say ‘No’” to those illegitimate, fourteen-year-old impulses in this one context, why is it assumed libidinal self-restraint can’t reach much beyond that among his peers? So he’s supposed to be ostentatiously scolded — his life practically ruined, in fact — for not curbing his youthful lusts in this notorious case?

Why then oughtn’t those exacting standards be expanded some to apply to all interaction between members of the opposite sex? If it’s being required he — and other boys like him — govern themselves when it comes to respecting a little sister or not copping a feel on a clueless neighbor, why is it so inconceivable that sexuo-relational boundaries be pushed a bit so that tempered, gentlemanly conduct is demanded from them across the board?

In sum: the Lothario Left’s attitude has been: Self-control for Josh Duggar? He** yeah! For the fumbling dork, however, in the backseat of Bob Seger’s “60 Chevy” (see “Night Moves“)? Or the frisky couple sneaking off for an alcohol-fueled, post-prom romp? Nothing much to be done to deter that. Those situations are inevitable. Where’s the prophylactics?

For a couple generations, at least, the tribunes of sexual revolution have been generating excuses for horny high-schoolers, even passionate pre-teens. We’ve been fed a gutless stream of surrendering, ruinously irresponsible malfeasance from those who are supposed to know better: adults’ recklessly facilitating young people’s – and not-so-young people’s – reckless behavior.

And any objections to same issuing from conservative/religious/traditional precincts have been met with agitated contempt. Recent headlines, for example, have included these flea-bitten sentiments: “Josh Duggar and the Purity Lie” and “The Duggars Dangerous Cult of Purity” (emphases mine).

Sounds to me like the young guy was merely operating according to secular Liberaldom’s bleak script. So why the shocked umbrage that he, if only passingly, comported himself as they predicted he — and all boys – eventually, inescapably will.

What’s that? Josh Duggar didn’t have to fondle those young innocents? Resistance to erotic temptation is, turns out, possible? Even by a hormone-addled kid?

Who knew?

It so happens, lots of us did — and have known, for ages. “Flee sexual immorality,” wrote one such centuries ago (1 Corinthians 6:18). “Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality” (Ephesians 5:3).

The truth is, people — fourteen, forty-four or eighty-four years of age — are not slaves to their groins, powerless before their lusts and appetites. Regularly reminding others, including each new, maturing batch of human beings, of that rock-bottom, once widely acknowledge axiom is a healthy and desirable practice — for any society which wants to survive and flourish, that is.

Clearly, everyone won’t always abide by this sound, but admittedly challenging, counsel. Josh Duggar, regrettably, did not do so. His delinquencies do make plain, though, he should have; thus, he could have.

It’s gratifying to discover there are limits to the anything-goes abandon of the lifestyle Leftists. If this keeps up, who knows what’s next? Acknowledgment that physical intimacy on the second or third date isn’t necessarily a given? Admission that abortion isn’t the catch-all solution for the consequences of sexual carelessness? Grudging but whispered openness to the wait-until-marriage option?

Then, next thing you know, Liberals might end up shaking a finger or two at bad boys (and girls) beyond Josh Duggar.

Scottie Nell Hughes #racist rawstory.com

CNN contributor and Trump campaign surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes accused Hillary Clinton of the meeting the “definition of bigotry” for speaking out against racists and white supremacy.

During a Sunday panel discussion on CNN, MTV correspondent Jamil Smith argued that Trump’s hiring of Breitbart chief Steve Bannon showed that GOP presidential campaign was a “rebranding of white supremacy.”

“I would say that [Breitbart is] part of the white supremacist machine,” Smith asserted. “They are trying to make sure these views become mainstream. And I think, through Trump, they are finding a way to do that.”

Hughes, however, accused the media of “redefining what fair means in this election.”

“Hillary Clinton’s problem, she’s having a problem with engagement,” Hughes opined. “And she’s worried about in November, the same very valuable demographic of the African-American vote is not going to be as engaged as they were in 2008 and 2012 to get out and vote.”

According to the pundit, Trump had been right to call Clinton a “bigot” because the term was not only about racial discrimination.

“Bigotry, if you look at the definition, it’s about someone who’s small-minded and sits there and directs hate towards a certain group,” she explained. “Hillary Clinton’s speech [attacking alt-right conservatives] was all about hate towards a group that, while my fellow counterpart might consider them to be very racist, it’s the exact opposite.”

“These are God-fearing, baby-loving, gun-toting, military-supporting, school choice-advocating Americans!” Hughes added. “And just because maybe there might be some, a part of a very small fringe group [of white supremacists] that read Breitbart — by sitting there and saying the entire website is white supremacy is kind of ridiculous as saying just because you have people that are anarchists and communists that read the Huffington Post, calling that newspaper establishment, [is like] saying that they’re pro-anarchy and they’re against the United States government.”

Smith clarified Breitbart’s role in promoting white supremacy.

“What they present is the view of the white supremacist mentality through their coverage,” he observed. “It’s not necessarily saying, ‘Well, everyone who works there is a white supremacist.’ I don’t know that.”

“The point is to say, what kind of viewpoint did they reflect? And it’s undeniable that they reflect a white supremacist view if you looked over their coverage over the last several years.”

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Trump’s CIA director, Pompeo, tells us that Julian Assange, the leader of wikileaks is “on the wrong side of history.”

That is commie language, commie thinking. To say that history has a side in earthly political struggles is history reified and personified as the Jewish God.

Probably he is a cultural Marxist rather than an old style Marxist, since old style Marxists are mighty thin on the ground these days.

Personifying “History” is characteristic of Jewish descended leftism via Marx. Puritan descended leftism via Harvard immanentizes salvation, rather the immanentizing the deity.

This ideology puts one on a course that necessarily results in the murder of very large number of people. Pompeo is ticked with Julian Assange for exposing, and thus disrupting, various color revolutions, but the biggest color revolution that is cooking right now is in America itself, which revolution, if it goes through, will likely result in the deaths of Trump and all his family, and probably most republicans in office. If you favor color revolutions, you favor antifa, you favor killing Trump, his family, and Trump supporters.

The Marxist does not think of himself as intending to murder the peasants, and the cultural Marxist does not think of himself as planning to send all hetero males to the Gulag. Rather he thinks that if it was not for “bullying” all nine year old boys would be gay and they would all be fucking in the classroom a great big pile. When a great big pile fails to ensue in the classroom, escalates the war on “bullying”, until it eventually starts to look remarkably like sending all cisgender males to the Gulag.

The original Marxists were going to emancipate the peasants from the landlords, and utopia and abundance would ensue. Utopia and abundance failed to ensue. Obviously invisible intangible landlord oppression. Therefore, war on kulaks, which liberation of the peasants looked curiously similar to war on the peasants. And thus, today, instead of war on kulaks, war on cis hetero patriarchal oppressors. They are liberating us from being “bullied”. They are indignant at our lack of gratitude. And the war on bullying inevitably escalates.

“ohh mai gosh, people like you, cishet white privileged DUDEBROS, are the reason women and POCs are oppressed, wow just wow, the white race must be abolished (don’t worry, only as a social construct, I have nothing sinister in mind *rubs hands*), so listen now, fratboyrapist microaggressor douchenozzle, we’re sending you and your associates to the gulag – k bye!”

The Czar failed to support Pyotr Stolypin, and appointed a bunch of lefties to the council of ministers, who, when the Czar was away at the front, refrained from any serious effort to restrain revolutionaries who intended to kill the Czar and his family, and who when trouble broke out, resigned in favor of the revolutionaries. Giving Pompeo power and taking power away from Bannon is a similar error. Politics is war by other means, and for the past couple of decades has been drifting closer to war by the usual means.

Dale O'Leary #fundie mercatornet.com

The USA is in the midst of what has been called the “bathroom wars”; however, access to bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex for the so-called transgendered is only a means to an end. The real objective can be discerned from ACLU’s press release supporting U.S. Department of Education’s demand that the Palatine High School in Illinois (and by extension all schools receiving federal funds) allow a boy, who wants to be accepted as a girl, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room.

The transgendered and their supporters claim that people are merely assigned a sex at birth, their gender identity (how they feel) may or may not match their assigned sex. The goal is to force everyone to accept that gender identity should take precedence over the biological reality of sexual identity and men who claim to be women should be treated as though they were women.

The ACLU complained that the school district challenged their “client’s identity as a girl,” which is true because their client is not a girl, but a boy. According to the ACLU, all “she wants to be accepted for who she is.” The problem is that he wants to be accepted for who he is not. Their client claims that not allowing him to change with the girls stigmatizes him, “making me feel like I was not a normal person.” The simple answer is that it is not normal for a male to want to be accepted as female.

The Bruce Jenner celebrity blitz and the battle over bathrooms, have brought the issue of gender to the fore and people are wondering how we got to the point where boys who think they are girls can use the girls’ locker room. What happened to common sense?

Unfortunately, many people thought that gender was just a synonym for sex, and could be substituted for it without causing any harm. However, for activists on the far left, sex and gender are not the same. Sex is biologically determined. Gender is socially constructed and does not have to correspond to sex. There are two sexes –male and female, but an unlimited number of genders. Once identity is divorced from reality, chaos ensues, fantasy rules.

The Obama administration is determined to force everyone to accept the demands of transgender activists. Girls would have to pretend that they are comfortable with a boy who wants to be a girl using the girls’ locker room, because if girls complain or show any sign of disapproval, they will be judged guilty of “transphobic discrimination”. Everyone would have to accept that wanting to be the other sex or believing that one can become the other sex is just normal diversity, when in fact it is a symptom of disordered thinking. Even if a person doesn’t believe that people can change their sex, he would have to pretend they do and call what is obviously a male a woman. The media has accepted this demand. using feminine pronouns for Bruce Jenner, who in spite of all the make-up, surgery, clothes and fancy photographers is still male.

Transgendered persons point to the psychological suffering they endure because people don’t accept them. Their suffering is real. They are engaged in a comprehensive denial of reality. Such a denial is hard to sustain as they must continually shut out the truth. The transgendered delight in “passing” – being accepted as the opposite sex in public. It hurts to be told that even if they can pass they are not and can never truly be the other sex.

The government does not have the right to force a citizen to say something he knows is a lie or to be silent in the face of evil. The people have a right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to speak the truth, even if the truth hurts another person’s feelings. So-called “hate speech” rules are unacceptable because they allow one group to veto the speech of another.

Some may argue that this is just about words, but as G. K. Chesterton said, words “are the only thing worth fighting about.” Careless use of language caused this mess and needs to be remedied, first by never saying gender when you mean sex.

The school under attack tried to accommodate the boy who wanted to be a girl. This was a mistake. They should have told the parents that their son is a boy and must use the boys’ facilities. If this is not possible, he needs counseling. Halfway accommodation won’t work; the Department of Education demands total capitulation. The defenders of the reality of sex difference should learn from this mistake. They cannot compromise the truth. They should not force the other students to accept the lie that gender trumps sex, just to avoid hurting a troubled boy’s feelings.

The LGBTQ activists and their ACLU lawyers are not tolerant liberals who respect other people’s rights. They are pushing a type of political correctness which is a manifestation of a totalitarian, Marxist-influenced ideology. Theodore Dalrymple, an expert on totalitarian societies explains how activists triumph:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.

The girls forced to accept a boy in their private space are being targeted for just this kind of humiliation. This is about much more than bathrooms.

Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psychosexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. She blogs at What Does the Research Really Say?

Siddhartha Chaibub, Olavo de Carvalho and Ernesto Araújo #crackpot #dunning-kruger theguardian.com

Siddhartha Chaibub’s suspicions that the Earth wasn’t really round were first aroused when he stumbled across a YouTube video while living in Brazil’s capital, Brasília.

“I was always very sceptical about things,” said the 35-year-old freelance designer, who soon dived deep into the flat Earth universe: reading, watching videos and joining a dedicated WhatsApp group.

By the end of 2015, he was convinced. “The model that is imposed on us – that the Earth is spherical – is full of contradictions,” he said.

Today, his YouTube channel Professor Terra Plana (Flat Earth Professor) – featuring videos such as “25 examples that prove Nasa is a fraud” and “gravity doesn’t exist” – has nearly 29,000 subscribers.

Like Britain and the United States, Brazil is seeing a revival of flat Earth theory: 7% of the population – 11 million Brazilians – believe that the Earth is flat, according to the polling firm Datafolha. The poll noted believers were more likely to be religious or poorly educated.

Last week, Chaibub and three of his flat Earth fellows got their biggest break yet when they appeared on the country’s most-watched talkshow, The Night, to promote Brazil’s first ever flat Earth convention this Saturday in São Paulo.

The location of the event will only be disclosed on the day, organizers say, for security reasons. “There is a lot of prejudice,” said Chaibub

[...]

Accusations of links to the flat Earth movement have dogged Bolsonaro’s government.

In January, the science minister, Marcos Pontes – South America’s first astronaut – said that he felt a “knot in the stomach” when he heard suggestions that the Earth is flat.

But just a few months later, Olavo de Carvalho – a former astrologer who is considered the intellectual guru of Bolsonaro and his inner circle – prompted outrage and ridicule when he tweeted: “I didn’t study the subject of the flat Earth. I just watched a few videos of experiments that show that aquatic surfaces are flat – and so far I haven’t found anything to refute them.”

Carvalho – who has also claimed Pepsi was sweetened with aborted foetuses and that oral sex can cause cancer – dined with Bolsonaro and Steve Bannon in Washington during the Brazilian president’s state visit to the US in March.

When questioned about flat Earthism, the foreign minister, Ernesto Araújo – an Olavo disciple who believes climate change is a Marxist plot – also seemed sympathetic to the movement, saying: “For me, the Earth is round. But it’s important to have this spirit of questioning,”

Phil Robertson #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Phil Robertson: If Donald Trump Loses, I'll Go Into Hiding

Today on “Breitbart News Daily,” reality TV star and conservative activist Phil Robertson spoke with radio host Stephen Bannon and Citizens United president David Bossie about the Republican National Convention, and Robertson urged listeners to rally behind Donald Trump.

The Duck Dynasty patriarch said that evangelicals must turn out and vote because they are facing “spiritual warfare” from “the depraved bunch, this political correct crowd” that is “of the Evil One.”

Robertson, an early supporter of Ted Cruz, said that Trump’s former rivals, including Cruz, must rally behind the business mogul, warning that “the alternative” to a Trump presidency is “depravity” and “moral bankruptcy.”

After falsely claiming that Democratic delegates “booed God” at their 2012 convention, Robertson said that a Democratic victory in November would cause him to go into hiding: “If the Republicans and the evangelicals do not get off their posteriors and vote, I think I’m going to head back to the woods and hide out.”

State Rep. Jerry Sexton (R - Bean Station) #fundie news.yahoo.com

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee state House ignored serious constitutional concerns — and the wishes of Republican leaders in the Statehouse— in voting to make the holy Bible the official state book.

The chamber approved the measure 55-38 on Wednesday. It is sponsored by Republican Rep. Jerry Sexton, a former pastor, who argued that his proposal reflects the Bible's historical, cultural and economic impact in Tennessee.

Tennessee's attorney general, Herbert Slatery, warned in a legal opinion earlier this week that the bill would violate separation of church and state provisions of both the federal and state constitutions.

Constitutional concerns raised over similar proposals in Mississippi and Louisiana caused lawmakers there to drop those measures in recent years. While Tennessee supporters acknowledged the likelihood of a lawsuit if the bill becomes law, several said it would be worth the expense.

"There are some things that are worth standing up for," said Rep. Andy Holt, a Republican. "Markets, money and military are meaningless without morals. I think it's time for our body to make a stand."

Several lawmakers raised concerns about putting the Bible on par with innocuous state symbols such as the official salamander, tree and beverage.

"Pilgrim's Progress is a book, To Kill a Mockingbird is a book," said Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, R-Signal Mountain. "The Bible is the word of God, it's a whole a whole different level."

Supporters were dismissive of concerns raised during the floor debate.

"It's not just a book," Sexton said. "I base my life, my ministry and my family on this book."

Rep. Micah Van Huss said if the Bible becomes the state book, people won't be required to worship or follow Christianity.

"The dog and the cat are state symbols and nobody in Tennessee is required to purchase a dog or a cat," the Republican said.

Sexton said nothing prevents other works to be named official state books alongside the Bible. Tennessee, after all, has several state songs, he said.

The measure would need to be approved by the Senate before heading to the desk of Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, who opposes it. The governor wouldn't tell reporters whether he'd veto the measure.

Senate sponsor Steve Southland told the Citizen Tribune of Morristown that he expects the governor would allow the measure to become law without his signature. Haslam appeared surprised by Southerland's prediction.

"He must be reading my mind somehow — or attempting to," Haslam said. "That's definitely not coming from us."

Other prominent opponents of the measure include the Republican speakers of both chambers, Sen. Ron Ramsey and Beth Harwell, along with the Senate and House GOP leaders, Rep. Gerald McCormick and Sen. Mark Norris.

Norris told reporters it would be "a dark day for Tennessee" if the Senate approves the bill Thursday.

"All I know is that I hear Satan snickering, he loves this kind of mischief," Norris said. "You just dumb the good book down far enough to make it whatever it takes to make it a state symbol, and you're on your way to where he wants you."

Peter LaBarbera #fundie americansfortruth.com

[From a list of lessons allegedly learned from the contrversy surrounding Barack Obama's pick of Rick Warren to speak at his inaugration.]

Two, homosexual activists really are out to silence the voice of evangelical Christians. They want Warren muzzled and driven off the platform, and my guess is that they will boo him off if Obama doesn’t pull him off first. Unless cooler heads prevail, we may see the exercise of a heckler’s veto like we have never seen before. Imagine the sound of 4 million people booing in unison, and you’ve got a picture of what may happen at the inauguration ceremony…We have only seen the beginning of this saga. There is just no way left-wing activist groups are done putting pressure on Obama to repent in dust and ashes. They will be relentless until he recants, and make him pay if he doesn’t.

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

3 Reasons Why You Should Apply For A Job In The Trump Administration

With the election over and done with, America is turning its attention to the transition from President Obama to President Trump. In barely two months, the Donald will take office, ejecting the Democrats’ coterie of corrupt courtiers and beginning his mission to right America’s wrongs. But President Trump can’t do it alone: he needs good, talented people to work under him and carry out the hard work of making America great again.

That’s where you come in.

The Trump administration is now soliciting people to apply for jobs for when the man himself takes office in January. We are officially calling on all ready and able Return Of Kings readers to submit their applications and take up any job offers. Here’s why you should consider a job in President Trump’s administration (beyond obvious reasons such as money and prestige)…

1. It’ll help keep President Trump accountable

While the media is lying about Trump reneging on his campaign promises, it’s still a good idea to give the man more reasons to keep his word. By staffing his administration with committed nationalists, we’ll make it easier for President Trump to fulfill his political program, as well as make it more difficult for him to go back on his promises. Remember, it was rank-and-file FBI agents who forced James Comey to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton; a leader needs loyal men in order to carry out his agenda.

2. You’ll be able to make history

Given the momentous task of rebuilding America after eight years of Obama’s perfidy and failure, you almost have a civic duty to help President Trump in his mission. Expecting America to become great again all on its own is delusional; we need to do our part to restore this nation’s glory. By working with the Trump administration, you’ll have a direct role in reshaping America for years—possibly decades—to come.

3. You’ll help trigger the left

Despite their massive losses in the election—beyond Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the Democrats now control only a handful of state governments and failed to dent the GOP’s Congressional majority—the leftist mainstream media is trying to order Trump around and persuade him to staff his administration with the same flacks who filled Bush’s and Obama’s. Right now, they’re freaking out over [i]Breitbart[/i] executive chairman Stephen Bannon being appointed as Trump’s chief strategist.

By joining the Trump administration, you’ll have a hand in helping trigger the left into conniption fits and spasms of impotence. Nothing horrifies them more than losing access to the levers of power, which they’ve controlled for decades. Watching leftists squirm and cry is one of the biggest fringe benefits of Trump’s victory, and we need to keep the triggering up for years to come.

If you think you have the job skills, Return Of Kings highly recommends you apply for a job in Trump’s administration. President Trump may have started the fire, but it’s our job to help the fire rise.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

In 1997, Cleopatra ordered John Major to resign and make way for Tony Blair!!

Unexpectedly, John Major announced that a general election would be held on May 1, 1997. He campaigned very half-heatedly and he was anxious to lose the election so that Labour Party leader Tony Blair could succeed him. The Consecrates found a Blair look-alike and made an image with a poster of "Blair" with a devilish mask

Tony Blair was the leader of the Labour Party in 1997.

The Conservative Party made up a great poster called "Demon Eyes," depicting Tony Blair as he really was.

Major said it was not fair electioneering to demonize his opponent, and he ordered the poster withdrawn.

Here is a quote from the massive autobiography of John Major:

One Labour insider has written of the image's effectiveness, and it won awards in the advertising industry. But I was not comfortable with it, and, with Brian Mawhinney's agreement, vetoed any repeats. Some colleagues disagreed, and tensions among us on this issue was to re-emerge during the campaign itself. On what in a gentler age might have been called the etiquette of campaigning, I tied the hands of colleagues, and staff and adverting agencies. I do not deny that. (Major, John Major: The Autobiography, p. 695).

How prophetic that poster was. What Major really meant to say was that his boss Cleopatra was worried that voters would believe the poster and he might win the election.

Amazingly, the assassination of Princess Diana took place just 4 months after Tony Blair became prime minister.

Princess Diana was known as the "Queen of Hearts" and there was not enough room in Britannia for 4 queens.

Furthermore, Diana was Catholic by religion and an Act of Parliament banned her from marrying Prince Charles.

Queen Cleopatra gave the green light for her removal, and Tony Blair was assigned to handle the logistics, and lead the "mourners" at the funeral.

Diana could have been poisoned, which is the usual way that MI6 Million gets rid of troublesome people. Their fallback option is the car or airplane crash.

Cleopatra ordered the New York Twin Towers demolished!!

After a fiercely contested Presidential election, George Jr. was declared the winner by the Supreme Court. He was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2001.

George Junior was a clone of George Senior.

Like always beget like, and a spineless father cannot beget a brave son.

Tony Blair soon reminded him that Saddam Hussein was still alive and President of the Republic of Iraq.

Bush showed Blair the quote from his father's autobiography and said that his hands were tied. He might even have given him an autographed copy of the book.

Dejected, Tony Blair hurried back to London to meet his boss. He told her that George Jr. was thoroughly familiar with his father's position on Iraq, and he would not approve of an invasion to get rid of one man.

The British Cleopatra had TWINS on her mind all the time.

While prime minister, she dealt with Elizabeth and Lilibet almost on a daily basis.

She also had 2 twins of her own: Carol and Mark. Mark—the evil twin—was a veritable demon and caused her no end of trouble.

At that time, MI6 Million was headed by a man named Sir Richard Dearlove. It was the Iron Lady who first suggested to Dearlove the scheme of demolishing the Twin Towers in New York City. Of course it would have to be the work of IRAQIS. Dearlove thought it was an excellent idea and he immediately contacted his opposite number in the CIA.

Dearlove thought it was a smashing idea but he first had to get approval and cooperation of George Tenet— his counterpart in the United States.

The demolition of the Twin Towers was a vast false flag operation with many, many people involved.

Most notable were Jay and Hillary Clinton Rockefeller.

Unfortunately, they could not find Saddam Hussein look-alikes to hijack the planes so they settled for generic Arabs.

Saddam Hussein already had all his look-alikes working for him so the Plotters could not use any of them to hijack the planes.

The British Secret Secret Service has an axiom: if a false flag operation or assassination worked well before . . . try it again....The Pearl Harbor false flag operation worked very well with about the same numbers of casualties.

A Saddam Hussein look-alike was finally killed in 2006!!

To justify the invasion of Iraq, the hypocritical Bush Junior DEMONIZED Saddam, and called him a latter day Adolf Hitler, a baby killer, a monster who used poison gas against his own people. Furthermore, he claimed that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

The only thing that Bush Jr. did not accuse Saddam of doing was throwing people alive into the ocean from airplanes.

His good friend Pio Laghi did that. In 1997, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo filed a lawsuit in an Italian court against Laghi for his role in the "Dirty War."

He escaped justice by claiming diplomatic immunity.

The second Gulf war began almost like the first with the bombing of Baghdad and the killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians.

The invasion of Iraq began with another massive Crusader bombing of Baghdad.

That was soon following up by the Crusader armies entered and occupying Iraq.

The search frantically from house to house but never found Saddam Hussein.

The Crusaders brutally occupied the country and behaved just like the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople in 1204. Looting, raping, killing men, women, and children. They went from house to house trying to find Saddam Hussein but they never found him.

Bush visited the troops in November and urged them to "find Saddam" no matter what the cost.

The troops were promised a "big bonus" if they would smile and look happy for Bush. Very few collected the bonus.

In desperation, Bush arranged for a Saddam look-alike to be hanged so that he could get Tony Blair and the "Iron Lady" off his back.

The greater the man the more enemies he has in this world. Saddam Hussein was always one step ahead of the British Secret Service and he beat them at their own game. Hopefully, he is still alive somewhere on the flat earth and enjoying a well deserved retirement. All the BLOOD and MONEY spent to kill him was all for nothing.

Janet Folger Porter and Faith2Action #fundie rawstory.com

Faith2Action, a fringe splinter group from the Ohio Right to Life, wants to restrict abortion to any fetus with a detectable heartbeat. The fringe group wants the law so badly that they’re willing to keep fighting through Christmas to convince the Republican legislature to override Gov. John Kasich’s veto. They’re two votes short, the Toledo Blade reported.

Kasich is one of the most anti-choice governors in the country, Jezebel concluded. On the same day that he vetoed the bill he signed a bill that banned all abortions after 20-weeks.

“Don’t give up — we have never been closer to ending abortion than we are right now!” wrote Janet Folger Porter, president of Faith2Action in an email to supporters.

Spokesman for NARAL ProChoice Ohio, Gabriel Mann, explained that Porter has been fighting for these laws for years and badgering officials. While many Republicans may have voted for the bill initially some of them may have done so if they knew that Kasich would veto. If they supported it then they may not support a veto override.

A total of 56 members voted to pass the bill and House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger said that two members would have voted for it but they were absent. It takes 60 votes to override the veto.

Benjamin Netanyahu #conspiracy bbc.com

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a UN call to end illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land is "shameful".

He stressed that Israel would not abide by Friday's vote at the 15-member UN Security Council.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman said the resolution was a "big blow to Israeli policy".

The document was passed after the US refused to veto it, breaking with long-standing American practice.

Washington has traditionally sheltered Israel from condemnatory resolutions.

The Egyptian-drafted resolution had been withdrawn after Israel has asked US President-elect Donald Trump to intervene, but it was proposed again by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela.

It was adopted by 14 votes to zero, with one abstention.

The issue of Jewish settlements is one of the most contentious between Israel and the Palestinians, who see them as an obstacle to peace.

About 500,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Mr Netanyahu said: "Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms.

"At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half-a-million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory'."

Mr Netanyahu said the administration of US President Barack Obama "not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the UN, it colluded with it behind the scenes", and added that he looked forward to working with Mr Trump.

Restored #conspiracy forums.wnd.com

I ask that President Obama VETO this Non-American plan to ban my American Made, American Economy boosting purchases of incandescents.

I want to buy American Made Bulbs to promote America's Economy.

I like my bulbs!

Let this be the first American economy boosting move made by President Obama.

Come on! It's ridiculous to ban our American Bulbs.

WHO's pockets were filled by China to make this an American Law? Fire them.

Robert Mercer #racist rawstory.com

Robert Mercer – the “Renaissance Technologies” co-chief executive who bankrolled Donald Trump’s presidential campaign – once said black Americans are “the only racist people remaining in the U.S.,” according to a lawsuit brought by former employee David Magerman.

Mercer who, alongside daughter Rebekah Mercer, fought to install chief White House strategist Steve Bannon and counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway in the Trump administration, allegedly made “a series of racist comments” in conversation with Magerman.

According to a complaint filed by the former “Renaissance” employee, Mercer allegedly told Magerman the US “began to go in the wrong direction after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960.” Mercer also told Magerman that black people “were doing just fine” before its passage and insisted they are the “only racist people remaining in the U.S.”

“Magerman was stunned by these comments and pushed back” against Mercer, the complaint reads.

Magerman is suing Mercer for wrongful termination after he was fired for criticizing Mercer’s support of the president.

Aunty Semite #racist realjewnews.com

Even after Trump caved in to the Zionist Jews, fired Steve Bannon, announced more mideast war and attacking Afghanistan again, the Jews media is still terrorizing Trump.

Even though Trump has been beaten into submission and exhibits the “yawsa boss manners” that his Zionist puppet masters demand and now does whatever they tell him, the Jews are still cutting him down at every turn.

The Jews are destroying Trump for something more than just because Trump is a Repub. If being a Repub was a death penalty offense by itself, then Insane McCain and Lesbie Gayham would be destroyed by the Jews instead of praised and glorified by the Jews media.

The real reason the Jewish Supremacists want to destroy Trump seems to be that they view him as a white Christian. The Zionists hate Christians of any color, but their hate of white Christians is more devilish.

Besides hating Trump because they see him as a despised white Christian, the Zionists are overthrowing other white Christian governments.

For many years now the Zionists have used the US military and the armies of other white Christian nations to overthrow governments such as Egypt, Libya, Iraq, the Balkan nations, and so on.

Now the Jews are inciting their riots and overthrow operations in the US, Europe, and the white Christian nations that were previously used to overthrow governments of weaker nations. The overthrow operations have gone global.

The chaos, riots, and wars appear to be fulfillment of plans in the Protocols of Zion to subordinate existing governments under a global government such as the UN or whatever name the Jews will call it.

Mike King #sexist tomatobubble.com

For the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class), the neo-con propaganda outlet FOX News has, for the past 20 years or so, served the important purpose of keeping conservatives on a leash long enough to allow to them vent off their frustration, yet just short enough to keep them from wandering off into the land of total truth. The sole saving grace of the network was that, in allowing just enough cosmetic "conservatism" to air before millions of viewers, a percentage of the more astute elements of the massive audience would eventually wander off the plantation completely and join the ranks of the full truth "conspiracy theorists" TM. Indeed, during the late 1990's, your now fully enlightened Editor here passed through the FAUX News / Rush Limbaugh halfway-house before growing out of the "Left-Right" control cage altogether.

For that reason, in spite of our disdain for Rupert Murdoch's FAUX, we are nonetheless troubled by the recent and much-publicized rise of his de-balled sons (Lachlin & James) and their stupid and controlling communist wives (Sarah & Kathyrn). The scuttlebutt is that the contemptible, yet immensely popular, Bill O'Reilly was forced out by these beautiful women. O'Reilly's coveted 8 PM slot will be filled by Tucker Carlson, whose first guest as the new 8-PMer under the reign of the Bolshevik Bitches will be a man that O'Reilly once mocked -- the freakish trannie, Bruce Jenner (now referred to as "Caitlyn").

1. Kathryn made no effort to hide her love for Hillary and red-hot hatred for Trump & Bannon (She likes Ivanka though!)

2. Kathryn's "kinder, gentler" FOX will feature the degenerate freak Bruce Jenner.

Expect some of O'Reilly's elderly following to have heart attacks when Jenner appears with Carlson this coming Monday (April 24th)! But don't blame Carlson (who is actually not that bad) for having such a vile Satanic creature on his program. You can be sure that the Murdoch women, Kathryn in particular, are behind this obscenity. The Sisters-in-Law Murdoch had already previously amended the company's benefits package to include "expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.”

Both Kathryn and Sarah are known to be "progressives." Of the two, Katryn (much like another silly little rich girl, Ivanka Trump) wields more power in her own right. She is a real fanatic when it comes to Trump-bashing, homosexuality, trannies and the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax. Since the Murdochs swallowed up National Geographic in 2015, that psuedo-scientific rag has continued to aggressively push the hoax while not allowing any real scientists to rebut the "settled science." The "philanthropist" Kathryn also worked for both the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Environmental Defense Fund. (here)

Old man Rupert once dismissed the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax as "alarmist nonsense." We expect this attitude at FOX News to "evolve" and eventually align with the views of the young Murdochs' National Geographic and Kathryn's beloved Environmental Defense Fund.

Now if you thought those National Geographic covers were bad, get a load of the EVIL boy-trannie child-abuse abomination that the next generation of the House of Murdoch recently put out. It's enough to almost make us want to plead with wretched old man Rupert Murdoch and that arrogant ass-clown Bill O'Reilly -- "Please, stay!"

Childhood psycho-sexual abuse --- coming soon to FOX's conservative audience.

The modern trend of men allowing their deranged women to rule over them is yet another symptom of the decay and decline of Western Civilization. Another high profile example of this alarming phenomenon is baby girl's Ivanka Trump-Kushner's uncontrolled White House antics -- such as her uninformed public support for the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax, "women's workplace issues," and her meeting with the baby butchers and baby body-part dealers of Planned Parenthood. Neither "The Donald" nor Ivanka's typically P-whipped Jewish husband, Jared Kushner, could reign in this spoiled little brat even if they wanted to.

And speaking of P-whipped, does it get any more pathetic than Pro Football Super Star and Trumpstein supporter, Tom Brady, failing to show up at the White House ceremony to honor the New England Patriots Super Bowl victory? You see, boys and girls, Brady's super-model wife, Giselle Bundchen, is an outspoken pro-abortionist, an anti-Trump tweeter, and a "Climate Change" TM libtard who is evidently embarrassed and fed-up with her husband's support for Trumpstein. We'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that the lovely Giselle put her high-heeled foot down and threatened to close down the candy store until pretty Tommy put an end to his public support for Trumpstein.

Your old-school Editor here at The Anti-New York Times has the utmost gentlemanly respect for the ladies. That respect does not extend to any "man" who allows a woman, no matter how blonde and beautiful, to de-ball and dictate to him. Unless and until men rediscover their balls and tell the Ivanka Trumps, the Giselle Bundchens, the Kathryn Murdochs and the Sarah Murdochs of our diseased and decaying society: "Shut up and sit down, you silly woman!" -- there will be no hope for the recovery of our collective sanity. Then again, in fairness to such men and in consideration of what our Marxist courts allow these wayward women to inflict upon husbands and fathers, many bullied men have no choice but to meekly accept the mischief of their wives -- or face alienation from their children.

Sick upside-down world!

Proverbs 21:19: Better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times that the Murdoch sons and their wives are much more liberal than the old man.

Boobus Americanus 2: It would be nice if they overhaul FOX News and make it more objective. As it stands now, I can't stomach it.

Sugar: Hey Boobusss! Ya think your panssie-ass could stomach a ssubscription to the Anti-New York Times?

Editor: If Boobus can't even handle the watered-down half-truths of FAUX News, then he'd surely puke his guts up over the true stuff we put out.

Aunty Semite #racist realjewnews.com

Now that Trump fired Steve Bannon like the Jews had been telling him, the Jews media may stop attacking the Donald so viciously, having Kathy Griffin hold up a prop of Trump’s severed head, making Trump the butt of the talk show jokes, and so on.

BTW, where did Kathy Griffin get the prop of Donald’s severed head? It must have come from one of the show business/Jews media prop shops. Nobody else makes such things.

Now that Trump has changed his tune about Mideast wars from ending the wars to expanding the wars, attacking Afghanistan again, maybe Democrat attack dogs like Senator Maria Chappelle Nadal will be put back in their cages.

Nadal publicly stated she hopes Trump will be assassinated. Soon after Trump fired Bannon and caved into the Jews demands for more Mideast wars, then Nadal issued a public apology for her statement about the assassination of Trump.

Now that Trump has completely caved in to Zionest demands, the Democrats, Insane McCain, Lesbie Gayham, and the Jews media seem to be using the carrot instead of the stick to manipulate Trump.

The Jews may have Trump completely tamed. I didn’t see the entire Trump speech tonight but during the bits of it that I saw, Trump didn’t use the term “fake news” like Trump often used before Bannon was fired.

The Jews iniciate riots, media smears, and chaos on Trump to reign him in when he bucks or doesn’t go in the direction the Jews want.

The Jews used a “flash crash” of the stock market May 6, 2010 which swung the Dow Jones down 1010 points, most of it within less than an hour.

The 2010 flash crash was used on Congress to make Congress raise the debt ceiling and increase the federal debt for a few trillion dollars more. Congress was voting on the debt limit and budget at the time.

The flash crash pressured Congress to raise the debt ceiling. The Jews media talked about lucrative retirement pensions for congressmen being lost in the crash and then bingo, the vote to raise the debt limit was passed.

Is Trump a goy controlled by blackmail, money, news coverage, traditional Zionist manipulation?

Or, is Trump a devilish crypto Jew, a member of the tribe, who keeps his Jewish ancestry hidden?

I suspect Trump is a goy controlled by traditional Zionist puppet strings. But if Trump is really a Jew, then the Zionists are doing a very convincing job of hiding it.

Indiana legislature #fundie dailydot.com

On Tuesday, the Indiana Senate approved a measure that would forbid pregnant minors from obtaining abortions without first attempting to legally notify their parents.

According to the Associated Press, the measure would change the state’s existing judicial waiver process for minors seeking abortions, which allows a minor to secure a juvenile court order that would bypass the state’s requirement to get a parent’s approval for an abortion.

The bill would require that at least one of the minor’s parents be served a legal written notice that the minor is seeking an abortion through the waiver process. Only once the notice is served could a juvenile court hearing occur to approve the minor’s waiver. The bill would also allow parents to testify if their daughter is competent enough to decide for herself if she can have an abortion.

Several lawmakers and abortion activists, Republicans included, said the bill would be deemed unconstitutional since it effectively eliminates the minor bypass. Critics also say the bill makes the process of obtaining abortions via parental bypass more difficult in cases of rape and incest and could put minors at risk of physical harm.

“This is essentially and fundamentally going through, around, and getting rid of the whole point of judicial bypass,” Democratic state Sen. Karen Tallian said, according to AP. “It puts the parents back into the mix, when the whole purpose of the bypass was to keep them out of the mix.”

However, supporters say the bill would protect teens from being coerced into having abortions, noting that it doesn’t allow parents to veto their child’s decision to get an abortion if granted the bypass—just that it would let parents provide evidence on the maturity of their child to make that decision.

According to the Indianapolis Star, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, Jane Henegar, has said the bill violates current case law, and that they will sue Indiana if the bill becomes a law.

Research organization the Guttmacher Institute reports that of the 36 states that allow minors to pursue judicial waivers, none require parents be notified of the bypass. In addition to circumventing the bypass, the bill would also allow parents of minors who have had abortions to pursue legal recourse against individuals who helped the minor get the abortion without their consent.

Decisions on the parental notification bill came just a day after the Indiana House approved a bill requiring abortion providers to tell patients about a possible “abortion reversal” procedure, which hasn’t been scientifically proven to work. The bill would require that abortion providers tell women about the procedure, where they can get it, and include a disclaimer that it’s not scientifically proven.

A medical abortion requires two medicines to be taken over the course of a few days, but advocates of this bill say that the abortion can be reversed halfway through if patients are given a high level of progesterone. Opponents, including those who are against abortion, say the bill provides women with conflicting information and is far-reaching.

The parental notification bill has been sent to the House for further consideration, while the abortion reversal bill has been sent to the Senate.

Eric Zuesse #conspiracy rinf.com

As an example: wikipedia’s English-language article about the 17 July 2014 shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner is a shameless propaganda-piece by the U.S. Government and its agents. Its (at present) 320 footnote-sources don’t include any of the many reports (virtually all in the foreign press) that present evidence the Ukrainian government shot down this airliner. Among the important issues that aren’t even raised, are: why was the Ukrainian government given veto-power over any final report which will be issued by the official four-nation MH17 investigating team: Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine? Why was Ukraine even included in this team to investigate a crime in which one of the two main suspects is the Ukrainian government itself?

Why was the presence of 30mm bullet-holes in the side-panel next to the pilot not mentioned in this lengthy wikipedia article? (If this plane had been brought down by only a missile, such as wikipedia assumes, there wouldn’t be any bullet-holes — much less, hundreds of them, as there are.) Why was the first analysis of that side-panel — which is the best and most reliable piece of evidence that exists about how this disaster actually happened — ignored altogether in the wikipedia article? After all, that analysis of the side-panel has subsequently been further confirmed by other reliable evidence, all of which the article also ignores.

I have edited some wikipedia articles, but I won’t edit the one on MH17: it’s too thoroughly rotten with speculative and other bad sources, so that it would need to be entirely rewritten — and bogus ‘evidence’ removed from it — in order for the article to present an account that’s based upon the best evidence regarding each of its particulars. Wikipedia’s article is thoroughly based on anti-Russian propaganda; it might as well have been written by the CIA (like the case that was presented about “Saddam’s WMD” was).

Cephaliarch #fundie reddit.com

Was Donald Trump the best candidate to pick for zoo rights as a way of preventing the cat lady demographic from taking over the White House and Supreme Court?

1) You just know Clinton had two justices lined up a good deal more liberal than Merrick Garland, and we'd absolutely end up with two more Ginsburgs (once she kicks the bucket because seriously, she's old). You're not going to see a lefty SC pick defending bestiality on a national level, and while you're not going to see a standard conservative do so either, you'd be more likely to get a Libertarian justice under Trump who just might be edgy as fuck enough to do so.

2) She's reblogging George Takei shitposts. She's liking every post on Occupy Democrat. She's knitting her hat for the pussy march between strokes of her housecat's back. She's signing online petitions. She's sobbing about endangered species and animal welfare while she has a beef roast preparing in her slow cooker. She's having her morning Starbucks instant coffee before heading out to brunch with the girls to have even more Starbucks coffee and talk about the latest thing Trump did that she read on Thinkprogress, and you just know her minivan has a COEXIST sticker on the back of it.

It's the most staunch enemy of zoophiles in the past few decades, the white feminist liberal cat lady. Or maybe staunch isn't the right word, because the cat lady doesn't really fixate on any particular cause, and doesn't have much energy to do anything but sit around on Facebook clicking on fake news article and getting outraged about whatever social causes her media sphere tells her to get outraged about. But, mind you, this is separate from what Reddit usually chimps it about in regards to >THE SJWS REEEEEEEEEEE. Because while the common social justice warrior actually makes an effort at being woke, the cat lady is mostly driven by simple moral disgust, and is actually pretty fucking ignorant when it comes to the issues outside of the bubble of being a straight, cisgendered middle class white woman.

"Ugh! I miss when presidential candidates had class. I miss the days of Reagan and Kennedy," you'll hear her pine, without any irony whatsoever and despite being a 21st century Democrat. "I can't believe our children's president is going to be someone who says 'grab them by the you-know-what!' What will we tell them?"
"These poor, starving Syrian children! Did you see that picture of that dead one washed up on the coast? Bless his little heart, we should take in the entire MENA region to save all of those kids."

"Bestiality? Ugh! Sick, sick, sick! They should get raped by an animal and see how they like it! Here's a link to donate to the Humane Society, everyone."

Take a look at the end of this video.

Take a look at any Facebook or local news comments section.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/animal-fuckers-219

It's just cat ladies. It's almost always the cat ladies screeching about the evil animal rapists, combined with the occasional dumbass old right-wing cat lady who believes that Obama is the devil and shares even more autistic memes than the left-wing cat lady does, and there's a pretty high chance she ended up staying home or voting for Clinton regardless because she was too emotionally distraught as a result of some of Trump's remarks. And that isn't to say that there's not non-cat ladies against bestiality too, because seriously, most people are, but it's cat ladies who are prone to outrage and boredom enough to adopt fighting it as their pet cause because they actually do not have anything more interesting to do in their life and they aren't politically savvy enough to actually care about causes more important.

Thoughts? And really, Trump/Bannon do not strike me as being the type to actually give a shit about zoophilia at all, whether it's supporting or opposing it. Trump's a moral degenerate when it comes to sex, and Bannon is much more concerned about other cultural battles as well as the impending horde of migrants from South America that will be heading up north once global warming really starts to kick in.

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

Arizona Legislature Defends Christian Businesses From Gay Militants

The Arizona State Senate has once again placed itself in the liberal establishment’s crosshairs, this time by affirming our right not to be compelled to do business with overt homosexuals in situations that violate religious principles.

Media liberals preposterously but predictably screeched like scalded cats that the rights of homosexuals are violated if private citizens are not compelled by the government to enter into relations with them that violate their consciences. Their attempt to equate this with civil rights struggles of the past is an insult that should enrage blacks.

Senate Bill 1062 was explicitly inspired by an outrageous case from neighboring New Mexico, where a Christian photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a ceremony that according to her Christian beliefs was a blasphemous travesty.

The New Mexico case created a new sport for militant homosexuals, who can seek out Christian businesses, demand they participate in activities that are clear violations of their religious beliefs, then crush them with a lawsuit if they refuse to betray their faith. A particularly appalling example is the bullying of Jack Phillips, a principled baker in suburban Denver.

These thuggish tactics, backed up by a relentless establishment media propaganda barrage and conservative cowardice, have allowed the Left to achieve astonishing success in advancing the corrosive gay agenda.

Three Republicans who voted for it, intimidated by the inevitable backlash from the Left, are egging on Governor Brewer to veto the bill. Whether she has the spine to uphold the religious freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as the comparably fundamental right of freedom of association, remains to be seen.

[Picture of a rainbow flag with a swastika.]

Finally some resistance to the marriage of coercion and perversion.

XMaryX #fundie rr-bb.com

[On the governor of Arizona vetoing Arizona's version of the "Turn Away the Gays" bill.]

Bad feeling about this......
......I have a gut-feeling Arizona will soon experience some type of judgment from the Lord for caving to this; though I have much respect for Jan Brewer, IMHO, she just sold her soul to Satan on this one.

She's pretty much stating that AZ's economy is more important than people's consciences; the bill should have been called the Anti-Conscience-Searing Bill b/c that is precisely what it amounts to.

Folks, I think the wheat is going to be separated from the chaff w/ this one; I pray we're on our last lap; I cannot take this evil anymore.