Similar posts

mylifeistrash #sexist incels.co

balding is worse than being raped repeatedly

the pain a man suffers from balding is 100 of times worse than the pain women suffer from rape.

i mean real rape, not fake regret it later rape like 99% of rape.

being raped as a woman is no big deal and you recover quickly. balding as a man destroys your life and self-confidence forever.

Disciple of Christ #fundie ravingatheists.com

(On why God won't heal amputees)

The process of regrowing a severed limb would be much too painful for
the human mind. The amputee would suffer major shock and trauma during this process, and would probably die or suffer a massive heart-attack. This is why God won't heal amputees. Does God hate amputees, does he single them out, or is it a cruel test of faith? Certainly not, he is avoiding a great deal of pain and suffering by not healing them. When we hear of God curing cancer and many other illnesses, we know he is healing the pain and suffering, not causing it.

Now you may ask, "Why an omnipotent God can't heal an amputee without pain and suffering?" Good question, and here's my answer; God is not going to prove his existence by healing amputees without the pain and suffering it would take to regrow a severed limb. The process would take months, maybe years! Many years of agonizing pain and suffering.. It wouldn't be worth it! You would scream in pain for the process to stop!

> God is glorious!

Fell #fundie forums.spacebattles.com

[ Why is rape considered evil?]

A variety of factors. Part of it is reasonable, modern female empowerment. Part of it is ancient, outmoded "Sacred Feminine" bullshit. Yet another part is even more outmoded, frankly offensive 'Sacred virginity' tradition.


I really, really hate this discussion, because my opinion on it makes it seem like I hate women or something, and I really don't. But I don't think rape is nearly as heinous a crime as people think it is. It's awful, certainly, but for some reason we've elevated it to one of the worst things a person can do, and I think that reputation that it has ends up making it's victims suffer more than if it were considered only slightly worse than normal assault.

[So you see it as society trying to make a crime especially heinous because society says it is a especially heinous crime?]

Basically, yes. I think it persists via cultural inertia going back a long, long time. The reasoning behind it has changed, but the cultural meme has remained largely the same. For whatever reason, we've essentially declared vaginas sacred and we see those who "Desecrate" them as a special kind of evil; it's the kind of emotional response we usually reserve for people who hurt children, or who torture people.

I honestly think it's a sexist idea. That women are these precious, fragile jewels that need harsh laws and big strong men to protect their sacred genitalia.


Yes, rape is absolutely wrong. But the degree of emotional response we have for it is completely out of proportion to the actual severity of the violation. And I think it hurts women.

[How many people suffer life long psychological trauma from getting punched or kicked a few times?]


I imagine if you were told your entire life that punching you in the face was the most awful act anyone could do to you, you'd find it pretty traumatic if you ended up getting punched in the face.

You're also missing the point; there are many different situations in which rape is entirely non-traumatic. A date rape victim could go their entire life not knowing they'd ever been raped, but if they found out about it, it's still treated with as much vitriol as if they'd been bludgeoned, held down, and violated in the street.


[Your inflicting pain and suffering on some one for a sex /power kick.
You can't come up with any justification for it.]

And all the various kinds of rape where the victim doesn't suffer, and may in fact be entirely unaware of what happened?

Granted it'd be hard to justify those either, but not all rape is sadistic, or violent. It's a generalization people have made for some reason.

The most common drugs used in these assaults cause either complete unconsciousness or anterograde amnesia. Plenty of date rapists use lubrication and condoms, and even if they don't, the suffering of the victim is clearly not their intended goal, or they'd have left them conscious.

It's just moronic to assume that every rape MUST be motivated by sadism and power fantasies.


[So date raping someone is a less severe crime because they don't remember it?

That's some quality bullshit right there.]

that depends entirely on your own view of how justice is supposed to work.

As a sometime utilitarian, I think Justice is supposed to punish people with a severity scaled linearly to how much suffering they cause. If nobody actually suffers as a result of your crime, it isn't a very severe crime in my eyes.


[Please tell someone who suffered date rape that they didn't really suffer. Then let me know how that went for you.]

Anecdotes aren't evidence, this argument is not, has never been, and will never be persuasive. I'd also argue that they wouldn't suffer near as much if we didn't treat their vaginas like the arc of the covenant.

The fact of the matter is, if nobody told them, they'd go on with their lives without a worry in the world. They would be completely unharmed by the experience right up until the moment you chose to hurt them by giving them the knowledge of what had happened.

[Forcing someone down and raping or sodomizing them against their will, possibly giving them a disease in the process that could change how they live for the rest of their life, violating a person's privacy and body for simple physical pleasure is just sick.]

So I must ask, again, what about nonviolent rape with lubrication and protection?


[Fell, what is your suggested position on the punishment of someone who has been convicted of drugging women for the purpose of having sex with them while they are unconscious?]


It should directly correspond to the suffering, inconvenience, and loss of security felt by the victim. As a general rule of thumb; more than groping someone, less than sexually assaulting them while they're fully awake and aware.

Lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

It makes me happy to see women suffer

Femoids are creatures who live their entire life's in easy mode -- and due to that the words, "suffering" "pain" and "hurt" cannot be found in their dictionary. But when they do finally experience how it's like to feel pain, a surge of pleasure travels through my body.

It doesn't matter what the nature of her suffering is, but what is important is that she's actually suffering, even if it's for a small time until everyone around her provides the bitch with the validation and support that she seeks.

Though, I will admit that the more a femoid suffers the happier that it makes me. Honestly, seeing the destruction of the femoid species would be one of the most intoxicating sensations one could possess.

Lookismisreal #sexist incel.life

As an Incel, whenever you talk about how being an Incel is the worst suffering known to man you are quickly shut down by normantards as they would try to lecture you on how Inceldom is nothing compared to the different kinds of suffering that other people go through, especially femoids who have been raped. To which, I heavily disagree with. Inceldom cannot be compared with rape because rape is nothing compared to being Incel in the slightest.

When it comes to rape, femoids bring it on themselves. If these creatures could act as respectable beings without being total degenerates, things like rape would not occur towards them. Unfortunately, the femoid nature doesn't allow femoids to act as respectable beings. Therefore, these cunts would deliberately put themselves in bad situations only to get what they deserve. But little do they know that, if they didn't act like a total sluts, dress extremely provocatively, or get drunk beyond measure they would never befall such a predicament. Which is why, rape cannot be compared with Inceldom. Incels don't bring Inceldom on themselves, nor do we have certain things we could avoid so we don't turnout as Incels. Why? Because how we look is predetermined and completely out of our control.

Unlike Incels, the femoids who have been raped have the luxury getting unlimited amount of validation, sympathy and attention due to the fact that they simply cry and moan about their experience whatever the chance they get. Also, cum dumpsters have specialized rape crisis centers made towards them to help them overcome their "unfortunate" rape experience thanks to the taxpayers money. But what do we Incels have? Nothing. There are no specialized centers for Incels to overcome their various situations, nor do people sympathize us or give us validation whenever we talk about our painful suffering; we are just hated and mocked endlessly.

The fact of the matter is that, even after being raped, femoid rape victims are still found immensely attractive, they still get into relationships, and they still live normal lives. But when it comes to Inceldom, there is no escape. You will always be sexually unattractive to the opposite gender, you will always be rejected and hated by society and you will never be able to experience what it is to have a normal life. Unending agony is the only thing we will experience until the day we die; all because we happen to be born as ugly males. There is literally no greater suffering than being Incel.

CH #racist heartiste.wordpress.com

Video footage caught Maine Democreeps cheering the rise in suicides among White men.

For anyone living in a cave the past few years who might not understand the depth of anti-White hatred to which the Demokreep Klown Kollective has sunk, now you see the chameleonic enemy in its uncamouflaged malevolence.

"After saying the Democrats need to encourage more “young people” and “women” to join their party, Fochtmann said: “Today, you know, I saw a thing that said a lot of men, white men, are committing suicide. I almost thought, ‘yeah, great!'”"

“almost”? Don’t sell your hate short, Fuckedman.

" The crowd burst into laughter."

Listen to it. That wasn’t nervous laughter. It was the chortling of bloodthirsty vampires.

" “Then I thought about it little more, and I thought maybe I shouldn’t say that out in public,” he said."

The anti-White equalist leftoids are feeling emboldened to air their hatred openly and remorselessly, helped along by a complicit media and demagogic Dem pols like Pelosi and Waters and cucks like McCain. They have become Chutzpah, destroyer of citizenism.

" The Daily Caller asked Fochtmann to explain his comment:

Fochtmann told The Daily Caller “a joke’s a joke isn’t it?”"

You weren’t joking, fuckermann.

" “I’m a white male."

How convenient.

" I’m an old man,"

The “old man” card. If your age is an excuse for every murderous fantasy you indulge, then maybe it’s time you consider the early self-deliverance option. Otherwise, WAYSA?

" and I’m appalled by what’s happening to a lot of people my age, and their either lack of morality or whatever it is,” he continued."

Whereas your morality shines through like a Mosaic commandment.

" “There’s no big protest going on about [the Trump] administration.”"

There will be a big protest in your backyard soon, if this story catches fire and loosens even the Leftstream Media’s information choke hold.

" “It’s anathema to me. I hear a lot of people out there espousing things about being good Christians, being patriots and what not. We just read different history books. Different Bible, everything.”"

Old Testament man.

" “I don’t really know what to say,” Fochtmann conceded."

Missing a clause: “I don’t really know what to say….that would make me come out smelling like a rose and my White enemies burnt to a crisp on a pyre.”

" “I thought the point of the joke is that it won’t be long, and that this won’t be a majority white nation, and I think that’s a good thing.”"

Your anti-White genocidal intention is noted for the record, Fochtmann. Best pray you have enough old man wisdom to silence your Old Testament man chutzpah during the dangerous interim between your premature gloating and the completion of your beloved demographic displacement-of-Whites-via-open-borders-and-suicidal-despair.

" “I think it’s about time Americans come to terms with we are a melting pot,” he clarified."

Does that melting pot come alloyed with the blown out brains and meth-stopped hearts of millions of White men and women?

" “We’ve been calling ourselves a melting pot forever and ever and ever.”"

If you have to repeat it ad nauseam, then maybe it isn’t the natural state of affairs.

" “So there you are, you know, one of these days we’ll be a big melting pot stew and it won’t predominantly be white people, and that’s ok with me.”"

So there we have the mission statement of the Murderous Left: They won’t be able to achieve Diversitopia with White men gumming up the gears. Whites will have to be dealt with, and since we’re not (yet) at the shooting stage of this war the weapon of choice for the Equalism Dehumanists is mass Dirt World immigration and the killer depression it carries in its silty wake as it washes like a shitnami over the receding Whiteness of Heritage America.

" If that’s the case, why do you choose to live in the second whitest state in the union?"

Good question. As a matter of course, shitlib hypocrisy is so blatant that I coined a word to describe it: Libocrisy. I really need to get going on that Libocrite Watch List post I’ve been meaning to do. You can’t hide from neighborhood demographic data, gentrified-community libfruits!

FYI, here’s a photo of former Maine Senatorial candidate Richard Fochtmann[.]

...

Hm. What do you guys think? Physiognomy is real, or (((physiognomy israel)))?

The goal is to make it costly for these anti-White signaling fatbags to continue mouthing off about the blessings of an inevitable White minority America: Politically costly, socially costly, and occupationally costly. Do to the Left what the Left has been doing to Heritage America for sixty-plus years. Coax these fuckers outta their rat holes and shame them in the public square. We won’t rid ourselves of this evil, but we can arrange our society so that the fochtmanns of the West have only the company of their padded cells and gloomy bedrooms willing to entertain their genocidal fantasies.

***

Black Hole Soul

In their eyes, genocide
In disguises chosenite
Hides the hate, lies the snake
And a soul as black as slate
Boiling frog, Whites object
‘Neath the tact the soul looks dead
Call their name through the ruse
And you’ll hear them claim virtue

Black hole soul
Now we know
You wish upon us pain
Black hole soul
Now we know
Now we know (now we know)

Sophistry, lies and craft
Fool the hearts of the goyim
Times are gone for honest men
And sometimes far too long for snakes
In my land, a stalking leech
And our youth awakening
Blood and soil here to stay
No one gulled like that anymore

Black hole soul
Now we know
You wish upon us pain
Black hole soul
Now we know
Now we know

Black hole soul
Now we know
You wish upon us pain
Black hole soul
Now we know
Now we know
(black hole soul)
(black hole soul)
Now we know
(black hole soul)
(black hole soul)
Now we know
(black hole soul)
(black hole soul)
Now we know
(black hole soul)
(black hole soul)

Lift my head, fight my fear
Till my home is free and clear

Black hole soul
Now we know
You wish upon us pain
Black hole soul
Now we know
Now we know
Black hole soul
Now we know
You wish upon us pain
Black hole soul
Now we know
Now we know
(black hole soul)
(black hole soul)
(repeat)

fschmidt #fundie coalpha.org

Nazi Germany serves as a benchmark of evil, but I think American women are worse. In Nazi Germany, the Nazis had to pick particularly sadistic members of society to operate the concentration camps. The only crime of the average German was to look the other way. If the average German had been forced to see the suffering of the Jews in the concentration camps, they probably would have had second thoughts. Compare this to American women. The average American woman not only tolerates the suffering of single men, but actively contributes to it with their provocative dress. If confronted by the suffering of single men caused by sexual deprivation, the likely reaction of American women would be to giggle. In Nazi Germany, most Germans were not active in torturing people, but in Feminazi America, most women are active in torturing men. I do not think such women deserve any sympathy if they are raped, any more than Nazis convicted of war crimes deserve sympathy if they were punished.

The rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America. This is similar to the reason that I feel Robin Hood was justified in stealing from the rich. In England at the time, there was no social mobility, and the poor had no other way of getting enough money other than to steal. What is normally a crime becomes justified when alternative means of meeting a person's basic needs are denied.

But saying rape is justified is a weaker statement than saying American women deserve to be raped, so let me explain this. Is a starving person justified in stealing from a rich person? I think so. Does the rich person deserve to be stolen from? Not if the starving person's condition isn't the rich person's fault. In fact, in this case, the rich person would be justified in defending his property from the starving person. Here we have two people in conflict, each of whom is justified in his actions, and neither of whom deserves this conflict. But now let's look at the case where the starving person is starving because of actions by the rich person. In this case, not only is the starving person justified in stealing from the rich person, but the rich person deserves to be stolen from. This is why Robin Hood is remembered as a hero, because not only did he provide for the poor who were in need, but he also stole from the rich who were the cause of the poor people's poverty, and therefore who deserved to be stolen from.

My argument regarding rape is the same, just applied to sex as opposed to wealth. An American woman who dresses provocatively and opposes legal prostitution is a cause of sexual starvation among single men in America, and therefore, not only is her rape justified, but she deserves to be raped.

Bob #fundie bobstruth.blogspot.com

Nat: Few years ago, I was walking home from the bus station and a man was hidding near of me and was wearing a mask. He tried to rape me. He said to me: "Stop screaming or I kill you." I had to break his nose to escape. According to Bob's theory, I must go to jail while the assaillant must be free because apparently he was more "harmed" than me. After all, if I had let him rape me, I would not had to break his nose and maybe I would not have been killed, so nobody would be harmed. Bob doesn't have to worry about this "poor dear", the police did not find him. But I don't know if the police did catch him after he "innocently" kidnapped, threatened and raped another woman.

Bob: Dear Nat. Your story reminds me of a book I read recently in which the author's female friend bet him $100 that he couldn't "rape" her if she resisted. After several attempts he lost the bet. It is really hard to actually rape a female who resists, as you describe. Yes, you hurt him more than he hurt you. He was injured, you were not.

It also demonstrates why some legal codes such as the Islamic laws view rape as adultery, and assume that the female was at least complacent.

We still haven't found anyone who was actually injured by rape, nor anyone who can explain how sexual insertion would be more physically injurious or even painful without permission than with permission.

As the old grandmother said, "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
Bob

Anonymous: Bob, unless you are a complete moron, you know full well that rape is violent and painful for the victim.

I believe you enjoy torturing and taunting women who suffered rape. Their anger and pain excite you.

You masturbate as you read all this. It's what you want.

Bob: Dear Anonymous: You can repeat that tired old feminazi rape-hate propaganda as often as you want but it doesn't make it true. The counselor's guide at Rape Crisis Centers generally teaches counselors how to convince women that they are "victims" after having a fucking good time getting raped. I was somewhat surprised when I learned that fact from my local rape-hate industry. No, Anonymous, the "complete moron" is the fool who believes all the rape-hate sexist propaganda lies.

Acupuncture advocates #fundie sciencebasedmedicine.org

Legislative Alchemy 2017: Acupuncture
Acupuncture is nothing more than a theatrical placebo. Yet acupuncturists, defined as primary care practitioners in some states, are succeeding in licensing and practice expansion efforts in state legislatures.

Acupuncture is a theatrical placebo. Its proposed mechanism of action is highly implausible and:

after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.

In layman’s terms, acupuncture does not work – for anything.

Even the very CAM-friendly National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), in its own weasel-worded way, comes close to conceding the point:

Research suggests that acupuncture can help manage certain pain conditions, but evidence about its value for other health conditions is uncertain. [Emphasis added.]

Somebody tell the state legislatures. Via the magic of Legislative Alchemy, 47 states have legalized the practice of acupuncture along with, in some cases, Traditional Chinese, Oriental or East Asian medicine. In several states, acupuncture practice acts describe acupuncturists as primary care practitioners and/or give them the authority diagnose and treat any condition or disease. For example, in my state, Florida, the practice act says that acupuncture:

means a form of primary health care, based on traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, that employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques, for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease. [Emphasis added.]

In Nevada,

“Acupuncture” means the insertion of needles into the human body by piercing the skin of the body to control and regulate the flow and balance of energy in the body and to cure, relieve or palliate:

(a) Any ailment or disease of the mind or body; or

(b) Any wound, bodily injury or deformity. [Emphasis added.]

And in New Mexico:

“doctor of oriental medicine” means a person licensed as a physician to practice acupuncture and oriental medicine with the ability to practice independently, serve as a primary care provider and as necessary collaborate with other health care providers . . .

“oriental medicine” means the distinct system of primary health care that uses all allied techniques of oriental medicine, both traditional and modern, to diagnose, treat and prescribe for the prevention, cure or correction of disease, illness, injury, pain or other physical or mental condition by controlling and regulating the flow and balance of energy, form and function to restore and maintain health. [Emphasis added.]

As with state chiropractic and naturopathic licensing, most states rely on a closed-loop system of education and examinations that is completely controlled by acupuncturists in determining who is qualified to become licensed. The National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) administers the certification exams recognized by the states. Applicants for certification must have either graduated from schools accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM) or foreign schools meeting criteria set by the NCCAOM.

While the ACAOM is approved as an accrediting agency by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department does not review the scientific validity of what is taught or perform any independent analysis of the graduates’ ability to competently and safely practice. Its focus is on administrative matters and the financial stability of the schools. The ACAOM standards do not require a college degree for admission to an accredited acupuncture/Oriental Medicine school and only 500 hours of supervised patient care are required in accredited programs to graduate with a Master’s in acupuncture (700 hours for a Master’s in Oriental Medicine). A Master’s allows one to sit for the NCCAOM exam. In sum, someone with no college degree and 500 hours of clinical training can become a “primary care provider” in some states.

2017 bills

Today we look at bills filed in eleven states to license, or expand the practice of, acupuncturists during the 2017 state legislative sessions. Six were successful. Two bills were defeated; three remain pending.

Prior to last year, acupuncturists did not have a practice act in Wyoming. This year they succeeded in gaining one, although the Wyoming legislature stopped short of giving them the right to practice Oriental Medicine, which was eliminated in the final bill. Acupuncture is somewhat narrowly defined as inserting needles, with or without electric current or heat, into the body for:

therapeutic purpose of promoting, maintaining and restoring health, including [but, we note, not limited to] the treatment of dysfunctions of the body involving pain.

Wyoming also joins several states who’ve been bamboozled into thinking sticking needles into peoples’ ears, otherwise known as “auricular acupuncture,” is effective for substance abuse and mental health issues. Promoted based on an unpublished and cherry-picked review of the evidence by an organization called the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association (NADA), it is a perennial favorite with state legislatures looking to address mental health issues and drug abuse on the cheap.

New Hampshire enacted legislation creating something called a “Certified Acupuncture Detoxification Specialist,” who must be trained in the NADA protocol and supervised by an acupuncturist, although the “Specialist” needn’t be an acupuncturist himself. They can use “acu-detox” for:

behavioral health applications, including addictions, mental health, and disaster and emotional trauma.

One version of the bill specified that “acu-detox” could be used only in conjunction with other therapies but that bit of consumer protection against the ineffectiveness of pseudoscience in treating serious conditions was rejected.

Likewise, in Maine, a new law requires the state Department of Health and Human Services to develop a pilot project that will treat alcohol and substance abuse using the unproven NADA protocol. Fortunately, more sober minds prevailed in West Virginia, where a bill allowing the practice of NADA auricular acupuncture for chemical dependency failed.

Like their fellow CAM practitioners, naturopaths and chiropractors, once licensed, acupuncturists will return again and again to the state legislatures for practice expansion. In 2017, they succeeded in a big way in Illinois. There the legislature added the practice of “East Asian” medicine to the acupuncturists’ scope of practice, defined to include needle acupuncture, moxibustion, herbal medicine, and dietary supplements, among others, to:

normalize physiological functions, or for the treatment of diseases or dysfunctions of the body.

Acupuncture itself is broadly defined to include not only traditional needle acupuncture, but also far-infrared, electro- and magnetic stimulation, cold laser, cupping, dry needling (discussed below), and the bruising massage practice known as gua sha:

In a move reminiscent of the chiropractic lobby’s efforts to make chiropractic schools the arbiter of what chiropractors can and cannot do, Illinois practitioners of acupuncture and East Asian medicine are permitted to perform a differential diagnosis via principles and techniques taught in acupuncture schools, like the fanciful tongue and pulse diagnosis.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Sin is ugly. Sin fascinates and then it assassinates. Sin thrills and then it kills. The Devil always shows people the front yard, not the back yard. Satan shows people the neon lights of Las Vegas, boasting of Sin City as if it's something good and acceptable; but God's judgment is so horrible that no human being can even begin to comprehend the horrors of Hell. There is no pain in this world that hurts as much as a burn. If you've ever heard people screaming in agony in a burn ward, you haven't even begun to imagine the inexplicable pain, suffering, screams and horrors of the Lake of Fire for all eternity.

In a burn ward they treat your pain with injections, IV's and attempt to ease your burn any way possible, even putting you asleep with drugs; but IN HELL God will intensify your burn deliberately, taking out His vengeance upon you for ever and ever (2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9). We have a hard time understanding inexplicable eternal punishment (Warning: graphic images of burn victims and corpses) because we are not as righteous as God. If God allows so much pain, war and suffering in this world, you can rest assured that He will make eternity worse for the evil people who cause pain, war and suffering! The Bible teaches that good people who die IN THEIR SINS (John 8:24) will burn in Hell forever.

straightisgood #fundie topix.net

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. In heaven, every person that has ever killed a homo or lesbo sits next to God on a golden thrown. They recieve constant love, and eternal peace knowing they did such a good thing to destroy homos and lesbos. Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, the ones who killed Matthew Shepard have seats reserved for them next to God. God is giving them courage to deal with the rest of their lives in prison. After that, God will reward them with eternal life. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. God laughs at those homos and lesbos who think that God lives them. He doesn't. Plain and simple. God hates them all. He did not create males to have their d*cks soiled in sh*t. He did not create the digestive system to be used for sex. He did not create the vagina to have anything in it besides a d*ck. He knows this. I pray that someday, the homos and lesbos learn to cope with the fact that God hates them, just so God can show him his true power. If he knows that people can deal with him hating them, he will hurt them worse. It is endless pain for homos and lesbos that God wishes to bestow upon them. Endless suffering. He enjoys watching them twist in pain forever. He gets his wish every time one dies ad goes to hell. Maybe, just maybe, if a homo or lesbo becomes normal and straight, God will think about loving them. And if enough prayer and begging is put forth, then maybe God will let them in heaven. But the longer they wait, the less likely it is. Do not insult me for this answer. I know in my heart that I am right. God hates disgusting homos and lesbos. They are demons. The devil loves demons. He wants them. And they are his if they keep up their disgusting lifestyle. Let's see how tough the lesbos will be when they stand up to eternal fire. They think they're tough "men" let's see how tought they are. What about the homos? They think they suffer now, being the "women" they are? Well they better learn to deal with it. Hellfire is NOTHING like anything they'll face. Getting their rights denied, getting beaten. NOTHING like hellfire!

Mat Staver #fundie covenantjourney.org

In his journal, John wondered where the elderly were on the island. He only saw young people of short stature. Since the Sentinelese are so isolated, we do not know the answer to John’s question. Maybe their life expectancy is so short there are no elderly. Maybe the elderly are kept in isolation. Maybe the tribe kills them when they are no longer productive. Maybe the Sentinelese who killed John and who have opposed outsiders (even humanitarian relief following an earthquake and tsunami) are similar to rogue gangs we have in parts of the U.S. How can we assume that the people who appear on the beach with bows and arrows and spears represent the entire tribe?

With such lack of information about the Sentinelese, how can we assume the entire tribe want no contact with the outside world? How can we assume the island is free of domestic, child, or elder abuse? How can we assume that there are no people on the island who long to leave and explore a new life but who are forced to stay? We have no way of knowing, and therefore we cannot flatly assume that isolation is the best course of action for these people.

Without proper medical treatment, a young child who falls from a tree and suffers a severe broken leg or arm will likely live a difficult, if not short life, even by the Sentinelese life expectancy. Minor sicknesses in developed countries can be treated by proper medicine. But, minor sicknesses for the Sentinelese can be fatal. How can we assume the Sentinelese would rather watch their children die than have modern medicine save them? Few people would volunteer to give up all medical treatments in exchange for isolation. Who are we to deny the Sentinelese the choice of their future? George Washington died a painful death from a throat infection that could have been treated with modern medicine. How many Sentinelese die painful deaths because they lack modern medicine? Who are we to say they are better off left alone?

Despite their isolation, the Sentinelese no doubt get cut, sometimes severely. Even minor cuts without proper medical care can become infected. A broken jaw, tooth, or toothache can cause excruciating pain. These, and a host of other medical conditions and physical injuries, can result in prolonged disability or painful death. Are the Sentinelese better off left to suffer what otherwise could be an easy cure or treatment by modern medical standards? If you think so, then on what basis can you make that decision? Certainly it is not because of the known wishes of the Sentinelese people. We must not be so arrogant or so cold to make these life and death decisions for them. The children born on North Sentinel have no choice in their destiny. How can we assume they do not want better if they knew an entirely different future awaits just beyond the horizon?

If the Sentinelese are doing so well without contact to the outside world, then why is it estimated that as few as 50 people inhabit the island? The only way to have so few people without migration of the tribe leaving the island is due to a very short life expectancy. Life expectancy is shortened by lack of clean water, lack of good nutrition, and lack of proper medical care. What if the Sentinelese kill other tribe members? We know they do kill other human beings. What prevents them from killing each other? We simply do not know the answers to these questions, and it is problematic to assume we do and then make decisions about the Sentinelese that affect their well-being.

To the objection of whether Christianity is harmful, I neither have the space, nor is it my purpose in this short space, to thoroughly address this question. The weight of history, however, supports the conclusion that Christianity has greatly benefited society. At the time of Jesus, women in all cultures were treated with distain. Women were often separated from men. In the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, women were often considered unclean because of their menstrual cycles. The Roman author, naturalist, and naval and army commander, Pliny the Elder, penned writings that today woul

...

One objection by some people is that John should have had a long-term plan and used better judgment. It is astounding that anyone who does not know John or the particular facts could jump to such a conclusion. From what we do know, John did have a long-term plan that began ten years ago while he was still in high school. He trained for years to be a missionary. He went on multiple mission trips. Before this year, he went to India in 2015 and 2016, including to the Andaman Islands. He received extensive missionary training in 2017, according to All Nations. He was a trained EMT and knew how to survive in hostile climates and conditions. He carried with him an extensive medical kit that, among other things, included a hemostat to pinch arteries, a chest seal in case of a puncture, and dental forceps to remove arrows. He remained in isolation for 11 days prior to visiting North Sentinel, so that he would not be exposed to sickness.

Another objection raised by some self-identified Christians is that John was operating in his own will, not the will of God. The audacity of someone to make such a judgment without knowing John is astounding. Some will point to the fact that John was shot by an arrow on Thursday, November 15. The Bible he held over his chest stopped the arrow from penetrating his body. This warning, some say, should have been enough to make John retreat.

Elliot Rodger #fundie abclocal.go.com

[These sections are all taken from Elliot Rodger's 140 page manifesto.]

It was only when I first moved to Santa Barbara that I started considering the possibility of having to carry out a violent act of revenge, as the final solution to dealing with all of the injustices I’ve had to face at the hands of women and society. I came up with a name for this after I saw all of the good looking young couples walking around my college and in the town of Isla Vista. I named it the Day of Retribution. It would be a day in which I exact my ultimate retribution and revenge on all of the hedonistic scum who enjoyed lives of pleasure that they don’t deserve. If I can’t have it, I will destroy it. I will destroy all women because I can never have them. I will make them all suffer for rejecting me. I will arm myself with deadly weapons and wage a war against all women and the men they are attracted to. And I will slaughter them like the animals they are. If they won’t accept me among them, then they are my enemies. They showed me no mercy, and in turn I will show them no mercy. The prospect will be so sweet, and justice will ultimately be served. And of course, I would have to die in the act to avoid going to prison.

. . . .

The ultimate evil behind sexuality is the human female. They are the main instigators of sex. They control which men get it and which men don’t. Women are flawed creatures, and my mistreatment at their hands has made me realize this sad truth. There is something very twisted and wrong with the way their brains are wired. They think like beasts, and in truth, they are beasts. Women are incapable of having morals or thinking rationally. They are completely controlled by their depraved emotions and vile sexual impulses. Because of this, the men who do get to experience the pleasures of sex and the privilege of breeding are the men who women are sexually attracted to… the stupid, degenerate, obnoxious men. I have observed this all my life. The most beautiful of women choose to mate with the most brutal of men, instead of magnificent gentlemen like myself.

Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female.

Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy. Women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such.

. . . .

On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of. When they are dead, I will behead them and keep their heads in a bag, for their heads will play a major role in the final phase. This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I’ve had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did. I will finally even the score.

The Second Phase will take place on the Day of Retribution itself, just before the climactic massacre. The Second Phase will represent my War on Women. I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex. They have starved me of sex for my entire youth, and gave that pleasure to other men. In doing so, they took many years of my life away. I cannot kill every single female on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts. I will attack the very girls who represent everything I hate in the female gender: The hottest sorority of UCSB. After doing a lot of extensive research within the last year, I found out that the sorority with the most beautiful girls is Alpha Phi Sorority. I know exactly where their house is, and I’ve sat outside it in my car to stalk them many times. Alpha Phi sorority is full of hot, beautiful blonde girls; the kind of girls I’ve always desired but was never able to have because they all look down on me. They are all spoiled, heartless, wicked bitches. They think they are superior to me, and if I ever tried to ask one on a date, they would reject me cruelly. I will sneak into their house at around 9:00 p.m. on the Day of Retribution, just before all of the partying starts, and slaughter every single one of them with my guns and knives. If I have time, I will set their whole house on fire. Then we shall see who the superior one really is!

. . . .

The first strike against women will be to quarantine all of them in concentration camps. At these camps, the vast majority of the female population will be deliberately starved to death. That would be an efficient and fitting way to kill them all off. I would take great pleasure and satisfaction in condemning every single woman on earth to starve to death. I would have an enormous tower built just for myself, where I can oversee the entire concentration camp and gleefully watch them all die. If I can’t have them, no one will, I’d imagine thinking to myself as I oversee this. Women represent everything that is unfair with this world, and in order to make the world a fair place, they must all be eradicated.

A few women would be spared, however, for the sake of reproduction. These women would be kept and bred in secret labs. There, they will be artificially inseminated with sperm samples in order to produce offspring. Their depraved nature will slowly be bred out of them in time.

Future generations of men would be oblivious to these remaining women’s existence, and that is for the best. If a man grows up without knowing of the existence of women, there will be no desire for sex. Sexuality will completely cease to exist. Love will cease to exist. There will no longer be any imprint of such concepts in the human psyche. It is the only way to purify the world.

baconbits #fundie forums.narutofan.com

(Note: This is part of a formal debate)

Euthanasia is suicide and sucide is indeed selfish. Suicide is focusing solely on your own circumstances and on your own pain to the degree that you don't want to put up with life anymore. Its the crowning achievement of selfishness.

Everyone lives with pain, so at some point you must force some people to live in pain. Pain is something that defines living and life, therefore every life will contain some pain.

Even if you accept your premise, there must be an amount of pain that is not justified and an amount of pain that is. Getting sunburn for you non-black people is painful, yet we would agree that sunburn is no justification for euthanasia. At some point there has to be a distinguishment between pain you have to live with and pain that justifies euthanasia even if we accept all of your previous arguments.

Secondly, there is a social duty to live if you in fact have social duties to fulfill. There have been many tales of soldiers who could have given up on life but instead lived through excruciating pain to fulfill some social obligation. The runner of Marathon comes to mind. So even then there are some cases that there is a social obligation.

Thirdly, wallowing in self pity to the point where you focus solely on your pain rather than anything else once again points out the selfish nature of suicide. Sucide focuses solely on the person who contemplates or does it, and hardly anyone else without the prism of "me, me, me".

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

Chad Greene #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

In a recent discussion on Twitter, Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), pardoned by President Obama after being convicted of espionage, argued that transgender “treatment” is necessary for the health of trans individuals, “because,” Chelsea stated, “not getting medical attention for trans people is fatal.”

Manning’s argument is anything but an isolated one. When seventeen-year-old Leelah Alcorn committed suicide in 2014, LGBT activists immediately jumped to blame his parents and society at large for causing the tragedy. Zack Ford of ThinkProgress wrote:

Leelah Alcorn’s death was a preventable tragedy. Here was a 17-year-old girl with full access to all of the information available in the 21st century about transgender identities, including many safe and effective ways to transition. But as she wrote in her own suicide note before jumping in front of a tractor trailer this week, there was no hope attached to those possibilities?—?no trust that it could, in fact, get better. She had given up on crying for help.

This, despite the young man’s parents support of his gender identity. He killed himself because his parents asked him to wait until he was eighteen to begin transitioning. They wouldn’t agree to pay for it earlier.

The argument can be summarized as follows. Without medical treatment (expensive surgery and lifelong hormone therapy), social acceptance, correct pronoun use, and open bathroom access, trans people will never be comfortable in their bodies or in society. Consequently, they are at a high risk for suicide, and it’s an injustice not to make these “treatments” available; the crime of killing trans people can even be laid at the feet of those who do not take these steps.

This argument, made by Manning, Ford, and so many others, is supposed to halt any criticism—or even querying—of gender theory, but it raises more questions than it answers.

The various liberal resources are shockingly equivocal as to what gender identity actually is. Gender identity is an “innermost knowing,” an issue of hormone imbalance, the result of a male brain in a female body, or a ‘transsexual’ brain, maybe an inherited characteristic, and many other possibilities, depending on whom you ask. According to some, gender is an inborn and permanent state; for others, a fluid awareness that might change by the day. How is it possible that a condition so insusceptible of consistent definition could be universally declared fatal without medical treatment?

Further, if transgenderism requires medical treatment, how can it form the basis of anyone’s identity? Trans people and their allies have, of course, insisted with great indignation that their condition is not an illness, but it is hard to see how this conclusion is to be avoided, if it’s insisted that it must be treated or else will be fatal.

Illnesses that require treatment do not constitute anyone’s identity. Being HIV-positive requires medical treatment. I do not identify as HIV-positive as though it made me an entirely new kind of person. It is a condition I need to treat in order to live and be healthy. How is being trans any different?

Aiming at Sex-Gender Alignment

The goal of most transgender individuals is to live as the opposite sex. If this were not true, there would be no concern about “access to health care” or medical necessity. If one could simply enjoy whatever gender identity felt the most appropriate at any given time, medical intervention would be merely cosmetic. So if we agree that people who identify as transgender desire to be the opposite sex to the best of their ability—arguing that internally they already are—then we must accept that the ideal state for all individuals is cisgender, where gender and sex align naturally.

In my experience, this assertion is viewed as hateful and intolerant. To suggest that people who identify as transgender desire to be “like everyone else,” “normal,” or—dare I say—“healthy” by aligning their gender and sex is to suggest a transgender identity is itself a state of error. But again, this seems to be what is presupposed by the argument that medical intervention is so vital that, without it, a person may commit suicide.

In order to achieve a healthy and mentally stable state, a trans person must have their gender and sex as closely aligned as possible. Why, though, does this require the physical sex to change in order to align to the perceived gender? Why shouldn’t the perceived gender be what changes?

It seems far more reasonable—and medically ethical and sound—to achieve this homeostasis by changing gender to match to the already established sex. A woman taking testosterone must continue taking testosterone, or else her desired masculine secondary sex characteristics will fade away (though if she has removed her ovaries, her body will not be able to produce estrogen and bring her female sex characteristics back). As many trans men prefer to keep their reproductive organs and become pregnant, this risk is even higher. The body’s aggressive and persistent attempt to return to a state, despite medical interventions to override that state, indicates that the state is “natural.” The body is being medically forced to adapt to conditions it is unsuited to experience.

If the ideal state is one of homeostasis, in which gender and sex are the same, then why would trans people dedicate their entire lives to forcing their bodies to adapt to conditions they cannot maintain on their own? It seems far more reasonable to recognize that the physical sex at birth is the standard by which internal perception should be aligned. Logically, wouldn’t a transgender person who suffers due to misalignment of gender and sex be equally as happy aligning his gender to his sex if the end result is that gender and sex are the same? Why is the only acceptable option to force, through dramatic physical deformity, the body to adapt to the mind instead?

We Need a Real Cure

Some trans advocates would presumably reply that sex should change rather than gender because sex can change, whereas attempts to change one’s gender usually end badly, but this response is unnecessarily pessimistic.

I have personally experienced gender dysphoria, and I explored transition in my early twenties. I am aware of the emotional struggle, and I am sympathetic to the sense of frustration and hopelessness. But I am also aware of the empowering realization that I alone control how I perceive the world. Even if I would prefer to be female, I understand that my body is male, and therefore the most effective and healthiest plan of action is to align my sense of gender to that unchangeable state. I have largely been successful, as I feel fully integrated today and am not only comfortable in my male body but find myself enjoying the pursuit of masculine physical progress.

An uncomfortable truth is that many surveys, including a 2011 Swedish study, indicate that suicide rates remain high after sex-reassignment surgery (the Swedish study reports that people who have had sex-reassignment surgery are 19 times more likely to die by suicide than is the general population); and the National Center for Transgender Equality reported in 2015 that 40% of people who identify as transgender have attempted suicide. The LGBT community actively fights such studies and suppresses the voices of people who, like myself, have chosen natural alignment or who regret transitioning. The medical community is currently uninterested in recognizing the inherent dangers and long-term impact of transition therapy and is equally unwilling to pursue study that may result in finding a cure or a resolution to the underlying issue. To suggest this is a medical issue needing to be cured is to be accused of proposing genocide.

But medical issues do need to be cured. If gender dysphoria is indeed naturally fatal without treatment, the only ethical solution is to find a cure that exposes the body to the least amount of risk. Obviously, this would be to correct the biological problem and/or address the psychological distress behind the dysphoria itself.

The LGBT movement has built a civilization around the validation of being “who you are” despite all efforts of judgment or persecution. Trans individuals often tell me they are now their “true gender.” Advocates like Zack Ford and others routinely demand that extreme social bigotry prevents the trans individual from living a full and happy life. But in the center of this storm of indignation and boasting of perseverance is the steady and quiet realization that these people are extremely insecure.

We cannot forget the real tragedy in all of this. People suffering from genuine mental anguish are being promised that with enough surgery, camouflage, social acceptance, legal protection, educational campaigns, and so on, they will finally feel whole as a person. Worse, they are told that the only reason they continue to suffer is due to the intolerance and hatred of those around them. The current method of addressing this concern is only making matters worse. Treatment needs to address the core problem.

Ann Barnhardt #fundie barnhardt.biz

Bergoglio earlier this week delivered a sermon at Casa Santa Marta in which he called Judas Iscariot a poor, repentant man, victimized and driven to suicide by unmerciful lovers of the law. This stunning attempt to rehabilitate Judas Iscariot, the greatest, most wicked traitor in history and despairing self-murderer, is beyond unprecedented. It reeks of supernatural evil.

This coupled with Bergoglio’s repeated statements that there is no hell, that the worst that can happen to a human soul is that it be simply annihilated at death, and that the possibility of eternal damnation is not part of “the logic of the gospels”, and Bergoglio’s relentless push to keep people from confessing their sins TO CHRIST by convincing them that not only are their sins not sins, but are, as we saw in the Paragraph 303 quote above, God’s will, can not but make one think that Judas Iscariot could be a big player in all of this.

[...]

I don’t think people understand how Bergoglio’s serpentine words denying the reality of hell and eternal damnation tie into his Marxism and materialism. Bergoglio casts everything in earthly, worldly, material terms. Bergoglio constantly preaches that material poverty is the worst thing that a human being can experience, and even that “discerning the Body and Blood of Christ” means NOT that a person believes and confesses the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, but rather that one has “greater fellowship with the underprivileged”. What this all does is plant the seeds in the minds of men that any suffering due to lack of material wealth or earthly suffering COULD justify suicide. Life on earth COULD become intolerable, or even just enough below the mean to put suicide on the table as a viable option (no pun intended). Because, after all, the WORST that could happen is the sweet relief of the “big lights-out”, because eternal damnation is “not part of the logic of the gospels”. From here, it QUICKLY becomes an act of “mercy”, and by that I mean the monstosity of “FrancisMercy”, to abort a child that might have to live a life of so-called “underprivilege”, or to “ease the suffering” of a sick, lonely old person.

Finally, Bergoglio, like Judas Iscariot, gives every indication of being embarrassed to rage by the reality of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist (see John 6), but also goes out of his way to not only backhandedly deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (as in Paragraph 186 of “The Exuberance of Buttsecks”), but also to encourage and incite as many people as possible in open, unrepentant mortal sin to defile the Blessed Sacrament by sacrilegious communion, with the full cooperation and assent of Christ’s priests – the very men tasked with defending Our Lord’s physical substance, like the angel with the flaming sword stationed at the Gates of Eden.

During the exorcism referenced above, it was recorded that Judas Iscariot was the worst offender against the Blessed Sacrament, “constantly trying to somehow destroy or defile it. To manipulate or mutilate it would represent everything [he] had attempted to do in life, and would be in league with the diabolical activity of attempting to taint anything Holy.”

That pretty much describes Bergoglio’s agenda over the past three years.

rlvaughn #fundie baptistboard.com

The golden rule cannot be made to walk on all fours. Should a masochist say 'do to others what you would have them do to you,' then he might try to inflict bodily pain and suffering on others, since he enjoys pain and suffering. The golden rule must work within Biblical parameters. I would contend that Paul's instructions to [slave]masters illustrate the proper Biblical application of the golden rule and slavery.

sadoeconomics #fundie sadoeconomist.tumblr.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

(commenting on story "Atheist Activist Group Takes Issue With Alabama Police Department's Mix of God with Government"):

Oboehner:
Shows the hypocrisy of one religion claiming rights over another, nothing more.

Zampogna:
Atheism is a religion just like baldness is a hair color.

Oboehner:
Baldness is a scalp condition like atheism is a religion.

Zampogna:
Yes, bald men suffer from male pattern scalp condition. One of your analogies is bound not to fall on its face if you keep trying.

Oboehner:
The hair color analogy is blocking the fall as it face-planted the moment it hit cyberspace.

Zampogna:
Atheism is the absence of religion. I know what you're attempting, to turn all rational and scientific beliefs into matters of faith. And they aren't. And even if they were, they at least attempt to make attempts to understand by studying and not just saying Goddidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Oboehner:
Yeah right, the "we really don't care one way or the other" activist group, LOL
I know what you're attempting, to turn matters of faith into scientific beliefs . And they aren't. At least attempt to understand by studying and not just saying anexplodingdotdidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Zampogna:
These ARE scientific beliefs, and you're trying to level the playing field by putting them on the same level as your ancient holy book. They couldn't be more different. Your holy book gets absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever and just demands you believe it. That's you. Science tests and re-tests and examines and studies over and over. That's my group. And I'm proud to be part of it.

Oboehner:
My "Holy Book" is an admitted matter of faith, it is not taught at taxpayer expense in government schools. Science can "test and re-test" all they want, if the belief and the flawed system they use never changes... You can be proud of whatever you like, that doesn't make it science, or even one bit true - you have only blind faith.

Emil and Rodica Radita #fundie rawstory.com

A 15-year-old Canadian boy suffering from severe effects of insulin-dependent diabetes died because his religious parents refused to seek proper medical care, the CBC reports.

Emil and Rodica Radita are on trial for first-degree murder after their son, Alex, died in 2013 from what prosecutors say were the effects of his parents’ refusal to seek medical care and rely on prayer and home treatment instead.

Alex was diagnosed with diabetes as a 3 year old. The condition can be controlled by monitoring blood glucose levels and giving insulin. But his parents believed that doctors caused the condition by treating him for it and left his diabetes untreated.

The result was that by the time Alex was 15, he weighed no more than a 4-year-old. He died at home — but his parents believed he was risen from the dead, according to court testimony reported by the CBC. They are facing first-degree murder charges, which like in the U.S. means the culprit is accused of purposely killing another person.

Marius Citan, a member of the Romanian Pentecostal Church, testified church members were told that Alex died overnight, but had been raised from the dead by God.

But Citan, who testified that other church members sought medical help from doctors when needed, said that when he saw the boy in his bed, he was disturbed.

“He was looking very bad,” said Ciltan. “I was shocked.”

While the medical examiner said she got conflicting accounts from family members, Alex may have stopped breathing hours before paramedics were called.

It was church elders told the parents to call 911. Paramedics found family and church members praying inside the home.

Over years, if left untreated, diabetes ravages the body — but controlling it under a doctor’s care with insulin can counteract its effects and allow diabetics to live relatively normal lives.

Eunice Pop, a friend of some of Alex’s sisters, testified the boy was in very poor physical condition before his death. She saw the 15-year-old was hobbling down the stairs “snail slow,” had swollen legs and appeared ill, the CBC reports.

Soon after his diagnosis, Alex had been seized by child services for a year after he had been hospitalized three times because his parents refused to treat his condition. But he was returned to them. They complied with a court order to treat his condition with the help of a doctor — until they failed to show up for an appointment, the CBC reports.

The family could not be located, until they were discovered to have moved to a different province — but there was no communication between the two social service departments.

His kindergarten teacher, Sandy Wong, said she remembers him as an impish, chubby boy with a sweet face.

“I hope that Alex’s tragic death will bring about necessary changes regarding follow-up and monitoring in serious cases of neglect, when once apprehended children are returned to their parents,” wrote Wong in a letter obtained by the CBC. “His life story of suffering and premature death demands that greater, more open sharing of information between provinces be implemented. The most vulnerable must be protected. I will never forget Alex’s sweet face and the privilege it was to teach, support and encourage him during his kindergarten year. He is free of his suffering now and resting in peace.”

Armchair Psychologist Award

TheGuruLikes #transphobia reddit.com

Trans identifiers who claim to be homosexual on the basis of the sex they identify with are immaturely and pathologically focused on physical attributes at the expense of the substance of homosexuality.

Through spreading rhetoric of "genital preference", they're regressing the public debate back to a time when society framed the nature of our relationships only in shallow terms of sexual activity. It's a manipulative misappropriation of public sentiment via a childish form of retribution for an apparent lack of self esteem. What's most insidious is how their tactic sows confusion, misunderstanding, and self-doubt around the nature of our sexuality among naive homosexuals.

How many of us homosexuals have put much thought into considering what it truly means to be oriented to intimacy with a partner of the same sex?

I see the fundamental essence of homosexual attraction as an emotional connectivity with one other's biological sameness. External body parts and secondary sex characteristics merely touch the easily observable surface, but since that's the maximum extent by which a heterosexual trans identifier can relate, they are limited to a superficial and inadequate set of assumptions about the nature of homosexual orientation, much less heterosexual orientation. It's ignorance. Our easily manipulated gay brothers and lesbian sisters are also ignorant. Their minds are so consumed by underclass ideology that they've no capacity left for realizing that the alphabet diversity game is stripping us of our shared yet individually born identities.

Attraction to same sex physical features are an outer layer of our sexuality whereas desiring same sex romantic intimacy is fulfilling an innate psychological impulse to be unified with the same sex. Only same sex partners can provide the necessary relativity to each other's mutual homosexual desire. The same applies to heterosexuality in the inverse. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are opposite sides of a complex coin. It would be far more appropriate to place those two phenomena in a box together than it is to group either with sex identification. Gender theory further distorts and unnecessarily complicates the distinction.

Trans identifiers are at most a novelty in terms of sexual experience. It doesn't matter much that they approximate the look of the other sex. In the end, the state of knowing that person is biologically the same forms the fundamental basis of an emotional connection with a same sex partner.

Hopefully a silver lining to the the rise in trans theory lunacy is that it will catalyze more of us to better understand what defines our sexuality, thereby helping truth to ultimately contain this public mental health crisis.

holocaustdeprogrammingcourse #conspiracy #pratt #racist holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
An early pamphlet published by the Institute for Historical Review

What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual “survivors.” This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to have actually witnessed any “gassing.” There are no contemporaneous documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no “human soap,” no lamp shades made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.
What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?
Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated “six million” figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.
Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that “there were no extermination camps on German soil”?
Yes. The famous “Nazi hunter” wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that “gassings” of Jews took place only in Poland.
If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an extermination camp?
After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a “gas chamber.” The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau was a “gassing” camp.
What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were used to kill people there?
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large “gas chamber.” After America’s leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an “absurdity” to claim that they were, or could have been, used for executions.
If Auschwitz wasn’t a “death camp,” what was its true purpose?
It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as a workforce.
Who set up the first concentration camps?
During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called “concentration camps” in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.
How did German concentration camps differ from American “relocation” camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during WWII?
The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on the basis of race alone.
Why did the German government intern Jews in camps?
It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all suspected security risks – not just Jews – were in danger of internment.
What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an international boycott of German goods.
Did the Jews of the world “declare war on Germany”?
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced “Judea Declares War on Germany.”
Was this before or after the “death camp” stories began?
This was years before the “death camp” stories, which began in 1941-1942.
What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
Britain — on May 11, 1940.
How many “gas chambers” to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
None.
How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German control during the war?
Fewer than six million.
If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the war.
How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet Union? More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in 1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.
How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting them outside of German reach?
Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).
If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.
Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact “confessions” for use at the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent “evidence” for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar “war crimes” trials.
How does the Holocaust story benefit Jews today?
It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and is used to justify US aid to Israel.
How does it benefit the State of Israel?
It justifies the billions of dollars in “reparations” Germany has paid to Israel and many individual “survivors.” It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel, totalling billions of dollars per year.
How is it used by many Christian clergymen?
The Holocaust story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted “Chosen People.”
How did it benefit the Communists?
It diverted attention from Soviet war warmongering and atrocities before, during and after the Second World War.
How does it benefit Britain?
In much the same way it benefited the Soviet Union.
Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of Jews?
No.
What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps? Hydrocyanic gas from “Zyklon B,” a commercial pesticide that was widely used throughout Europe.
For what purpose was “Zyklon B” manufactured?
It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests.
Was this product suitable for mass extermination?
No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people, far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting fumigation agent.
How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with Zyklon B? Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are employed.
Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the “gas chambers” to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How do you explain this?
It can’t be explained because had they done so they would have suffered the same fate as the “gassing” victims.
Hoess said in his “confession” that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t Zyklon B explosive?
Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.
What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?
The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to “steam chambers,” to “electrocution” machinery. Millions are alleged to have been killed in these ways.
How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from those who were scheduled to be killed?
It couldn’t have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity propaganda.
If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go along with the Germans without resisting?
They didn’t fight back because they did not believe there was any intention to kill them.
About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
Competent estimates range from about 300,000 to 500,000.
How did they die?
Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.
What is typhus?
This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews might have survived the camps.
What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during the Second World War?
5,700,000.
Some Jewish “death camp” survivors say they saw bodies being dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required for this?
A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a substantial fuel shortage during the war.
Can bodies be burned in pits?
No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen.
Holocaust historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?
About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further processing afterwards.
Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?
To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had died.
Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation?
About 430,600.
Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time?
No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.
How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.
If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?
That remains to be “explained.” Six million bodies would have produced many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash depositories.
Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken during the period when the “gas chambers” and crematoria were supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?
No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp, nor do they show evidence of the “open pits” in which bodies were allegedly burned.
What was the main provision of the German “Nuremberg Laws” of 1935? They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.
Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
Years before Hitler’s Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.
What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the “Holocaust” question?
An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.
What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews were allegedly being exterminated?
If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and didn’t.
What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish extermination program?
None.
Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
As early as 1933, Hitler’s government signed an agreement with the Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking large amounts of capital with them.
How did Anne Frank die?
After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war.
Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax.
What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
Photographs can be faked, but it’s far easier merely to add a misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage. Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were “gassed” or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the camps toward the end of the war.
Who originated the term “genocide”?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.
Are films such as “Schindler’s List” or “The Winds of War” documentaries?
No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history. Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical representations.
How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the standard “Holocaust” story?
Dozens. More are in production.
What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his business to suffer, and represented “injurious denial of established fact.”
What about the charge that those who question the Holocaust story are merely anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. Scholars who refute Holocaust story claims are of all persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There is no correlation between “Holocaust” refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the lack of evidence for key Holocaust claims.
What has happened to “revisionist” historians who have challenged the Holocaust story?
They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and physical violence.
Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom? The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been overwhelmingly hostile.
Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view?
Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the Holocaust story.
Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the Holocaust story, as well as facts concerning other aspects of World War II historical revisionism?
http://holocausthandbooks.com/

In 1996 the Nizkor website attempted a point-by-point “refutation” of the Institute for Historical Review’s pamphlet ‘http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/basic_articles/incorrect.004.html’.

View the Nizkor Rebuttal here:http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

In response Ernst Zündel refuted each of Nizkor’s “rebuttals”
See:http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/english/debate/debatetoc.html

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

Etienne Charland, known as the Emergence Guardian™ #crackpot #magick #mammon spiritualselftransformation.com

God Connection Attunement
Jump-start your connection to God from ~3.2% to 100%.

Who is this for? Spiritual seekers who seek a quicker path to peace and prosperity.

What is it? We live in a Luciferian society that seeks to trim God out of everything. Most lightworkers have around 3.2% connection to God. I will use my own connection to God to open up yours at 100%, just like how you'd jump-start a car whose battery is dead.

This service comes with a complimentary e-book, How to Connect with God The Easy Way, which explains all the details of the methodology.

We recommend that you first try by yourself, then if you need help, purchase the God Connection Attunement.

>> Get the complimentary e-book How to Connect with God The Easy Way
>> Purchase the God Connection Attunement

Although benefits vary greatly from person to person, here's what I notice when I increase it for myself. When it's low, I feel a lot of struggle and conflicts all around that I need to push against. When I open up the connection to God, it lifts the struggles and things really start flowing in the right direction. It doesn't mean it solves everything, but there's a sense of peace that everything is as it should.

Then, by definition, opening up the genuine connection to God gets you out of the False Light Matrix. You start aligning with the divine energetic matrix, which means you get a whole new level of support from above, and it changes all the dynamics.

When going through this level of deep shift, there can be an adaptation period where your thoughts and behaviours gradually stop and go on neutral while you shift and adapt a new way of being. This phase can last about 2 weeks.

Note that as you take a fork out of the False Light Matrix into the Divine Matrix, the benefits will keep growing and compounding over time.

Benefits

On average, it will look like this within 6 months. I'm using kinesiology to measure these numbers.

95% reduction of mind control
92% reduction of energetic chaos
72% reduction of energetic pressure
72% reduction of vulnerability to social engineering
440% increased support from angelic beings
318% increase of spiritual energy
315% increase of divine guidance
215% increase of emotional energy
118% increase of mind clarity
58% increase of peace
57% increase of health
28% increase of vitality
For a spiritual person with dysfunctional relationship with money, increase in financial wealth will often manifest after 6 months of sustained connection to God. I'm measuring 15% wealth increase after 6 months, and 315% increase after 1 year? Time will tell. For those with a healthier relationship with money and means to generate income, it can be a lot faster but extremely variable.

More importantly, on average, it brings 52-58% increased drive to move forward and do the right things within a month, leaving behind spiritual lethargy.

In essence, it will:
Disconnect you from the False Light Matrix (92% of Lightworkers are in it)
Overcome spiritual lethargy (86% of Lightworkers are in it)
Render mind control technologies ineffective (everybody is affected by those)
Plus the effect is highly contagious.

Although measuring these exact numbers with kinesiology isn't easy, you can easily measure the accuracy of the above numbers. I'm getting about 96% accuracy.

Normally, opening up the connection once will be enough, especially since it is increasing for the whole planet in this context of ascension. It can still however go down due to certain events, and hopefully by then you'll start doing real Alchemy work yourself.

With a God Connection Attunement, I can maintain it for you for 1 full year. If it goes down, send me a message and I'll bring it back up.

Since results vary greatly from person to person and are hard to predict, you can get a free assessment where I will measure:

Current connection to God (in the Temple of the Soul and in the Lighthouse inner buildings)
What % you're ready for it
% benefits you'd get within 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months and a year
Just send me a quick message on Facebook and say “Can you do a God Connection Attunement assessment for me?” If your picture isn't on your profile, also attach a picture of yourself. That way I can do it quick for free.

If you're less than 10% ready for such attunement, I may refuse or suggest a better option for you, such as 1-on-1 coaching.

Since it requires a great deal of energy from my side, the investment for this is $497. I wouldn't plug my inner building into someone else's demolished building for just anyone, but for $497, I'll do it. Once it's done and stable, I disconnect.

Unknown Author #fundie photosforsouls.com

A Letter From Hell

Dear Mom,

I am writing to you from the most horrible place that I have ever seen, and more horrible than you could ever imagine. It is BLACK here, so DARK that I cannot even see all the souls I am constantly bumping into. I only know they are people like myself from the blood curdling SCREAMS. My voice is gone from my own screaming as I writhe in pain and suffering. I cannot even cry for help anymore, and it is no use anyway, there is no one here that has any compassion at all for my plight.

The PAIN and suffering in this place is absolutely unbearable. It so consumes my every thought, I could not know if there were any other sensation to come upon me. The pain is so severe, it never stops day or night. The turning of days does not appear because of the darkness. What may be nothing more than minutes or even seconds seems like many endless years. The thought of this suffering continuing without end is more than I can bear. My mind is spinning more and more with each passing moment. I feel like a madman, I cannot even think clearly under this load of confusion. I fear I am losing my mind.

The FEAR is just as bad as the pain, maybe even worse. I don’t see how my predicament could be any worse than this, but I am in constant fear that it MIGHT be at any moment. My mouth is parched, and will only become more so. It is so dry that my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth. I recall that old preacher saying that’s what Jesus Christ endured as he hung on that old rugged cross. There is no relief, not so much as a single drop of water to cool my swollen tongue.

To add even more misery to this place of torment,
I know that I deserve to be here. I am being punished justly for my deeds. The punishment, the pain, the suffering is no worse than I justly deserve, but admitting that now will never ease the anguish that burns eternally in my wretched soul. I hate myself for committing the sins to earn such a horrible fate,

I hate the devil that deceived me so that I would end up in this place. And as much as I know it is an unspeakable wickedness to think such a thing, I hate the very God that sent his only begotten Son to spare me this torment. I can never blame the Christ that suffered and bled and died for me, but I hate him anyway. I cannot even control my feelings that I know to be wicked, wretched and vile. I am more wicked and vile now than I ever was in my earthly existence. Oh, If only I had listened.

Any earthly torment would be far better than this. To die a slow agonizing death from Cancer; To die in a burning building as the victims of the 9-11 terror attacks. Even to be nailed to a cross after being beaten unmercifully like the Son of God; But to choose these over my present state I have no power. I do not have that choice.

I now understand that this torment and suffering
is what Jesus Bore for me. I believe that he suffered, bled and died to pay for my sins, but his suffering was not eternal. After three days he arose in victory over the grave. Oh, I do SO believe, but alas, it is too late. As the old invitation song says that I remember hearing so many times, I am “One Day Too Late”.

We are ALL believers in this terrible place, but our faith amounts to NOTHING. It is too late. The door is shut. The tree has fallen, and here shall it lay. In HELL. Forever lost. No Hope, No Comfort, No Peace, No Joy. There will never be any end to my suffering.

I remember that old preacher as he would read “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: And they have no rest day nor night” And that is perhaps the worst thing about this terrible place.

I REMEMBER.

I remember the church services. I remember the invitations. I always thought they were so corny, so stupid, so useless. It seemed I was too “tough” for such things. I see it all different now, Mom, but my change of heart matters nothing at this point. I have lived like a fool, I pretended like a fool, I died like a fool, and now I must suffer the torments and anguish of a fool.

Oh, Mom, how I miss so very much the comforts of home. Never again will I know your tender caress across my fevered brow. No more warm breakfasts or home-cooked meals. Never again will I feel the warmth of the fireplace on a frosty winter’s night. Now the fire engulfs not only this perishing body wracked with pain beyond compare, but the fire of the wrath of an Almighty God consumes my very inner being with an anguish that cannot be properly described in any mortal language.

I long to just stroll through a lush green meadow in the springtime and view the beautiful flowers, stopping to take in the fragrance of their sweet perfume. Instead I am resigned to the burning smell of brimstone, sulphur, and a heat so intense that all other senses simply fail me.

Oh, Mom, as a teenager I always hated having to listen to the fussing and whining of the little babies in church, and even at our house. I thought they were such an inconvenience to me, such an irritation. How I long just to see for a brief moment one of those innocent little faces. But there are no babies in Hell, Mom.

There are no Bibles in Hell, dearest mother. The only scriptures inside the charred walls of the damned are those that ring in my ears hour after hour, moment after miserable moment. They offer no comfort at all, though, and only serve to remind me of what a fool I have been.

Were it not for the futility of them Mom, you might otherwise rejoice to know that there is a never ending prayer meeting here in Hell. No matter, there is no Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf. The prayers are so empty, so dead. They amount to nothing more than cries for mercy that we all know will never be answered.

Please warn my brothers Mom. I was the eldest, and thought I had to be “cool”. Please tell them that no one in Hell is cool. Please warn all my friends, even my enemies, lest they come also to this place of torment.

As terrible as this place is, Mom, I see that it is not my final destination. As Satan laughs at all of us here, and as multitudes join us continually in this feast of misery, we are constantly reminded that some day in the future, we will all be summoned individually to appear before The Judgment Throne of Almighty God. God will show us our eternal fate written in the books next to all of our wicked works.

We will have no defense, no excuse, and nothing to say except to confess the justice of our damnation before the supreme judge of all the earth. Just before being cast into our final destination of torment, the Lake of Fire, we will have to look upon the face of him who willingly suffered the torments of hell that we might be delivered from them. As we stand there in his holy presence to hear the pronouncement of our damnation, you will be there Mom to see it all. Please forgive me for hanging my head in shame, as I know I will not be able to bear to look upon your face. You will already be conformed into the image of the Saviour, and I know it will be more than I can stand.

I would love to leave this place and join you and so many others I have known for my few short years on earth.
But I know that will never be possible.Since I know I can never escape the torments of the damned, I say with tears, with a sorrow and deep despair that can never be completely described, I never want to see any of you again.

Please don’t ever join me here.

In eternal Anguish,

Your Son / Daughter,

Condemned and Lost Forever

ByGrace #fundie christianforums.com

No sir, I do not wish pain or suffering on anyone. What I am saying is that the destruction of a child is murder. I find it shameful that we have given people that want to murder their baby a nice sterile environment to do it in. Ted bundy and John Wayne Gacey did not have a fluffy place to commit their acts in with muzak and flower arrangements. I also seriously doubt that anyone would have given a second thought had they accidently killed themselves in the process of destroying another human life. I therefore say that while it is sad that anyone must die, if you are in the act of killing your baby and happen to take your own life, it seems like a pretty natural consequence to me. Take murderers back into the dark alleys and make them use crude weapons to do their deeds. You take anothers life in your hands then maybe you forfeit yours too. So be it.

Faith Mimbs #fundie books.google.com

Can you imagine What we would do if Christ had not died an that sweet cross? There had to be blood
shed for god is just that holy. in the old times people made animal sacrifices for sins that were committed, I don't
know about you but can't even chop the head Of a dead chicken let alone a live goat, so thank God he died for
me yet while I was still a sinner, if you have another God besides the almighty tell me why? What miracles do you
believe they perform, and if you died right now can the blood of your god get you heaven? I know many
people Who have different religions Other than Christianity and everyone thinks theirs IS the right one, but the
bible the holy bible has been dissected over and aver again and has been proven to have accurate accounts of
Jesus Christ. this is not to say that prophets have not existed somewhere else because they have, but Jesus is
Jesus and there is no duplication Of him, his birth Was foretold seven hundred years before his birth just think
about that, look around you nonbelievers look at the proof in front of your face or is the trees to tall? My life and
all the things I have been through I know If it were not for God I would have fainted. there were times that I did
not want to follow him I wanted to give up, my lights were off my fridge was empty and I felt like God could zap
some money my way, but was not faithful to him. I lived in this world and all my lusts came first. I wanted that
car, that man that jewelry never knowing that at any minute I could have did and been lost. The blble is clear on
a few things let me tell you what that is Hell, Heaven, Jesus, Hell _ yep hell is a literal burning suffering painful
place that no one wants to go, I hear people say that if they had a loved one in hell they would not mine as long
as they were together, well that's crap' Who wants to continually burn? Who. If my mother went to hell light
now, it's her fault she has had ample opportunity to change, so if she do not it's because she chose not_ But one
thing is tor sure am not going to ask God to let me burn with her. no way I want the peace that god otters I
want to live in the golden mansion, I want to see the jewel paved Streets, want to see Christ, and all who does
not is lost. Now know we have some Satan worshippers and that's fine but when you get to hell the devil is not
your friend, he will not thank you for serving him, in fact he Will laugh at What you have done, you Will be With
him for the rest of your life being tortured imagine that This life that you live are only for a while so what you do
with it is up to you, but if you choose wrong you will regret it, And for those who believe God is a phony or he is
not real you Will regret it or for your sakes let's hope I am wrong

Royce E. Van Blaricome #fundie christiannews.net

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Too bad we don't have a POTUS and a WH Spokesman who can't just come out and say that there is no such things as a Transgender and therefore no legal protections required.

Ambulance Chaser:
You want a POTUS and WH spokesman to lie? Trans people very much exist.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Of course not and NOTHING from my statement could remotely be construed as to say such. But you, on the other hand, just publicly displayed for all to see that you are a Liar just like your father, Satan, who is the author of all lies.

"Trans people" as you call them are a figment of the imagination of Mankind who wishes to cling to their sin rather than the Savior. They most certain do NOT exist for those who wish to deal with Truth and Reality.

Just because someone CHOOSES to engage in a BEHAVIOR of putting on the clothing of the opposite sex, or wearing makeup, or behaving in some other way does not make them another gender. As I've said many times now, what it makes them is Deceived, Deluded, in Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.

Being a man or woman and putting on the clothes or behaving in any way as the opposite sex does NOT change the truth of who that person is no more than having body modifications to make yourself look like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc. And before you go to the FEELINGS bit, "feeling" like the opposite sex no more changes Truth and Reality that a human being who FEELS like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27)

And there it is. In a nutshell. TRUTH!! God created them MALE and FEMALE. Period. NO exceptions. NO fluidity. Your either male or female. That's it!!

Now stop being so doggone hateful and feeding into the Deception, Delusion, Denial, and Depravity of those who need help. That is perhaps the most unloving thing one human could do to another.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)

And that' s not just physical death but eternal spiritual-death. So just STOP IT!!! STOP killing people and leading them into the eternal torment that comes with spending ALL Eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Of course, in order for you to actually stop doing that and actually start loving folks, you're gonna have to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ first and beg Him to make you a New Creation by being Born Again.

All that said, congratulations! You've earned yourself the Plato Award!!

"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato

Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, well, if you're done ranting, all major medical organizations in America recognize trans people as A) existing B) suffering from a biological conditioning that cannot be controlled or changed, but is measurable.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
No rant there at all. But thanks for showing how the Liberals work again. Falsely characterize what's said or who said it and then rely on falling back on the typical reliance upon the so-called "expert" people and "major" organizations as long as they agree with your POV.

No, "Trans'" people do NOT exist. What does exist is Deception, Delusion, Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, and you've proven this because you stomp your foot and scream that it is so.

Whereas I have science.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lying again I see. No stomping of the foot or screaming here. As for the rest...

"Whereas I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".

There, I fixed it for ya.

Ambulance Chaser:
Well then let me fix it back.

I have science. You have anger.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lies again. No anger here. Another false characterization. Once again proving all you have.

I'll fix it for ya again.

"I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".

There, I fixed it for ya again. There's PLENTY of science that proves otherwise and here's a REALLY BIG point you seem to have missed. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON FEELINGS!!!!

Ambulance Chaser:
OK, let's see some of this "science" you have.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Sure. Go see "Genesis In History". Just got back from the theatre and it's chocked full of actual Science. Aside from that, try a simple Google search. There is NO shortage of actual Science. Check out CRI, CMI, AIG and an absolutely SUPERB piece of actual Scientific Evidence that PROVES Evolution as it's been understood for years can be found by a Google search for "Larry Vardiman+RATE".

Now, that should keep you busy for some time. From there you could even go the the site where oodles of Scientists, MOST of them Atheists, sign a document saying the continued teaching of the Big Bang is wrong because it's scientifically false.

Of course, I really do NOT expect you to be open-minded enough to actually let the science speak to you.

Daniel #fundie halcyonorganics.com

All Cannabis Use is Medicinal.

Even if the user misidentified it as ‘recreational.’

[Daniel explains that calling it "recreational marijuana" is harmful to the legalization movement because people are less likely to support it than medicinal marijuana.]

Cannabis is imperative to maintaining a healthy body. Cannabinoid ligands fuel and balance the human endocannabinoid system, a system that regulates the immune system, mood, sleep patterns, appetite, and pain sensation. Just like vitamins, the human body needs cannabinoids to function properly. Due to cannabis prohibition, most Americans suffer from endocannabinoid deficiency syndrome. Endocannabinoid deficiencies manifest themselves in the form of autoimmune diseases, depression, bipolar disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, inexplicable pain, and sleep disorders.

[...]

Recently, I’ve been interrogating self-proclaimed ‘recreational’ cannabis users to find out what’s so fun about smoking weed. Their initial answer is always the same; “I don’t know, I just like it.” But after digging with some questions, it always turns out the same.

[...]

Recreational cannabis users are using cannabis for medical purposes, they just don’t realize it.

Here are the post prodding answers and the medical condition that the ‘recreational user’ is treating using cannabis. I’ve also added common drugs and medications that are the AMA and FDA’s more popular treatments.

“It makes me relax.” – Anxiety. Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, Prozac, Cymbalta, Wellbutrin, and the generics.

“It helps me sleep.” – Sleep disorder/Anxiety. Ambien, Lunesta, Unisom, Nyquil

“It calms me down.” – ADHD/Anxiety – Ritalin, Adderall, Vyvanse

“It helps me think.” ADHD – see above

“It helps my stomach calm down.” GI, IBS, IBD. Pepto, Pepcid, Prilosec, I don’t know the RX drugs for this.

“It helps me talk to people.” Social anxiety – Alcohol

“It makes spending time with my spouse more fun.” – Sexual dysfunction/Anxiety. Viagra, Cialis, that new female viagra.

These are all medicinal applications.

I encourage all “recreational” cannabis users to reevaluate their use. If there is a prescription or over-the-counter drug designed to treat something that cannabis helps you with, that’s medical use. If they sell something at GNC or Vitamin World that cannabis helps you with, that’s medical use. You may not use these other medications because you already know that cannabis is a superior treatment, you just didn’t realize it.

Our society defines recreationally using a drug or medicine as “abuse.” Exclaiming that you use any drug recreationally is the first step into a 12 step. If you still don’t think that your cannabis use is medicinal, please call it ‘therapeutic’ so that you don’t look like an addict and hinder the entire movement. When we have medical, I promise that you’ll be able to find a doctor that will write you a recommendation.

biblicalgenderroles #fundie biblicalgenderroles.com

Husbands and wives both need to adjust to one another when it comes to sex. Sometimes a man may have to make some changes for his wife, but at the same time a woman might have to endure some things for her husband.

So when a woman cries all during sex could it be that the man is mistreating her? Absolutely yes. But from a Christian perspective we must realize that sometimes it could be the woman who is in the wrong for crying throughout the entire sexual experience. If a woman is crying to manipulate her husband because she simply did not want to have sex or to make him feel bad for wanting sex when she did not then the sin lies with her.

Even a woman who suffers from true painful intercourse whether it is from a temporary condition (like some of the examples Sunny gave) or if it is from a long term chronic and un-treatable condition that causes painful intercourse might be in the wrong for crying throughout the entire experience.

The point here on a woman crying during sex is this. It is not always the man that is in the wrong when this occurs. It can sometimes be the woman who is in the wrong for crying. And in some rare cases neither neither one may be wrong in what they are doing. The husband may not be in wrong for continuing and finishing and the wife may not be in the wrong for crying.

~*Steph*~ is pro-life AND PRO-LOVE!!! #fundie forum.myspace.com

Ok, well this is me attacking one dumb ass pro-choicer...you are a fucking cunt ass bitch Sarah. I honestly have horrible wishes for your future. Im so glad to know that I will not be reading your nonsence anymore. Go throw your bullshit at someone else.

As for the rest of you, I will not name names because all of you disgust me, I wish you all pain and suffereing for the rest of your miserable lives. As for me, I will continue planning my wonderful wedding, HAVING beautiful babies, and having faith in GOD.

d p #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #god-complex youtube.com

[Keep in mind that this was on a YouTube video of the song “The Sound of Silence.”]

I got this version on my Spotify liked list, I just noticed today that somehow I got the original version which is too slow for me, but this version it's gives you that GODLY-LIKE strength and energy , then I tried searching for this particular version on Spotify it just gives you that stupid version of disturbed and that other slow version which has no heart to it in it, man that's already prove and evidence enough to see the government is controlling everything, like separating us the PEOPLE from the REAL GOD, brainwashing and manipulating us with that fantasy story about Jesus Christ the son of God, GOD exists just not their version, GOD ain't a being that's up in the sky watching you and judging you, GOD is every where, in us, outside of us, were just drowning in ENERGY Here planet Earth, it's just waiting for some one to come and claim GOD, you see GOD ain't GOD, UNLESS there's a pilot to take control and drive it, YOU are considered a GOD when you manipulate the ENERGY and make things go your WAY, no I'm not talking about that X MEN AVENGERS SUPER HERO BS ! im talking about when everything All of a sudden goes your way , for example if someone tried to kill you just a regular pathetic human beings as ourselves,. They wouldn't even see the next day, you can heal your own body, you don't need to depend on no DRs, and this power is for anyone, no such thing as no human could get that much power cause they'll use it for evil and take advantage of the people, fuck no that ain't true and to even have that power you would have to go through so much shit, I'm talking about being isolated from the world literally, no sex, no friends no going out trying to get at girls, no partying, just you and your SHADOW ( SOUL) AND TRUST me it's a very very DARK WORLD, you will unleash the other side of you, but that's if you don't end up commiting suicide,. Due to the pain and suffering that you have to go through to become a GOD, naturally were supposed to evolve into it. but the evil organization of the world don't And won't allow us, that's y theres Manipulation of the weather, religious organizations , jobs, make you work like a slave,. Clubs sex, drugs, MONEY ! so much fucking attractions and entertainments in this fucking that I can't relate to a single soul here on Earth, it feels so lonely and depressing that I do drugs to escape this reality I'm going through, all my friends which I have only 3, got addicted to it and lost it within 2 years just doing meth, here I am going on 11 years of doing meth and I still haven't lost my mind, I know what I talk about, I know my experience I went through way before I started doing meth, my bad y'all just needed to vent, I hold so much in me, that I almost want to die not kill myself lol cause I don't have the balls to get a gun and blow my brains out, I'm just taking hit after another, that's why if I ever do for some miracle unleash myself, im going all out and taking all my anger and rage on a particular organization.

Ryan T. Anderson #fundie mercatornet.com

In Sunday’s New York Times, Andrea Long Chu writes a heartfelt and heartbreaking op-ed on life with gender dysphoria. Titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy,” the op-ed reveals painful truths about many transgender lives and inadvertently communicates almost the exact opposite of its intended argument.

Next week, Chu will undergo vaginoplasty surgery. Or, as Chu puts it: “Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months.”

Will this bring happiness? Probably not, but Chu wants it all the same: “This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.”

Chu argues that the simple desire for sex-reassignment surgery should be all that is required for a patient to receive it. No consideration for authentic health and wellbeing or concern about poor outcomes should prevent a doctor from performing the surgery if a patient wants it. Chu explains: “no amount of pain, anticipated or continuing, justifies its withholding.”

This is a rather extreme conclusion. Chu writes: “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” This is quite a claim. And we’ll come back to it. But as the op-ed builds to this stark conclusion, Chu reveals many frequently unacknowledged truths about transgender lives—truths that we should attend to.

Sex isn’t “assigned,” and surgery can’t change it

First, Chu acknowledges that the surgery won’t actually “reassign” sex: “my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain.”

Sex reassignment is quite literally impossible. Surgery can’t actually reassign sex, because sex isn’t “assigned” in the first place.

As I point out in When Harry Became Sally, sex is a bodily reality—the reality of how an organism is organized with respect to sexual reproduction. That reality isn’t “assigned” at birth or any time after.

Sex—maleness or femaleness—is established at a child’s conception, can be ascertained even at the earliest stages of human development by technological means, and can be observed visually well before birth with ultrasound imaging. Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change biological reality.

People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex—they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

Gender dysphoria Is deeply painful

Second, Chu acknowledges the deep pain of gender dysphoria, the sense of distress or alienation one feels at one’s bodily sex:

Dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm, no matter how many layers you put on. It feels like hunger without appetite. It feels like getting on an airplane to fly home, only to realize mid-flight that this is it: You’re going to spend the rest of your life on an airplane. It feels like grieving. It feels like having nothing to grieve.

“Transitioning” may not make things better and could make them worse

Third, Chu acknowledges that “transitioning” may not make things better and could even make things worse. Chu writes: “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones.” And continues: “Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition.”

Indeed, as I document in When Harry Became Sally, the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Even the Obama administration admitted that the best studies do not report improvement after reassignment surgery.

In August 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid wrote: “the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after GRS [gender reassignment surgery].”

What does that mean? A population of patients is suffering so much that they would submit to amputations and other radical surgeries, and the best research the Obama administration could find suggests that it brings them no meaningful improvements in their quality of life.

Suicide is a serious risk

Fourth, Chu acknowledges a struggle with suicide ideation: “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.”

In 2016, the Obama administration acknowledged a similar reality. In a discussion of the largest and most robust study on sex-reassignment, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out “The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes).”

These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time.

Indeed, the Obama administration noted that “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.” So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.

The purpose of medicine is healing

This brings us back to Chu’s argument that “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” What should we make of it?

Why should a doctor perform surgery when it won’t make the patient happy, it won’t accomplish its intended goal, it won’t improve the underlying condition, it might make the underlying condition worse, and it might increase the likelihood of suicide?

Chu wants to turn the profession of medicine on its head, transforming a medical doctor into nothing more than “a highly competent hired syringe,” in the words of Leon Kass.

Unfortunately, Chu isn’t alone. Many professionals now view health care—including mental health care—primarily as a means of fulfilling patients’ desires, whatever those are. Kass explains:

The implicit (and sometimes explicit) model of the doctor-patient relationship is one of contract: the physician—a highly competent hired syringe, as it were—sells his services on demand, restrained only by the law (though he is free to refuse his services if the patient is unwilling or unable to meet his fee).

Here’s the deal: for the patient, autonomy and service; for the doctor, money, graced by the pleasure of giving the patient what he wants. If a patient wants to fix her nose or change his gender, determine the sex of unborn children, or take euphoriant drugs just for kicks, the physician can and will go to work—provided that the price is right and that the contract is explicit about what happens if the customer isn’t satisfied.

This vision of medicine and medical professionals gets it wrong. Professionals ought to profess their devotion to the purposes and ideals they serve. That’s what makes them professionals, and not just service providers.

Teachers should be devoted to learning, lawyers to justice under law, and physicians to “healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness.” Healing is “the central core of medicine,” Kass writes—“to heal, to make whole, is the doctor’s primary business.”

But Chu’s vision of medicine turns the doctor into someone who merely satisfies desires, even if what is done isn’t good for a patient. Chu writes:

I still want this, all of it. I want the tears; I want the pain. Transition doesn’t have to make me happy for me to want it. Left to their own devices, people will rarely pursue what makes them feel good in the long term. Desire and happiness are independent agents.

Sound medicine isn’t about desire, it’s about healing. To provide the best possible care, serving the patient’s medical interests requires an understanding of human wholeness and well-being. Mental health care must be guided by a sound concept of human flourishing.

Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us with the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts and feelings that disguise or distort reality are misguided, and they can cause harm. In When Harry Became Sally, I argue that we need to do a better job of helping people who face these struggles.

Misrepresentations of my work

And Chu takes issue with me:

Many conservatives call this [gender dysphoria] crazy. A popular right-wing narrative holds that gender dysphoria is a clinical delusion; hence, feeding that delusion with hormones and surgeries constitutes a violation of medical ethics.

Just ask the Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, whose book “When Harry Became Sally” draws heavily on the work of Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who shut down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979 on the grounds that trans-affirmative care meant “cooperating with a mental illness.”

Mr. Anderson writes, “We must avoid adding to the pain experienced by people with gender dysphoria, while we present them with alternatives to transitioning.”

Of course I never call people with gender dysphoria crazy. And I explicitly state in the book that I take no position on the technical question of whether someone’s thinking that he or she is the opposite sex is a clinical delusion. That’s why Chu couldn’t quote any portion of my book saying as much.

Throughout the book, I point out that the feelings that people who identify as transgender report are real—they really feel a disconnect with their bodily sex—but I also acknowledge the fact that those feelings don’t change bodily reality. I recognize the real distress that gender dysphoria can cause, but never do I call people experiencing it crazy.

I repeatedly acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that people who experience a gender identity conflict should be treated with respect and compassion, that we need to find better, more humane and effective, responses to people who experience dysphoria.

Nevertheless, Chu claims that I am engaged in “‘compassion-mongering,’ peddling bigotry in the guise of sympathetic concern.”

For the record, Chu never contacted me regarding my research or my book. Nor did the Times contact me to verify any of the claims made about me in the op-ed. Indeed, this is the second time the New York Times has published an op-ed with inaccurate criticisms of me and my book.

Americans disagree about gender identity and the best approaches to treating gender dysphoria. We need to respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender while also doing everything possible to help people find wholeness and happiness.

That will require a better conversation about these issues, which is why I wrote my book. And it’s presumably why Chu wrote this op-ed. Now is not the time for personal attacks and name-calling, but for sober and respectful truth-telling.

Chu may regard me as a “bigot,” but I regard Chu as a fellow human being made in the image and likeness of God who is struggling with a painful and dangerous condition. As such, Chu deserves care and support that will bring health and wholeness—not the on-demand delivery of “services” that even Chu acknowledges are unlikely to make life better and may make it very much worse.

Dennis Lopez #fundie dennislopez.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

Ladies and gentlemen, FOX News is now a liberal news channel:

"The Fox News Channel heavily promotes RINO Backers -- commentators who may appear to be conservative but side with RINOs just when it matters most. Examples include Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, who savaged Todd Akin for making a pro-life statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against pro-life Republican candidates.
Even center-right pundit Sarah Palin is too conservative for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,[1] and then refused to renew her contract. And Fox News believes that the former guatemalan president Efraín Ríos Montt was a dictator.[2]"

IFA_MTBL #fundie reddit.com

[OP of "Self-improvement vs suicide"]

Self-improvement:

-not guaranteed to work (look at all the incels here who are ripped and still are kissless virgins; failure can lead to suicide)

-can take a very long time with intense amounts of commitment (getting ripped, becoming alpha/masculine, becoming social, losing your social awkwardness and autistic shit, making money, etc)

-not very fun

-can be very painful physically and emotionally

-can be hard betraying who you are just to maybe be attractive to women (everyone wants to be loved for who they are)

Suicide:

-quick

-easy

-potentially not painful depending on method

-permament solution, no more pain and suffering

-can prevent a long and horrible life

-possibility on afterlife depending on your religious beliefs if you have them (though hell is included in many of them)

Well, which sounds better?

Stella Morabito #fundie thefederalist.com

Walt Heyer knows firsthand what it’s like to undergo sex change surgery and then regret it. After living as a woman for nearly a decade, he decided to accept his biological sex and de-transition back to male. By then, Walt had received intensive cognitive therapy that helped him recognize early childhood trauma he had experienced.
The trauma resulted in a mental condition known as dissociative identity disorder (DID). In the clarity of that realization, his gender dysphoria simply vanished. His life as a “woman” all amounted to an attempt to escape reality. Sadly, too few people consider the possibility that gender dysphoria can manifest as a byproduct or symptom of other mental conditions, and most certainly of DID. (More on that below.)

Walt suffered huge waves of regret as a result of following through with his urge to be a woman. He had eagerly taken the bait of politicized medical practitioners, who hurried him along in the transition. He not only regretted what he had done to his body, he also grieved over the estrangement from his wife and children caused by his drastic change in identity.

There was collateral damage to other personal relationships as well. He also regretted the lost decade of his life in which he lived in the persona of a woman.

Heyer’s New Book Shines Light on Trans Life Survivors
Heyer has written several books on transgender regret, but his sixth and newest book, “Trans Life Survivors,” is not his personal story. It’s a compilation of the stories of many others caught up in today’s “transmania.” They specifically sought out Walt to get some much-needed support. They’ve shared their lonely, surreal experiences falling down the trans rabbit hole, hoping to escape as he did.

Walt’s correspondents describe a wide range of frustrating and confusing experiences. Some are nudged into transgenderism by social pressures and emotional manipulation. Many are hastily sent into surgery without adequate counseling (or any counseling at all), or are misdiagnosed. Some of those regret their decision very shortly after having irreversible surgery.

Many concerns about childhood traumas are ignored by therapists who are politically motivated to push as many patients as possible into sex change. They also fear intense ostracism and vicious backlash from the trans community if they “come out” as a potential de-transitioner.

Walt wrote “Trans Life Survivors,” he says, because he wants others “to catch a glimpse of the raw emotions and experiences of people who are harmed by the grand – and dangerous – experiment of cross-sex hormones and surgical affirming procedures.”

Helping Others Escape the Trans Rabbit Hole
For many years, Heyer’s website was virtually the only place for a trans regretter to get some relief from the social and political pressures crashing down. Many of his readers express a joyful sense of liberation in knowing that they are not all alone.

Much of their isolation is caused by our society’s slavish obedience to political correctness, which dictates that there is “no such thing” as transgender regret. Even worse, the transgender lobby is making it very difficult for such people to get the counseling they desperately want and need.

They’ve set up roadblocks in the form of new laws that virtually ban standard cognitive therapy for people who diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria, particularly those who are undecided about their path or actually regret it after the fact. Any legitimate form of talk therapy—therapy that allows for real Q-and-A that doesn’t necessarily result in affirmation of gender dysphoria—has been smeared with the label “conversion therapy.”
Regretters are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They are not unlike recruits in a dangerous cult who sense that something is amiss, but feel trapped in a Hotel California (or even a Jonestown).

So “Trans Life Survivors” is a godsend for people struggling with trans regret, no matter what stage of transition or de-transition they are in. The book highlights 30 stories gleaned from among the many hundreds Heyer has received from his readers. Many more transgender people have contacted Walt over the years. Walt has been trying valiantly to keep up with the increasing volume of contacts.

His readers are grateful to find a place they can get real and rare information about how changing their identity might affect them down the road—or, increasingly, how they can de-transition once they realize how unhappy the process has made them.

Just Imagine How Regretting a Sex Change Would Feel

Can you imagine what it must be like to tell a therapist of your experience being abused as a child, which you offer as a possible explanation for your dysphoria, only to have the psychiatrist totally ignore that aspect of your past and instead push you to sex-change procedures as the only way to overcome your angst?
Imagine that you then defer to and trust the professional’s expertise, and you accept the treatment. Then, can you imagine, after going through all of that—the hormones, the mutilating surgeries, etc.—you realize it just didn’t work? You end up asking yourself: What did I do? Why did I go ahead with this? Then the trans lobby tells you it’s all your fault, you should have known better, and you’re not really trans anyway, so shut up.

That’s Billy’s story. But his story has a good ending that inspires regretters who have lost hope. Billy de-transitioned, fell in love, and ended up marrying a woman with children. This echoes Walt’s own life experience after de-transitioning. He too fell in love and married an amazing woman. They live a very joyful, rich, and fulfilling spiritual life together as Christians.

Such happy endings and strong relationships might seem unlikely to those who think they’ve hit rock bottom. But those results are real, and they are a source of much hope to those who yearn to de-transition, but who feel “abandoned, ostracized, outcast, and alone,” like Kevin, who reported that his sex-change was the biggest mistake of his life. Only God knows how many regretters Walt has steered away from suicide and towards renewed life.

Hard-to-Find Resources
In “Trans Life Survivors,” you’ll also read about “Blair,” who holds a Guinness World Record for most gender-reassignment surgeries: 167 surgeries to make him feel more like a woman. Needless to say, it didn’t work out. But we can easily suspect in his case the existence of surgical predators who take advantage of vulnerable people. Many others, like Michael, recognize that it’s all “a sick money-making industry.”

Others who have communicated with Walt include parents whose children are being pressured into gender transition by public school officials, social media, and pop culture. “Trans Life Survivors” also includes chapters on the medical realities of sex change as well as the politicization of medicine and psychiatry that locks people into a transgender identity.

The book ends with a useful listing of further resources for those who seek to find a way out. Such resources are very hard to come by, so the book is truly a public service.

Suppressed Support For Those De-Transitioning
After the novelty of the transition wears off—and it very often does—the regretter is stuck in a never-never land of keeping up facades and pretenses. Many report that the constant charade is emotionally draining and casts a pall over life. But if they express a desire to change back, their friends in the trans community often become angry and reject and isolate them.

Walt cites numerous studies confirming that most cases of gender dysphoria co-exist with other mental conditions.
Being shunned by one’s own community is painful. Eric wrote: “I’m trying to come out as a regretter, and I’m finding the community backlash to be difficult and the lack of medical support to be troubling.”

Walt knows that feeling very well. The transgender lobby has come out hard against him when he has spoken publicly about his personal experiences. In addition to smearing him with various epithets such as “religious nut” or “transphobic,” the lobby has worked hard to de-platform him.

Media Matters went into panic mode and ran a smear article when Walt gave a persuasive interview to CNN’s Carol Costello after Olympian Bruce Jenner’s 2015 transition. (Walt’s instincts tell him that Jenner regrets his decision, but is hopelessly stuck in the cultish trap of the limelight. I believe he’s right about that.)
Eric reported an unsettling lack of medical support. Walt cites numerous studies confirming that most cases of gender dysphoria co-exist with other mental conditions, such as DID, bipolar disorder, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. If those other conditions were first treated through cognitive therapy, there’s no telling how much that would alleviate gender dysphoria without any need for invasive surgeries and hormonal treatments.
But this seems to be a well-guarded secret by political and media activists with a stake in promoting identity politics in general, and gender ideology in particular. Why? Probably because it could solve their problems, and their problems are the bread-and-butter of identity politics.

Free Speech Is More Important than Ever
The pressure can be even worse when dealing with the government agencies that supposedly respect the right to choosing one’s sex. Walt spent about 30 years—making eight to ten attempts—before he finally got a judge in California to reinstate the word “male” on his birth certificate. Despite all that, the transgender lobby insists Walt was never really transgender in the first place! Yet, strangely, they accept his diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder.

Would they allow people with gender dysphoria to seek out therapies that actually explore its psychological source?

The key question is this: Would Walt’s accusers allow others the same therapy, allowing them clarity to sort out whether their gender dysphoria is a part of a co-existing condition? After all, when claiming that Walt was “never transgender” they often point out and accept his diagnosis of DID. The Media Matters story cited above did just that.

So would they allow people with gender dysphoria to seek out therapies that actually explore its psychological source? And then allow their condition to be treated so their gender dysphoria might actually vanish without facades and surgeries?

Obviously not, since this goes against the trans activists’ claim that there’s such a thing as a woman’s brain trapped in a man’s body, and vice versa. Real cognitive therapy threatens to collapse that house of cards.
The ban on so-called conversion therapy is really a ban on all talk therapy that doesn’t affirm self-diagnosed gender dysphoria. Any therapist who so much as questions a patient’s yearning to be the other sex risks losing his or her license, or worse.

If the patient has nagging questions, therapists cannot even entertain those questions without putting license and job at risk, since the interpretation of what constitutes “conversion therapy” is so loose. It’s all up to trans activists and their legislative machinery. Psychotherapists are increasingly aware that they are now legally required to play along with each and every self-diagnosed case of gender dysphoria presented to them, or face legal consequences.

De-Transitioners Are Simply on a Journey Home
When one speaks of “going home” in the poetic sense, it has nothing to do with abuses or dysfunction that one might have experienced, leading to gender dysphoria. Being “home” simply means having a sense of being in the right place, living out your God-given purpose in your God-given body. It means being comfortable in your own skin so you can enjoy the view outward instead of constant navel-gazing.

When you don’t have that joy, or if you’ve lost it along the way, a different sort of dysphoria sets in. It can go by the name homesickness.

At some point in our maturity, we realize that joy and adventure don’t have to be in some alien place. When you go looking for your heart’s desire, to paraphrase Dorothy in the “Wizard of Oz,” there is much to discover right in your own backyard.

In fact, there is probably even more excitement in discovering the true reality of who you are than in pursuing shiny objects, trying to pretend to be someone else, and then trying to force everybody around you to cater to that persona. How exhausting.

The Joy Outweighs the Sorrow
As scary as de-transitioning might seem, once the possibility of it is validated by someone like Heyer, who’s been there and done that, there is a great joy in it, no matter the physical disfigurement or the years wasted.
At some point, like Dorothy, you realize that there really is no place like home.

Trent explained this when he wrote that he was very much looking forward to having his breast implants removed and getting men’s clothes back into his wardrobe: “It’s really been so exciting going back to who I really am!” He also noted: “Hidden deep underneath the make-up and female clothing was the little boy carrying the hurts from traumatic childhood events and he was making himself known. Being a female turned out to be only a cover up, not healing.”

Such attempted cover-ups are analogous to reaching for a mirage. In this case we might say it’s a rainbow-like mirage. Regretters are not unlike Dorothy—and all of us—who sang wistfully searching for a place “over the rainbow” where our troubles melt away. But the rainbow always recedes as you try to reach it. And it’s ephemeral, disappearing with varying conditions.

At some point, like Dorothy, you realize that there really is no place like home. You can finally see the magic, the warmth, in the seemingly mundane. But regretters first need to escape the isolation and the loneliness foisted on them by a culture that rejects their condition.

As Walt notes, they need support to make this trek, as did he: “Regretters going back need people around them to lend strength for the journey – people willing to listen with love, speak healing words, provide emotional, legal and financial assistance and cheer them on to their homecoming.”

“Trans Life Survivors” serves as a road map to make that journey back home.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fschmidt #sexist love-shy.com

My concern for level of pain of rape would be greater if it weren't for the fact that most American women deserve to raped because they oppose prostitution as a sexual outlet for men. Since they deserve to raped, I cannot concern myself with the pain rape causes them.

Christian Answers.Net #fundie christiananswers.net

One huge difference between this man and every other man and woman, or boy and girl, is that Jesus is sinless. We humans are full of sin. We sin every day. Jesus never did anything wrong, not even once. No matter what temptations came to him, he refused to sin. He has always remained pure and perfect.

Isn’t it amazing to think about?! Our Creator walked among us. Like us, our Almighty God smelled the flowers and touched the animals that he had created. He loved boys and girls.

As a man, God experienced the same temptations that we feel (Hebrews 2:18). He suffered the same kind of physical pains that we suffer with. He also experienced emotional pain. He even wept about the city of Jerusalem (John 11:35). He was ignored, unappreciated, unloved, misunderstood, and even despised—even though he did nothing wrong, and always loved everyone (1 Peter 2:23). Not only is Jesus Christ the greatest man that ever lived; he is our Creator. He deserved all glory and honor!

Bob #fundie bobstruth.blogspot.ca

[ I was hurt by being raped Bob. I was stabbed to the point of never being able to have children and Bob, let me tell you, it hurt like Hell. It still does. I'm haunted by it every day. I'm haunted by the fact that my husband at the time couldn't face the idea of having sex with me again- I was used goods and useless since I could no longer produce the children we both longed for. I was in agony when I finally had to have a historectomy after years of surgeries, hormone therapy and a period that lasted 7 1/2 months due to the damage done. I was hurt when another woman claimed to have been raped when the truth was she didn't want her boyfriend to know she'd slept with someone else. I'm hurt by the flashbacks of another man's face when I want to make love to my husband. I'm hurt by the nightmares. I'm hurt by the violation of my right to say no- just like the right you have to refuse. I'm hurt by the fact that I was seen simply as a sexual object. I'm hurt by the fact that my own father wouldn't have anything to do with me afterwards- I was suddenly dirty. I'm hurt by the fact that other men I knew decided to have a try since I was so obviously used goods and I no longer deserved respect or courtesy. Men like you Bob. I'm hurt by the fact that my pain and confusion after the rape led me to be very promiscuous for several years- I didn't respect my self or my body any more than the rapist did. Bob, I found your blog through a fathers rights support group you and I are both on. Your comments there frighten and sicken me. Your comments here are contemptable. I support mens rights- I have fought both in the US and the UK for fathers rights to equal access to their children. I have spoken before state legislatures in support of fathers rights. I know men are getting the short end of things right now, but you have gone too far. Yes, sex is a natural act for CONSENTING adults- I wasn't consenting. I did not enjoy being assaulted. I did not enjoy being stabbed. I did not enjoy having my life altered in one instant. I did not enjoy having my right to be a parent taken away from me.
So there, a woman who was hurt by being raped.
You never answered the last writers question Bob- what if it was your wife? Your daugther? Your sister? Your mother? Are they supposed to simply lie back and enjoy an attacker? Are you yourself a predator Bob? Sounds to me like you're trying to justify yourself.
Bob, at this point I'd like to say I wish it had been you instead of me, but I could never wish this kind of pain on anyone.-
]


Your rant is typical of the femorrhoids who hold onto "my rapist" for years and whine and blame every bad thing they have ever done on five minutes of unwanted sex. You blame years of your promiscuity on "my rapist," how convenient an excuse. Like all feminazi, her crimes are always some man's fault, never the female's fault. And we are supposed to believe that insertion of one man's cock instead of another caused severe physical pain and damage that neither her husbands cock and nor even her years of promiscuity didn't cause. Like all feminazi rants, Ms. Anonymous makes wild claims that just don't add up. Her feelings were hurt she's nursed and fed her hurt feelings for years, using "my rapist" as the evil upon which to blame all her sins and emotional problems. Instead of getting on with her life and accepting her responsibility she blames some man. And now, of course, in typical feminazi fashion, she digresses into ad-hominem insults aimed at Bob for daring to question the standard feminazi propaganda line. She was "stabbed," describing a man's body as a weapon. Her feelings were hurt. She lost control of men and sex. Boo Hoo!

And then she tosses in the usual femorrhoid "mother, daughter, sister" misdirection. Perhaps you can explain to us how my particular mother, sister, or daughter is any different from any other female who want's to get laid and who blames the nearest available man for all her problems? Well, Toots, what if it was my father, brother, uncle, or son's life is destroyed, be sent to a hell hole prison for decades, and become a pariah in any community simply because he boffed some female who suffered no significant injury? As Bob's grandmother advised, rape can be enjoyable, as enjoyable as any other sex. Destroying a man's life over sex is so far beyond rational that only a feminazi hate monger would consider it. No, Toots, Bob's mother, sister, daughter is no more important than Bob's father, brother, son. And Bob's mother, sister, daughter is like other women, they also want to get laid. Don't use that old feminist hate propaganda line about, "your mother, sister, or daughter." It's old tired feminazi hate speech and it's time to stuff it up your arse.

An old wise woman Bob once knew summed it up this way, "Happiness is a sticky crotch."

John Q. Publius #sexist #racist #dunning-kruger identitydixie.com

[From "Toxic Avengers: The Return of Aspirational Masculinity"]

Following the de-platforming of Republic Standard by the host, I’ve decided to re-post some of my favorites from my time there for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!

[...]

Did anyone expect, when we were hurtling toward Y2K and the late Senator Ted Stevens’s pneumatic tube-powered Information Super Highway that we would be discussing “trans women’s periods”? Instead of colonizing Mars? As the Soviet general in The Camp of the Saints lamented between sips of vodka: “We’re caught in the clutches of the great hermaphrodite, Zackaroff. We’re all its serfs. And we can’t even cut off its balls!” Yes, the neo-liberal project has given our civilization opioids and anti-depressants and a steady diet of appointments with the local psychoanalyst; it’s blessed us with hormone blockers for prepubescent children and demon-drag-queen story time and soon IUDs for first-graders. Lothrop Stoddard’s Revolt Against Civilization is in full swing:

Congenitally incapable of adjusting themselves to an advanced social order, the degenerate inevitably become its enemies—particularly those “high-grade defectives” who are the natural fomenters of social unrest. Of course, the environmentalist argues that social unrest is due to bad social conditions, but when we go into the matter more deeply we find that bad conditions are largely due to bad people. The mere presence of hordes of low-grade men and women condemned by their very natures to incompetency and failure automatically engender poverty, invite exploitation, and drag down others just above them in the social scale.

Such inequities can only be compounded by the ever-growing throngs of the maladjusted and violent who are mostly unable and/or unwilling to adapt to or maintain the rigors of success in the West. The victim mentality creates a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled by a more self-assured group or groups; thus assuring our conquest, the West will have been reduced to nothing but a bunch of genderless, species-less trans-abled amorphous blobs incapable of lifting a finger in self-defense. Otherwise, and perhaps a more likely outcome, in these conditions of fractured tribalism the country will “require” the installation of a ruthlessly totalitarian government headed and staffed, of course, by the managerial “elites”—and for the few hold-outs, as Frank Carter sang on Gallows’s “The Vulture”: “If the horses won’t drink, drown them in the water.”

This idea that it’s all men, or that it’s “toxic masculinity” that is the root cause of violence in our society is preposterous. It’s pretty simple, really—the Left finds itself unable to perform even a rudimentary analysis of the perpetrators of violence. Part of it is that modernity is making people crazy, but biological sub-groups (ie-races) differ dramatically in violent and anti-social behavior. The black share of homicides nationally has actually increased while their population share remains relatively static, and of course the vast majority of those homicides are committed by black males. This simple instance of a legitimate “toxic masculinity” is not a possible explanation, however, “because racism.” Therefore, the Left twists itself in ever-more absurd contortions to explain really rather simple explanations (another example is the “gender pay gap”).

We know that, on average, black children hit puberty first and Asian children last, which may have something to do with the advanced physical development of many blacks, which is particularly pronounced in the teen years relative to, say, whites or Asians. The ramifications in terms of brain development and verbal acuity and spatial reasoning remain somewhat less known, but we can draw inferences based on the available science. Ignoring fundamental differences between people, not to mention the wealth of quantifiable data that show strong correlations between specific behaviors and outcomes, is not going to lessen our problems. It’s going to make them worse—as we’re witnessing.

These “debates” are absolutely drenched in Leftist moralism, to the point where even pointing out well-established science is cause for professional and social termination. Rather than bending over backwards to find “hate crimes” and “systemic racism” to explain away black underachievement, would not a consideration of cognitive differences liberate the whole nation from this ceaseless pearl-clutching? There is no white conspiracy to marginalize blacks (at least none that I’m aware of), but there are evolved differences in intelligence that exacerbate group differences in an increasingly cognitively-intensive economy. These difference are no one’s fault but Mother Nature’s, unless of course the actual mother made poor in utero or child-rearing decisions (for example, black mothers are thirty times more likely than white mothers to give birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, and are much more likely to use corporal punishment on their children, which is proven to affect cognitive development). Nevertheless, Leftist dogma renders an honest discussion impossible.

Haiti has been an independent country longer than Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Ireland—all four were products of colonialism—and they have turned out just a little different I would say. The United States has only been independent a couple of decades longer than Haiti. Do you want to keep on blaming colonialism? How about Ethiopia, which minus five years has been an independent nation for millennia? We have been conditioned to accept equality of outcome when the biological inputs are so wildly divergent. This is patently absurd. As all populations increasingly have access to the same technologies, amenities, and advancements as everyone else, and the global economy becomes more cognitively-intensive, with an honest appraisal we can only expect the disparity in outcome between humanity’s haves and have-nots to widen ever-further without a full-bodied globalist tyranny.

Likewise, in the interests of furthering what’s mutated into the paradox that is modern feminism’s prudish Epicureanism—indeed in erasing the distinctions between man and woman by un-coupling gender from sex, which sort of defeats the purpose of feminism—the most appalling manifestations of totalitarianism are necessary to force the supremely unnatural, in the process destroying both masculinity and femininity by turning each sex into a shitty facsimile of the other and never the twain shall meet. Or is it the opposite, a melding of pregnant men and women soldiers into the Androgynes of the Future?

[...]

Women like sociologist Lisa Wade are too preoccupied with President Trump’s “carpe pussy” comments from over a decade ago to understand that the immigration restrictions/overhaul the majority of Americans support would stop immigrants and “refugees” from intractably misogynistic cultures from coming here and bringing their regressive attitudes toward women as chattel, barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation and honor killings, and a lack of restraint from sexually assaulting women either through non-existent impulse control or cultural entitlement.

[...]

To expand on the red pill metaphor, it is not just an awakening from The Matrix, but that red evokes the notion of consanguinity, or shared blood, the bonds of which, indeed, are thicker than water (typically colored or referred to as blue). The “red,” our republic’s life-blood, cannot survive without its people. The ultimate demise of the founding Roman noble families roughly corresponds to the time Caracalla extended full citizenship rights to the entire empire. “Democracy in action,” we might say, but without an aspirational core of true Roman families on which the empire could rest, the decline was not long after, for what is a Rome without Romans? Further, in the absence of expansion, the momentum of the empire ground to a halt, and its focus turned inward, both in conflict and in navel-gazing hedonism. This is not to suggest that the key to reviving the American nation is through resuscitating “54 40 or Fight,” but that after planting our flag on the moon we wasted trillions of dollars and decades of energy on “equality” and dragged (or in the case of Afghanistan and the Middle East are dragging) our military through morass after morass instead of securing the border and re-directing our eyes back to the heavens. This aspirational masculinity is at the heart of Western civilization and it drives our conquering spirit both literally and metaphorically. It is time we stopped cowering before inferior cultures and entitled parasites and re-assert what makes us the most spectacular civilization in human history. “Man up,” indeed: there is a very powerful message here, one which we would be wise to heed.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

The Masonic Order
The Masonic Order, otherwise known as Freemasonry, is a global fraternal organization which allegedly traces its origins to stonemasons. It currently exists in various forms around the world with an estimated membership by the United Grand Lodge of England at around 6 million. Freemasonry describes itself as a “beautiful system of morality” that is, “veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols”. In short, the Masonic Order is composed of non-Jewish members and therefore receives nearly all the publicity in respect to orders and secret societies of the Roman Empire. In other words, Freemasonry is a smokescreen which enables Jewish-Roman orders (e.g., Dominicans, Franciscans, Rosicrucians, etc.) to operate freely out in the open with litter or no mind. Because Freemasons are considered goyim (non-Jews), they are expendable and therefore are assassinated, set up, or used as patsies in various schemes. Although Masonic Lodges are allegedly independent and sovereign bodies that govern Freemasonry in their respective country, state, or geographical area, modern historical accounts emphatically state that “There is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry. Each Grand Lodge is independent, and they do not necessarily recognize each other as being legitimate”. Translation: There is a global organization which governs all Freemasons. Although the United Grand Lodge of England, which has over .25 million members meeting in over 8,000 Lodges, is publically touted as the largest and most powerful Masonic Lodge, the CIA of Switzerland is ultimately responsible for moving the pawns of Freemasonry around the chessboard of the underworld. Thus, all of Freemasonry is in fact part of centralized entity acting in a unified manner at the behest of the Holy See (i.e., CIA).


Freemason Symbology
The logo of the Masonic Order boldly depicts the letter “G”, an acronym for Greenland which is currently home to the Roman Empire. It also contains a square in the shape of the letter “V”, an acronym for Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory. The square, which is a 90° angle which, numerology speaking, numerically represents “Greenlandia”, the original name of Greenland whose digital sum is 90 (i.e., the digit sum of “Greenlandia” is calculated as 7+18+5+5+14+12+1+14+4+9+1 = 90). Furthermore, the digital root of 90 is 9 (i.e., the digit root of 90 is calculated as 9+0 = 9) which is representative of the letter “R” (i.e., “G”) in the Roman Score (i.e., the Roman alphabet), an acronym for Rome. Greco-Roman symbology such as arches, columns, crescents, crosses, eagles and stars, as well as the Eye of Providence, are rife throughout Freemasonry as evidenced in "The Structure of Freemasonry".

Origins of Freemasonry
According to the book “Cracking the Freemason's Code” (2006) by Freemason historian Robert L.D. Cooper, the earliest known Masonic rituals were held on the porch of King Solomon’s Temple in Israel. As evidenced by the arches, columns and domes found in artistic renditions of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, it is clearly Greco-Roman in nature. The notion that the Roman Empire would allow the Jews to build their city and temple using Roman architecture in the region of the Mediterranean which was under Roman control is preposterous. Therefore, it can be ascertained that history of the Jews, King Solomon’s Temple included, has been fabricated order to give the Jewish race the necessary historical narrative in order to cover for the Roman Empire which has since vacated to Greenland. Consequently, Scottish writer and Freemason James Anderson states that it is possible to trace Freemasonry back to the Greek mathematicians Euclid and Pythagoras, all the way up through Moses, the Jewish Essenes and to the Culdees of the Middles Ages. In other words, Freemasonry is Greco-Roman in origin. Curiously, Anderson describes Masons as Noachides which was extrapolated by Albert Mackey, ultimately putting the Biblical Noah into the equation. Anderson’s account appears to be a veiled reference to the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes (RAOB) which was founded in England after the alleged Fall of the Roman Empire and whose seal contains a depiction of Noah’s Ark. This notion is further corroborated by Sottish writer and original Freemason Andrew Michael Ramsay who stated that the Masonic Order started with the Druids, the high priests of the Imperial Cult of Rome. There have also been allegations that Freemasonry is linked to the Roman Collegia and the Comacine masters who coincidentally specialized in Roman architecture. German Masonic historian Joseph Gabriel Findel reportedly sought to link the origins of Freemasonry to Roman Catholic cathedrals which are responsible to this day for instituting Freemasonry on a local level. Regardless of which origin of Freemasonry is to believed, they are all Greco-Roma in nature. In other words, all roads of Freemasonry lead to Rome.

Freemasonic Tools
Historically speaking, Freemasons have been used to found countries (e.g., the United States), hold office during economic collapse (e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt), and take their respective countries to war (e.g., George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, etc.). Freemasons are chosen premeditatively so that there is no Jewish connection to the bloodshed and economic chaos which generally ensues these historic milestones. Any sort of political backlash or blowback is subsequently blamed on an individual Freemason or Freemasons rather than on the CIA of Switzerland and its minions which are ultimately responsible. Consequently, over the years, thousands of members of the Masonic Order have been used by the Roman Empire as pawns for various deeds on the grand chessboard of the underworld. For example, Freemason Roald Amundsen (1872-1928) was a Norwegian polar explorer who allegedly discovered the South Pole, a continent which does not exist in reality. Also, Freemason Bernt Balchen (1899-1973) was an aerial navigator and military leader who, along with Admiral Richard E. Byrd, allegedly dropped Masonic flags over the North Pole in the Artic and the South Pole in Antarctica. This of course was impossible unless they dropped the flags over Mt. Zion in Greenland and Ayers Rock in Australia, the respective North and South poles of the Earth. Although just a microcosm, Amundsen and Balchen are examples of how Freemason tools are used in order to create fraudulent history and shape public opinion. The list of famous Freemasons who have been used for various ends is extensive and staggering to say the least. It includes congressmen, governors, judges, lawyers, presidents, and prime ministers from almost every nation on Earth. Although just a microcosm, the following list of presidents and prime ministers from 26 countries shows how Freemasonry is used on a global scale: Australia: Prime Minister Edmund Barton, Prime Minister George Reid, Prime Minister Joseph Cook, and Prime Minister Robert Menzies; Argentina: President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento; Belgium: Prime Minister Camille Huysmans; Canada: Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister John Abbott, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister Mackenzie Bowell, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, and Prime Minister Robert Borden; Chile: President José Miguel Carrera, and President Salvador Allende; Coast Rice: President Bernardo Soto Alfaro; Congo: President Pascal Lissouba; Czechoslovakia: President Edvard Beneš; Ecuador: President Eloy Alfaro; Finland: Prime Minister Johan Wilhelm Rangell, and President Risto Ryti; France: Prime Minister Émile Combes, and President Jules Grévy; Gabon: President Omar Bongo; Honduras: President Francisco Bertrand (2x); Iceland: President Sveinn Björnsson; Italy: Prime Minister Francesco Crispi, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi; Japan: Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama (3x); Mexico: President Antonio López de Santa Anna, President Benito Juárez, President Miguel Alemán Valdés, and President Plutarco Elías Calles; New Zealand: Prime Minister Francis Bell, and Prime Minister Richard Seddon; Peru: President Remigio Morales Bermúdez; Philippines: President Emilio Aguinaldo, President José Abad Santos, and President José P. Laurel; Romania: Prime Minister Alexandru G. Golescu, Prime Minister Alexandru Vaida-Voevod (3x), Prime Minister Constantin Argetoianu, Prime Minister Dimitrie Bratianu, Prime Minister Dimitrie Sturdza (4x), Prime Minister Gheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino, Prime Minister Ion C. Bratianu, Prime Minister Ion Ghica (2x), Prime Minister Mihail Kogalniceanu, Prime Minister Miron Cristea, Prime Minister Octavian Goga, and Prime Minister Titu Maiorescu; Spain: Prime Minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta; Turkey: President Süleyman Demirel; Venezuela: President Antonio Guzmán Blanco (3x), and President Ignacio Andrade; United Kingdom: Prime Minister George Canning and Prime Minister Winston Churchill; and the United States: President George Washington, President James Monroe, President Andrew Jackson, President James K. Polk, President James Buchanan, President Andrew Johnson, President James A. Garfield, President William McKinley, President Theodore Roosevelt, President William Howard Taft, President Warren G. Harding, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Harry S Truman, President Gerald Ford, and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Masonic Founding of America
The Founding Fathers of the United States such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe were almost all Freemasons, further confirming that the American Revolution against the British Empire was staged, albeit elaborately so. According to reports, at least 9 Freemasons signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence, at least 13 Freemason signed the U.S. Constitution, and there were at least 33 Freemason generals in George Washington’s army that won the American Revolutionary War, including Washington himself. In other words, the American Revolution and the subsequent creation of the 13 Colonies which eventually became the United States, an allegedly free, independent and sovereign nation, were completely fabricated. Aside from the Masonic Founding Fathers, at total of 15 out of 44 U.S. Presidents have thus far been Freemasons (i.e., George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Gerald Ford, and Lyndon B. Johnson). It is imperative to note that the Freemasonic loyalties of a politician are generally only revealed years after said politician has died. Therefore, the total number of Freemasonic U.S. presidents may be much higher. In other words, U.S. Presidents such as Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush may have been Freemasons but it won’t be publically disclosed for years. The same goes for the presidents and prime ministers of other nations.

Freemasonic Treachery
In order for Freemason presidents and prime ministers to betray their respective counties (as they routinely do), they are basically taught a religion of treason. In short, Freemasonry teaches its members to hold back from fully committing to their respective nations, enabling those in political office to do unspeakable things to their fellow citizens. Compared to Operative Masonry's clear denunciations of treachery, Speculative Masonry (instituted after 1723) is far more ambiguous, ultimately allowing for treason. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, Masonic disapproval of treachery is not on moral grounds but rather on the grounds of inconvenience to other Masons. In other words, it’s not morally wrong for Masons to commit treason; it’s only wrong for Masons to betray fellow Masons who are generally giving the orders to commit treason. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia argues that "Loyalty to freedom overrides all other considerations”, ultimately justifying treason. Freemasonic historian Albert Mackey corroborated this notion when he stated, "... if treason or rebellion were masonic crimes, almost every mason in the United Colonies (America), in 1776, would have been subject to expulsion and every Lodge to a forfeiture of its warrant by the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland, under whose jurisdiction they were at the time”. The fact that the definition of treason in respect to Freemasonry is found in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia shows exactly whom Freemasonry ultimately serves—Rome. Nevertheless, as a legal disclaimer, Freemasonry officially states in respect to treason that, "In the state you are to be a quiet and peaceful subject, true to your government and just to your country; You are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live”. Consequently, a number of governments have publically suppressed Freemasonry due to its secret nature and international connections. After the founding of the modern Masonic Order in England dates back to 1717, numerous European cities and states have banned or restricted Masonic lodges, including but not limited to: Austria (1795), Baden, Switzerland (1813), Bavaria (1784), Berne, Switzerland (1745), Geneva, Switzerland (1738), Holland (1735); Italy (c. 1738), Pakistan (1972), Portugal (c. 1738), Russia, (1822), Spain (c. 1738), Sweden (1738), and Zurich, Switzerland (1740). Needless to say, the very public persecution of Freemasonry was designed to convey the notion that the Masonic Order is not a government entity organized and funded by the Roman Catholic Church. The bans in Switzerland are especially curious considering that the CIA of Switzerland ultimately has command and control over Freemasonry, hence the very public attempt to separate itself from it.

Rosicrucian Freemasonry
According to British historian David Stevenson, Greco-Roman-based Rosicrucianism has been very influential to Freemasonry. This notion was later corroborate by French writer Jean Pierre Bayard who stated that two Rosicrucian-inspired Masonic rites emerged towards the end of 18th century (i.e., the Rectified Scottish Rite, and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite). Led by Johann Christoph von Wöllner and General Johann Rudolf von Bischoffwerder, Masonic lodges were reportedly infiltrated, eventually succumbing to the control of the Rosy Cross. In time, many Freemasons became Rosicrucianists and Rosicrucianism was subsequently established in numerous Masonic lodges. Consequently, the 18th degree of Freemasonry is now entitled Knight of the Rose Croix, a tribute to Rosicrucianism. The Rosicrucian symbol of the Rose Cross is coincidentally also the official symbol of Freemasonry. It is used in certain Masonic rituals which require candidates to be Master Masons. Lastly, the Great Architect of the Universe, a Rosicrucian conception of God, is also the Masonic conception of God. Therefore, in deity, title, ritual and symbol, Freemasonry mimics Rosicrucianism.

Jewish Control of Freemasonry
According to Adam Weishaupt, the alleged and founder of the Order of Illuminati, Freemasonry is a secret society created within the secret society of the Illuminati. In reality however, Freemasonry is a secret society within a secret Jewish society which is (albeit unwittingly) ultimately controlled by the Roman Empire in Greenland. In other words, Freemasons have no real power; they are just tools which are routinely used and disposed of by the CIA of Switzerland. Because Freemasonry is a secret society for goyim (non-Jews), its initiations revolve around the construction of the Temple of Solomon, a mythical Jewish temple that allegedly once stood on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Consequently, attacks on Freemasonry as being a tool of Jewish control in the underworld are predictably labeled “anti-Semitic”. British professor Andrew Prescott of the University of Sheffield states, "Since at least the time of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anti-Semitism has gone hand in hand with anti-masonry”. Despite its critics, the Protocols detail exactly how and why the Jewish power structure uses Freemasonic Lodges to attract public officials. As translated into modern English, the Protocols state : “We [the Jews] shall create and multiply Free Masonic lodges in all the countries of the world and bring all types of people into them – people who may become or who are already prominent in public activity. In these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence office and means of influence…. It is natural that no one else other than us should lead Masonic activities, for we know where we are heading…Gentile-based Freemasonry serves as a smokescreen for us and our plans. But the plan of action of our Force, even its very existence, remains an unknown mystery to the people…This has served as the basis for our organization of secret Freemasonry which is not known to, and has aims which are not even so much as suspected by, the Goy. These Goy cattle are attracted by us into the "show" army of Masonic lodges in order feel superior to, and look down upon their fellow Goys”. In order to fend off accusations that Freemasonry is nothing more than a Jewish front, the CIA has attempted to link those who espouse these viewpoints with Middle Eastern terrorists, all of which are coincidentally state-sponsored. For example, back in 1980, the Iraqi penal code was changed by Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'ath Party, ultimately making it a felony to "promote or acclaim Zionist principles, including Freemasonry, or who associate [themselves] with Zionist organizations". The terror group Hamas states in article 28 of its Covenant that Freemasonry "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions”. Since Israel admittedly spawned Hamas, it has command and control over its Covenant. Therefore, the aforementioned reference to Freemasonry is in fact true, albeit from the mouth of terrorists.

Catholic Church & Freemasonry
By far, the Roman Catholic Church has the longest history of public objection to Freemasonry. This is because Freemasonry is a tool of the Roman Empire and therefore it wants to publically distance itself from the Masonic Order as much as possible. Despite the attempted separation, Greco-Roman symbology such as arches, columns, crescents, crosses, eagles, stars, as well as the Eye of Providence, are rife within Freemasonry as witnessed in "The Structure of Freemasonry". Nevertheless, objections raised by the Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is allegedly in conflict with the Church’s doctrine. In order to create the necessary narrative that the Church is diametrically opposed to Freemasonry (despite creating it), a number of rather bi-polar decrees, laws and letters have been issued since the early 18th century. Starting in 1736, the Inquisition investigated a Masonic Lodge in Florence, Italy for heresy, which it ultimately condemned a year later 1737. In response to this investigation, Pope Clement XII's issued a Papal Bull on April 28, 1738, entitled “In Eminenti Apostolatus”, the first official Papal prohibition on Freemasonry. The Church ban of Freemasonry was ultimately reiterated and expanded upon by Pope Benedict XIV (1751), Pope Pius VII (1821), Pope Leo XII (1826), Pope Pius VIII (1829), Pope Gregory XVI (1832), and Pope Pius IX (1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1873). The “Humanum Genus” (1884), a papal encyclical promulgated by Pope Leo XIII, states that Freemasonry is a dangerous sect (cult) and demands that all bishops be vigilant on its abuses. The Papal prohibition on Freemasonry was reiterated by Pope Leo XIII who issued a Papal Bull on October 15, 1890, entitled “Ab Apostolici”, further highlighting the Church’s negative stance on Freemasonry. In 1917, the Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication, and banned books favoring Freemasonry. In 1974, Cardinal Šeper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a private letter which stated in part: "The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...has ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups...And so, a Catholic who joins the Freemasons is excommunicated only if the policies and actions of the Freemasons in his area are known to be hostile to the Church." In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law stating: “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." However, unlike its predecessor, the new Canon Law did not explicitly name the Masonic Order among the secret societies it condemns. Consequently, the letter by Šeper along with the new Canon Law led Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted. However, the matter was quickly clarified in 1983 by Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who, with the personal approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which reiterated the Church's objections to Freemasonry. The Declaration states in part: "The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association(s) remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.” By officially maintaining that Freemasonry is evil and illegal, the Roman Catholic Church can ban, censor or shut down Masonic lodges if and when they ever get out of control. This is also why Freemasons allegedly worship a number of demons, devils and deities (i.e., Baal, Baphomet, Dajjal, Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU), Jahbulon, Lucifer, Osiris, Rahu, Satan, and YHWH). By claiming that Freemasonry is Satanic in nature, any Freemason can be publically vilified by the Catholic Church at any time.

Nazi Freemasonry
According to modern historical accounts, the Nazis claimed that high-degree Masons were part of a Jewish conspiracy that resulted in Germany's defeat during World War I. While Freemasons likely played a role in Germany’s defeat, they also played a decisive role in the Nazi Party and Germany’s instigation of World War II. In other worlds, Freemasons were used in Germany by the Jewish power structure in both World War I and World War II. Nevertheless, in “Mein Kampf” (1925), Adolf Hitler wrote that Freemasonry had succumbed to the Jews and that it was being used as a tool to pull the upper strata of German society into Jewish schemes. Since Freemasonry has been an instrument of Jewish control over the goyim (non-Jews) since its inception, Hitler’s comments are both true and untrue at the same time. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler states, "The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self-preservation begun by Freemasonry". In other words, Freemasonry was being used by the Jews to lure citizens into betraying their own country, an admitted tenant of Freemasonry. Considering that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was a Jew, which was later confirmed in 2010 by a DNA test which revealed Hitler’s Jewish decent, and he was married to Eva Braun who was also confirmed to be Jewish in 2014, everything Hitler stated in respect to Freemasonry and the Jews must, in retrospect, be reexamined for ulterior motives. In 1933, Reichstag President and founder of the Gestapo Hermann Göring stated, "…in National Socialist Germany, there is no place for Freemasonry”. Under the cover of the Enabling Act, the German Ministry of the Interior allegedly ordered the disbandment of Freemasonry on January 8, 1934, including the confiscation of all property and Lodges. Germans who had been members of Freemasonry when Hitler came to power in 1933 were allegedly prohibited from holding office in the Nazi Party or its paramilitary arms. Since the German Ministry of Defense explicitly forbade German officers from becoming Freemasons, those who were Masons were allegedly Masonic forced out, becoming ineligible for appointment in public service. Consequently, special sections of the German Security Service (i.e., the “Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS”) and the Office of the High Command of Security Service (i.e., the “SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt”) were allegedly established to eradicate Freemasonry in Germany. Shortly thereafter, Hitler announced in the “Voelkischer Beobachter” (i.e., the Nazi Party newspaper) the final dissolution of all Masonic Lodges in Germany on August 8, 1935. The article stated that a conspiracy involving the Masonic Order and World Jewry was seeking to create a World Republic. In 1937, propagandist Joseph Goebbels inaugurated an "Anti-Masonic Exposition" to display objects seized by the state. Similar exhibitions were reportedly held throughout the occupied countries of Europe. The preserved records of the Office of the High Command of Security Service (i.e., the “SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt”) reportedly documented the persecution of Freemasons. During the World War II, Freemasonry was allegedly banned by proclamation in all countries that were either allied with the Nazis or under Nazi control, including Norway and France. As evidenced, modern historical accounts are filled with examples of Freemason persecution in Germany. However, as with much of modern history, the opposite is true. In other words, Germany was rife with Freemasonry, hence the extensive historical cover denouncing its role in Nazi Germany. Freemasonry was never more evident in Nazi Germany than in the case of German General Friedrich Paulus who was denounced as a "High-grade Freemason" when he surrendered to the Soviet Union in 1943. Paulus is infamous for leading Nazi Germany to its greatest defeat when 265,000 Axis allied troops were encircled and defeated in Russia. Of the 107,000 captured, only 6,000 survived captivity. Needless to say, Paulus’ treacherous actions are indicative of Freemasonry which is in essence a religion of treason. Therefore, like the Jews, the persecution of Freemasonry under the Nazi regime has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, the only reason that the Nazis were allowed to seize power in Germany and destroy much of Europe was due to Freemasons who, following the rules of Freemasonry as dictated in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, held Freemasonry morally higher than their own country. Consequently, claims that Freemasonic concentration camp inmates were graded as political prisoners and forced to wear an inverted red triangle were likely fabricated. Claims that 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered under the Nazi regime were also evidently fabricated in order to provide the necessary cover for the Freemasons which were instrumental in Nazi Germany which was untimely responsible for killing tens of millions of people across Europe.

Concentration Camp Freemasonry
In order to further sell the notion that Freemasons were banned in Nazi Germany, the elaborate story of Liberté chérie was created. According to modern historical accounts, on November 15, 1943, eight Belgian Freemasons (i.e., Amédée Miclotte, Franz Rochat, Guy Hannecart, Henri Story, Jean De Schrijver, Jean Sugg, Luc Somerhausen and Paul Hanson) founded a Masonic Lodge entitled the “Loge Liberté chérie”, meaning “Cherished Liberty Lodge” in French. They makeshift Masonic lodge was allegedly located inside Hut 6 of Emslandlager VII, a Nazi concentration camp in Esterwegen, Germany. In time, the group initiated, passed, and raised Brother Fernand Erauw, making for a total of 9 members. The number “9” is symbolic for it represents the letter “I” which is inherent to intelligence agencies (e.g., CIA, FBI, MI5, ISI, etc.). According to the story, a Catholic priest stood watch over the group so that they could hold their meetings in secret. According to Freemason Somerhausen, the lodge asked a community of Catholic priests for assistance "with their prayers" during their meetings which were reportedly dedicated to the symbol of the Great Architect of the Universe, the "The future of Belgium", and the, "The position of women in Freemasonry". Considering that 5 of the Belgium Freemasons admittedly had intelligence connections, it can be ascertained that the group, if it ever existed, served as an Jewish intelligence front: Franz Rochat reportedly worked for the underground press and the resistance publication entitled the “Voice of the Belgians”; Jean Sugg, along with Rochat, co-operated the underground press while contributing to clandestine publications, including: La Libre Belgique, La Légion Noire, Le Petit Belge, and L'Anti Boche; Jean De Schrijver was reportedly arrested on charges of espionage and possession of arms; Fernand Erauw was allegedly a member of the "Secret Army"; and Guy Hannecart was a lawyer and the leader of La Voix des Belges, a clandestine newspaper. Therefore, the Freemasons, the lodge and the story are not exactly what they appear to be. Had Freemasonry been illegal in Nazi Germany as claimed, these men would never have been allowed to practice Freemasonry in a concentration camp. Although only conjecture, the story of Liberté chérie appears to be a microcosm of how Freemasonry works in that is is watched over and controlled by the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. After Freemasons have been used for a particular purpose, they are usually double-crossed and disposed of, as were a majority of the men from Liberté chérie.

Admin #transphobia #kinkshaming feministwiki.org

Transgender ideology

Transgender ideology is a loose catch-all term referring to philosophies, world views, and dogmatic statements adhered to by political activists who see themselves as trying to uphold the human rights of transgender people. The political movement of furthering these ideologies is called the transgender movement. Feminists tend to use these terms critically when pointing out sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic aspects of the movement. Those who support the transgender movement tend to oppose the term transgender ideology, likening it to phrases such as homosexual agenda which is used to ascribe a sinister intent to gay/lesbian/bisexual rights activists.

The practice of supporting transgender ideology is called transgender activism (often shortened trans activism) and a person who follows this practice is called a transgender activist (often shortened trans activist). The word "transgender" in the phrase "transgender activist" is not to be understood as an adjective for the person in question (i.e. "an activist who happens to be transgender") but as a reference to the activism they practice (i.e. "an activist supporting transgender ideology"). Many trans activists are not transgender themselves.

The term trans rights activist (shortened TRA) is sometimes used for its similarity to men's rights activist (shortened MRA). Just like so-called MRAs claim to support men's human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism, TRAs claim to support transgender human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism.

Aspects

Trans women are women

One of the core dogmata of the transgender movement is the statement that trans women are women (and the less often repeated trans men are men). Under this view it's important to write trans woman as two words (adjective and noun) and not transwoman, to stress the fact that so-called trans women are literally a subtype of women, just like white women, black women, short women, tall women, and so on. The statement "trans women are women" is not meant as a vague slogan of moral support, but in a literal sense.
Since the statement contradicts the dictionary definition of the word "woman" (adult human female), it implies that a different definition would be better. When asked about this, transgender activists usually avoid providing an actual definition. Most attempts tend to revolve around a circular definition, such as "anyone who identifies as a woman, is a woman." As such, the statement "trans women are women" is probably best described as a dogma.
The idea that transwomen are literally women is taken as the basis for many problematic conclusions, such as: transwomen deserve to partake in women's sports, transwomen should be seen as part of the natural dating pool of lesbians (see also cotton ceiling), transwomen deserve to use all female facilities, enter female-only spaces and events, speak on women's rights as women, and so on.

Gender identity

The idea that "trans women are women" is usually backed by a belief in an essential, inborn, and immutable "gender identity" that every person supposedly possesses.[6] Transwomen are said to be real women on the grounds that they possess a "female gender identity" which they are said to share with women. Likewise for transmen and a "male gender identity" that is supposedly shared by all men.
Just like transgender activists refuse to provide an objective definition of womanhood, they tend to refuse defining gender identity on any objective terms. Usually, when explaining how a person has discovered their gender identity, one hears references to sexist stereotypes ascribed to womanhood and manhood. When confronted directly however, transgender activists refuse the notion that gender identity is based entirely on those stereotypes. Since no objective measure exists at all, they are effectively forced to accept the claims of anyone and everyone regarding what their gender identity is. Thus we see transwomen with full beards and intact male anatomy, who are said to be literally real women like any other.
Transgender children
Since gender identity is said to be inborn, it follows that some children would be transgender, and only need to find this out. Once it's found out, the only way forward is to support the child in its transgender identification. This leads to the transgender activist "affirm-only" approach towards youth, where for instance a boy who says "I wish I was a girl" or "I'm actually a girl" is from that point on treated as if the child is literally a girl. (Given a female name, referred to by female pronouns, asked to be considered a girl by others, and so on.) Likewise for girls who express that they wish they were a boy, or claim that they are internally a boy. Trans activists are opposed to the alternative "watchful waiting" approach.
The trans activist affirm-only approach has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[7] Parents concerned over this model of treatment published a long criticism and launched a petition reaching 1,200 signatures.[8] Psychologist James Cantor also published a fact-check article criticizing the AAP's decision.
Trans activists usually support giving puberty blocking medication such as Lupron to children who think they are transgender.[7] These children may be as young as 10 years old.

Cisgender people oppress transgender people

Another core tenet of transgender ideology is the notion that cisgender people oppress transgender people, just like how men oppress women, white Americans oppress black Americans, or how straight people oppress gay men and lesbian women.[11][12] As such, when a man identifies as a transwoman, his position relative to that of a woman turns from being her oppressor to someone who is oppressed by her. His male privilege is denied as he is now considered a woman, and the fact that he is a transgender woman means that he is oppressed by so-called cisgender women. Further, being both a woman and transgender means he is considered to suffer under two axes of oppression, akin to how black women suffer both from racism and sexism. This way, a white man suddenly becomes comparable to a black woman with regards to oppressive power dynamics in society.
As per the principle of intersectionality (appropriated from black feminism), transgender activists often say that the feminist movement should not only include transwomen's concerns, but outright center them in many discussions, as otherwise the feminist movement might fail to sufficiently address their concerns.

Collusion with "sex work" activism

For reasons not entirely clear, many if not most transgender activists also seem to support the "sex work" movement.[13] Possible explanations for this collusion might be:
* Both movements stem from queer ideology, which is based on transgression of social norms without regard to ethical concerns
* The transgender movement being dominated by autogynephilic men who are interested in upholding a society in which women exist for male sexual pleasure
* Anti-feminists supporting both the transgender movement and the "sex work" movement, simply because they see both of them as weapons against women's liberation

wetwareproblem #fundie wetwareproblem.tumblr.com

I’ll say this again. I’m a Behavioral Therapist for children with autism and much of this information is highly inaccurate.

Every single one of the parents that I work with love their kids so much. They listen to them, they are kind to them, and they treat them like REAL PEOPLE. They listen to them when they say they’re sad. They comfort them and love them and care for them just like the do with their other kids. The parents I’ve seen care about their kids possibly more than any other parent I’ve ever seen (including parents with neurotypical children). These parents are willing to do whatever it takes to make their children be their unique selves and 100% HAPPY with themselves as well.

ABA therapy doesn’t tell kids to look happy when they’re sad inside, it teaches them FUNCTIONAL communication. Aka saying “I’m sad because…” rather than screaming incoherently. It teaches them to communicate with people by verbalizing their emotions rather than acting them out in forms of stereotypic behavior (tantrums, self injurious behavior, elopement, etc).

And for your source about the JRC. Those places are terrible. THOSE places are shit. They HAVE tortured people with disabilities. But there are companies and organizations that have paired together with places like the JRC that you SHOULD avoid.

The link to the people who have experienced ABA therapy MOST LIKELY experienced it from those places similar to JRC.

I have NEVER restrained a child. I am NOT allowed to restrain a child (with the exception of emergency situations like a child is about to run into a street or something). I do NOT teach my kids to hate themselves. I do NOT believe in negative reinforcers. I have NOT ONCE hit, yelled at, verbally abused, physically abused, emotionally abused or even electrocuted any of my kids.

I have to shadow one of my clients at his school and his teachers are completely rude and treat him like a literal piece of shit. But you know what happens when they’re rude to MY client?? I call them the fuck out for it. I tell them that they wouldn’t say rude shit like that to their other kids, so why this one? I make SURE that people treat my kids LKE REAL PEOPLE. And if ANYONE dares to even think about disrespecting any of my clients they will definitely be hearing it from me.

I love EVERY SINGLE one of my clients like they are my own children. I would literally risk my life to save theirs if the situation ever occurred. I can’t believe that this post is going around spreading information like this. It literally hurts me to believe that people think I ELECTROCUTE my kiddos.

Yes there are really REALLY shitty places that do evil things to people with disabilities.

But there are places that take care of them and love them as well.

OP, I am not trying to speak for you. I believe that your voice SHOULD be heard. But please be specific and do no generalize the therapy as a whole. Call out places like the JRC, but do not blame it on ABA. Speak about your experiences and WHICH SPECIFIC places other autistic effected families should avoid. But also, please do some research and spread information about places that are beneficial to kids with autism.

ABA is not bad. The way certain places use it are.


All right, here we go again. Warning: Shit’s gonna get real and pretty dark here. TW for abuse and rape.

First: “much of this information is highly inaccurate.” Citation sorely fucking needed. I sourced all of my shit in depth; exactly which of these sources are you claiming is lying, and on what points?

Second: Either you live in a blessed land of fairies and unicorns, or you’re making shit up. It is the extremely painful experience of literally thousands of auties - no small number of which have spoken about it at length - that people are only willing to listen to us when we speak in ways that they are comfortable with, expressing thoughts and feelings that they are comfortable with. This all too often includes our parents. Hell, “Autism Parent” is a fucking meme in autistic culture.

The fact that you don’t know this speaks volumes about your willingness to actually listen to us.

Third: I’m a little less concerned with what any individual parent - hell, what any individual therapist - might think than I am with the foundation and structures of the practice. And guess what? That foundation is in a view that we are not people. (Did you even click the links?) It is built on abusing children into feigning normalcy. The seed of modern ABA practice was literally the same doctor bringing the same mindset to the “problems” of “making auties into Real People” and “making gay and bi boys and trans girls into Real Men.”

It has, as its explicit stated goal, the elimination of behaviours deemed “unsightly.” Do I need to quote the fucking defining papers? You say “verbalizing rather than stereotypic behaviour,” and we hear “force you to communicate in our language, no matter how difficult that is for you, instead of taking the time to learn yours.” We hear “prevent us from stimming, no matter how important that is to us as a regulatory tool.” We hear “Quiet hands.” You want to know why places like the JRC happen and keep happening? Why this is a huge, widespread fucking problem? It is because one of the core tenets of ABA is that you do not and will not listen to us unless we communicate in the ways you deem fit. And that doesn’t just mean “use your words,” it very often means “tell us what we want to hear.”

You do not know whether you are teaching your kids to hate themselves. You do not and cannot know that, because what ABA teaches us is how to recognize and present the expected signs regardless of what is happening in our heads. What it teaches us is how to mask and cover like abuse victims. And you should take a really fucking good look at why that might be.

You say “There are ABA centers that love their patients and take care of them.” You say “I love every single client like they are my own children.”

I hear my mother, desperately trying to make sure I would grow up happy in a world full of cruel people, telling me not to fidget, glancing around to see if people are giving us That Look again. I hear “something is wrong with your body language; hide it Or Else.”

I hear my mother, my loving mother who is trying to take care of me, telling me that I need to stop talking about my special interests because I’m boring people. I hear “Nobody cares what you have to say.”

I hear my mother, trying to keep me from having problems, telling me it can’t possibly be that bright and I need to take my sunglasses off or people will make fun of me. I hear “Your pain is less important than keeping up appearances, and literally anyone and everyone will punish you if you don’t comply.”

I hear my mother, my sweet loving mother who wants what’s best for her child, going about her business as though everything is perfectly normal while I’m dying inside, because I no longer have any way to tell her what a hellscape my head has become. My ways of conveying this are Unacceptable and Lashing Out, not Communication, and I might have been taught the words for “I’m sad,” but not for “Everything is Too Much” or “nothing makes me happy any more” or “I hate myself and I don’t want to.” Eventually, she will see the scars left by what coping methods I have. She will put me into well-intentioned but misguided psychiatric care. They will listen to what their forms tell them over what I am saying - because I still don’t have the words - and medicate me into a suicide attempt. This will result in traumatic institutionalization, and I will restructure my entire life and personality around the core tenet of “never let anyone see the pain or they will hurt you worse.” I now have people who will provide what comfort I need when I need it on my terms - but they still have to learn to read from the tiny cracks in my many, many masks, because over 90% of the time I still cannot bring myself to say “I need help.”

I hear my mother, speaking over me countless times without noticing, teaching me that she (as the Authority Figure) always knows best even when it makes no sense to me. I hear “You just don’t know any better; what the authority figure says is correct.” Later, when authority figures blame me for basically being weird enough to get beaten, I learn that violence is an acceptable response to failure to conform and comply. When my rapist tells me that a vague unspecified They will hurt him if I don’t do what he says (even though it feels Wrong and Bad), I believe him, because this is the world I have come to know.

I hear my mother today, so many years later, responding to any attempt to explain any of this by crying and telling me what a horrible parent she was, and lamenting how she could have done things differently If She’d Only Known. But she never listened.

I hear myself consoling her, reassuring her that what she did to me wasn’t so bad, that she acted out of love using he tools and information she had. Because by now I have well and truly learned that my pain will never matter as much as anybody else’s.

That is what I hear when you claim to love your clients as your own children. And while the details of my story might be unique, the general arc of it is not. That is what thousands of us are hearing. We are hearing all the people who claimed to love us over the years, bending and sawing and chipping and breaking us so we fit into an Acceptable Mold.

And when you tell me that it is our fucking job to find ABA centers that are somehow - despite the entire thrust of ABA - not doing this, and spread the word about them instead of about the countless places that have done this to us?

Well, that’s an outright demand for “Hey, it’s not so bad. You’re doing the best you can with the tools you have.” It is yet another in the endless series of demands faced by autistic people - say what I want, not what matters to you. It is an outright and explicit prioritization of the appearances and reputations of allistic people over the ongoing pain of autistic people. It is the latest chapter in the story I just told.

It is not our job to reform ABA. It is yours. Autistic people are not the ones responsible for how allistic people treat us. My voice is my own, and I will speak the truths I want to speak - not the kind, soothing lies that absolve you of all responsibility to do better.

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

[From "If Vitamin N was a thing they'd be fine"]

Why is it that niggers are so much more likely to die of the Wuhan Flu?†

Left-wing media asks "could it be racism"? Of course. No, not of course that's the reason but of course they asked. They have a little cottage industry entirely devoted to asking that question constantly whether it makes sense to or not. Zoe Carpenter at The Nation writes "What We Know About the Covid-19 Race Gap" with the hilariously ironic sub-title "The CDC is finally releasing more data that show just how unequal the toll of the pandemic is. But we can’t stop there". One of the things we don't know about the "race gap" is whether or not it's even unequal. To know that, you have to surmise that the death toll is related to the medical care and not the virus itself. Zoe/Zoë Carpenter doesn't have a clue about that: she pretends to but she's lying.

Covid-19 is retracing patterns of disease and death long documented by public health experts, who have found that black Americans are more likely than whites to suffer from a variety of illnesses and chronic conditions—such as diabetes and hypertension, common comorbidities in Covid-19 hospitalizations—and to die prematurely. While some treat these disparities as a mystery (“Why is it that the African American community is so much, you know, numerous times more [likely to die] than everybody else?… It doesn’t make sense,” President Trump said recently), there’s a robust body of research indicating that systemic racism and its related stress exact a physical toll that compounds over a lifetime.

Robust body of evidence, eh? The dumb little witch can't even point to a robust body of evidence that "systemic racism" even exists outside the fervent delusions of biased social scientists, let alone that it has some sort of physical aspect.

† Maybe that sentence already answers itself: the Red Chinese manufactured the virus and they don't like niggers, a problem which has flared up in Wuhan before...

If you think The Nation and their ilk are ridiculous on this topic consider that MedPage Today went one further:

Comorbidities like hypertension and diabetes, which are tied to COVID-19 complications, disproportionately affect the black community. But the alarming rates at which COVID-19 is killing black Americans extends beyond these comorbidities and can be attributed to decades of spatial segregation, inequitable access to testing and treatment, and withholding racial/ethnicity data from reports on virus outcomes.

"There is nothing different biologically about race. It is the conditions of our lives," said Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, PhD, former president of the American Public Health Association. "We have to acknowledge that now and always."

Predominantly black U.S. counties are experiencing a three-fold higher infection rate and a six-fold higher death rate than predominantly white counties.

Many of these communities are located in poor areas with high housing density, limited access to education, and high unemployment rates. Low socioeconomic status is independently a risk factor for poorer health outcomes and is forcing some individuals residing in these communities out of their homes and into the workforce.


"There is nothing different biological about race". That's literally what a medical doctor wrote. Does Jones think that white doctors are just randomly painting nigger babies black so they match the parents (who were previously painted by a white doctor a generation earlier)? No biological differences whatsoever eh? Is that why Summer Olympic land-based events look like a President Monkey family reunion while aquatic events look like a Bernie Sanders volunteer bank? A massive selection effect not motivated at all by different biological factors? It's even more circumspect when you compare the previous paragraph acknowledging that COVID comorbidities are more common among American blacks than American whites. It's said (though not backed up by any data or indeed the quoted ravings of any so-called experts) that comorbidities (or maybe just these two?) have already been factored in. [is it fair to ask if the same people acknowledge it makes sense to factor in likelihood of committing a crime when looking at incarceration rates? -ed]. All comorbidities? How can that be when, as we noted when The Nation was making stuff up for their article, we don't yet have a full understanding of all the comorbidities. Maybe there will be an obvious genetic flag or six when 23andMe finishes stealing your most personal of personal information, maybe it'll take more time than that. Maybe we'll only be able to answer this question in 2025. It might turn out that particular diets (*cough* *cough*friedchicken*cough* *cough*) exasperate the disease, or some environmental factors that aren't yet well understood. It might be that the supposed link between "low socioeconomic status"‡ and Coronavirus is weak and inverse and only because other factors swamp it that we were lead down the wrong track.

‡ Speaking of low socioeconomic status, do you want to know what likely will not make American negroes less poor? Refusing to go to work when other (white) people do and gain more income and experience and gratitude of their bosses. CBC won't tell you that...

One little tidbit that's worth noting is there seems to be a link between Vitamin D and the Wuhan Flu. While it may be simply correlation without causality (author Divya Ramaswamy seems to have simply assumed so without the literature motivating it), there's a "there" there. In other words either because of Vitamin D levels or for the same reasons as Vitamin D levels, there's an impact on your ability to survive the Wuhan Flu. Separate research is also looking into (in general, not for Vitamin D) a link between suspectibility to the virus and the likelihood of transmission: to wit, if you're more likely to die from it you're more likely to get and/or give it. This means that the death rate and the incidence rate aren't as linearly independent as you might expect. So what does this mean to niggers? Well it means that the "Vitamin D paradox" might not be a paradox, and that the claim that doctors are "overdiagnosing" Vitamin D deficiency in negroes may in fact be false, and they actually [B]do[/B] have lower levels. It might not align with their bone density (like the swimming joke I made earlier) but still exist, and show itself in the increased likelihood of getting and/or dying from COVID-19.

Seeing as how the only "discrimination" they find for niggers and Vitamin D is a claim that white doctors are "exaggerating" their low levels, maybe idiots from The Nation can shut up trying to blame the Wuhan Flu's tear through black communities as "racism".

Strangely enough, the link between Vitamin D and sodomy is much less documented...

Jumpgirl, Leucosticte and dsar9012 #sexist pro-rape.com

[Comments under “Rape baiters”, from their "Femoid Containment" section; Jumpgirl is described as a "Confirmed Femoid"]

@Leucosticte

@Jumpgirl
What do you guys think about them? On one hand, the idea to me is quite bizarre; if they want to be raped then surely it's not rape..? I guess they might be into sex, but, if they didn't want to have sex with someone I doubt they'd be very happy about it. But at the same time, if they're going to bait guys to "rape" them, then what do they expect? I've also heard about a specific bunch of rape baiters who will wait for a dude to rape them, but then they'll run and tell everyone that the guy literally forced her into stuff... That actually disgusts me. It's one thing lying about getting raped, but it seems like a whole different level if they literally go out and bait some guy into it then tell everyone, right? I don't know if this is an actual thing they do, but I've seen a few people talking about it happening.

Women are usually the ones who indicate interest initially nonverbally, by acting flirty. If a girl is being that way, and also acting vulnerable, and maybe also being provocative (e.g. by saying no at the last minute), I think a guy is probably justified in going ahead and "raping" her. A jury could reasonably find, her behavior indicated she was willing, even if she said no, since we know that rape-baiting is a thing. Why else would she be acting that way, especially around horny guys in a place where there's enough privacy to rape her?

A good example of rape-baiting is in the film The Accused. The protagonist does everything she can to act drunk and slutty in a back room of a bar where there are a bunch of horny men and no women around. A waitress walks in, sees this going on, and thinks she's just "partying" so she doesn't dial 911 or anything.

Another thing about that movie is that there were actresses lining up to the play the role of the flirty woman who gets gang-raped. I just wish they could've gotten a girl who was barely legal to play it, as Jodie Foster was getting kinda old by this point.

Reply by dsar9012:

This femoid is rape baiter extroidinaire.

Why I’m Not a Feminist Anymore

She mentions getting "Raped" multiple times, JFL, it is funny that many women are raped multiple times, while the decent women, if they exist, never get raped. Now the dumb whore is whining about how she isn't feminist anymore as soon as she sees Chads avoiding feminists. Typical whore, still hates men that are incel no doubt.

Aleskakolja #fundie aleskakolja.tumblr.com

You mentioned on PAH that you have your own opinions on the morality surrounding necrophilia and zoophilia. I'm curious, what do you think?


ok, hi there! So well, be ready for some little controversy, I guess :P

First of all I would like to state a general and short view of my moral conceptions. I’m a moral nihilist, in the sense that I don’t think that there is a superior moral system that rules them all and that is objective and natural and everyone should follow by the law of god or any other superior power. I think morals are a social construct, based in a specific culture and society and that changes over time, but that aren’t based in any objective source. The common things you can find in different societies are easily explained by some kind of “societies darwinism”. Mostly, the societies that follow a moral system where they take care of their own people and punish some stuff (as murdering of your own, for example) have more chances to survive that a society without morals where everything is fair game. That kind of society is self-destructive, so every human society groups towards some basics due to survival instintics, but not because those are the objective, good things. Some times a society morals can be, in fact, pretty harmful for some individuals even if they truly believe that is the right way to go, the logic and natural order.

So, going from this, I think a moral system is needed, of course. For the good of both, individuals and society survival and wellbeing. As I have said, an ‘everything is fair game’ society is a condemned society. But if we don’t have an objective moral, not a power superior to men to tell us what is wrong and what is right and traditional values are exposed as old constructs that can easily being wrong, what can we do? Well, my solution is created a moral of consense, a moral based in the best for everyone. And that is where my morals stands. My rules are easy. Every situation should be judged carefully and individually, they aren’t real moral statements or absolute truths aside a couple of things “every action should be consensual” and “something is wrong if it causes you or anyone else an involuntary harm”. And even these things have exceptions in some extreme or specific situations (I can provide you with examples if you want to, I love discussing morals!).

Now, making this clear (and if you have any question or don’t understand something ask me, no fear ^^) I’ll give you my thoughts around these two issues, that can be kinda out of the morals of our current society.

-Necrophilia: I don’t think this is inherently immoral in any way. I dont see corpses as people. They aren’t human beings, they are, in a strict sense, a piece of meat. Of course, there is a big taboo about this for different reasons. We have the obvious one, people who still see the bodies as their loved ones and feel it as an attack to them, a disrespectful action. We also have the fear of death and the general taboo that it has (people who don’t even want to talk about death, people who are scared to go for a walk into a cemetery, people who look at you as a weirdo for liking “dark” things and gothic literature… there are plenty of this). And adding to that, we have misconceptions about the problems it can give you (diseases. People associate corpses with disease and this is normal, since humanity has gone through a lot of epidemics and the cultural memory about it remains. But the reality is different. If someone wasn’t sick before death they aren’t dangerous as a corpse. People still don’t understand this).

So, summarizing, I don’t think there is something inherently immoral about necrophilia. I don’t think these actions are something wrong itself. However, we need to understand our context and the effect of our actions. I don’t have this taboo, I think it is absurd and just a norm that comes from a sex-negative, scared of the death society that I don’t agree with. But I understand that not everyone is like me. That for some people it would be harmful, that they wouldn’t want this for their loved ones, so, and since you live in a specific context and our actions have consequences in real people’s lifes, you can’t just have sex with random corpses. Not because it is immoral, but because it can harm someone else (not the corpse, the corpse is not a person anymore).

I think the best way to go over this is educating people about why it isn’t harmful or immoral, explain the taboo and maybe someday we get a society where this isn’t seem as terrible and awful and people can have sex with corpses (I have always thought in some kind of necrocard, you know, like for organ donations, consent to necrophilic sex before die so the problem of consent gets solved. I know from plenty of people who wouldn’t care to give their corpses for this. It isn’t such a crazy idea after all).

-Zoophilia: I can feel this one is going to bring even more controversy up. But well, here we go. I don’t think every action in every case of sexual interaction with an animal is wrong. Harming an animal for pleasure is wrong. I don’t support animal abuse and zoosadism in any way. I believe that animals are living beings with a sense of pain and they deserve to be respected and treated properly. You can kill animals for eating. That is understable and natural. Killing them for fun is something I don’t approve. Causing them pain for fun is something I don’t approve either.

But now, about sex. Sex with an animal is not always something violent or traumatic as we could think. Sex is not inherently harmful and wrong just because it is sex. Also, animals *can* consent in a way. Of course, they can’t tell you what they want, but you can understand their reactions. It is obvious when an animal is distressed or in pain, when an animal is scared or uncomfortable and then you know something is wrong. It is obvious too when an animal is happy and feeling good, when an animal is comfortable and wants something. This applies to sex too. If the sex is unwilling, painful, distressful or hurts the animal in any way I’m against it. But if the animal is comfortable, seeks it, it’s ok and doesn’t get hurt I don’t see the problem. For example (*cw: for explicit stuff*, maybe?), if a girl puts some jam on her genitals and let a dog licks it to get sexual pleasure, where is the harm? Or a dog topping a man, how does the dog suffer? (*end of cw*) Also, we have to remember that some animals are proved as being specially anthropophilics (dolphins and dogs are prominent examples), that means they are sexually aroused by humans. They want to have sex with humans. And interspecies sex is not that weird either (and we get hybrids from it).

So, the summary here, I think if the sex is not harmful for the animal (not physically, not emotionally, like causing pain, distress, angst, fear…) and the animal shows signs around it of being comfortable and fine then it isn’t wrong. Of course, the person would be the responsable and would need to pay attention to all the animal’s reactions and notify any problem and stop it that happens. But doing properly, I don’t think it is wrong. (Ah, and if someone’s argument is ‘but sex with humans/like that is inherently traumatic for the animal! They are rape victims in every case and they suffer trauma for it’ I have to say that no, animals don’t have that conception about sex that humans have. They are animals. They don’t have the psychological development to have beliefs about sex or cultural conceptions of it. That is purely a human thing).

Well, these are mostly my thoughts, if you want to ask something else or need I make something clear or any other thing, just go for it, I’m always happy to reply :)

Tags: #anon #asks #morals #zoophilia #necrophilia #opinions #answer #me #sex positivity

Wuli #fundie freerepublic.com

Are their human cells - other than in some occasional hermaphrodite other rare humans that have sex chromosomes that don’t fit the normal XX or XY pattern - no. And even when there are chromosome abnormalities such as XXY, XXXY, ect, the presence of the Y chromosome generally resolves the biological and physical gender to male, and without to female.

So their own biological circumstances of abnormal chromosome patterns and ambiguous genitalia, but again the sex chromosomes, X and Y, and the presence of absence of the Y it the vast majority sets the gender. None of that is about “transgenderism” which is not about ambiguous or abnormal sexual differentiation in the nucleus of every human cell in someone’s body, which does not differ in the cells of the same body.

No, transgenderism is a mental problem, an obsessions continued and entertained to the point where the individual has an identity dysphoria - rejection of the actual gender identity there body has. To use the rare occasions of hermaphrodites and even rarer abnormal combinations of the sex chromosomes as templates for what gender means to the vast population, is intellectually dishonest. It suggests that merely since such differences do appear, naturally, that normal gender is therefor “fluid” and that is simply a lie. It is not “fluid” if you were not born with BIOLOGICAL conditions that somehow make BIOLOGICAL gender “ambiguous”.

There is no “biological” ambiguity with transgenders. Just a mental problem. Their bodies have nothing “wrong” that needs “fixing”. They need professional help to stop satisfy the identity dysphoria that has taken hold in the mind. Yes, the easy solution, just like an addiction, is to satisfy the obsession, just like it is to satisfy and addiction, instead of mounting the struggle to fight it.

Yes, that fight is a struggle and there is hurt and sadness and anxiety in it. But, we act against obsessions and addictions because they represent the mind literally lying to us, convincing us that something that is wrong is something we need.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

The 3 Purposes Of Women

When it comes to women, nature bestowed only three roles upon them: reproductive sex, child rearing, and homemaking. A woman who engages in behaviors outside of those three roles is going against her biology and will experience suffering as a result.

Reproductive sex

The primary function of sex is to reproduce. The secondary function of sex is to experience pleasure. Through universal abortion and birth control, we have demoted the function of sex to one solely of pleasure. Sex is now a sterile act between two individuals who are often under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who were paired based on emotional short-term reasons that often come down to entertainment or boredom.

Child rearing

The reason that women excel in child rearing is because their brains are similar to that of a young child. For proof of this, you only need to witness an adult woman interacting with children. While a man may be stiff and awkward with the creature, a woman instantly adopts a child-like personality and voice to create a genuine bond. It’s through this bond that a woman can better sense a child’s needs and communicate with it.

Homemaking

Women have a unique taste and aesthetic that transforms any dwelling from a functional unit to a “home.” They add comfort, warmth, and cleanliness while men tend to focus on more utilitarian and practical aspects of living. A family home that has been touched by feminine hands is one where its occupants will be more comfortable.

A woman who is engaging in sex with a multitude of partners without any concern for reproduction, and who has less interest in child rearing than in surrogate activities like working in an office, dancing in nightclubs, or playing trivia games on her electronic device, and who is unwilling or unable to make a home comfortable for her family is going against her purpose. This may remind you of women you know.

Can happiness be achieved by going against your biology?

The easiest way to answer that question is to examine the mental health of those individuals who have firmly denied their biology: homosexuals and transsexuals. Studies clearly show that these groups are the most mentally ill and suicidal out of the population (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Denying your genetic makeup entails the highest risk of being a loon.

A woman cannot be happy or even content with life if she elects not to reproduce, raise children, or be a homemaker. Is it a coincidence that modern civilization is actively encouraging women to stray far from these three biological roles? Our current society is inverted, as those who rule over us have determined that it’s better to redirect feminine energy into something that benefits their own selfish ends.

Not only are women suffering more than in the past but men are suffering too, because they are forced to interact with broken women who deny their biology. Until we have women embracing their biological roles, this needless suffering will continue.

Anna Diehl #fundie 924jeremiah.wordpress.com

There’s no denying the fact that God intentionally withholds information from us. Instead of defending specific decisions, He justifies all of His behavior with the general claim that He is good and perfect and does all things well. God operates on a “the ends justifies the means” basis, and He is the only One authorized to do so. Human beings are not allowed to operate by this principle—if we attempt to do wrong to do right, we are held morally accountable for the wrong. We are bound to the laws God makes, while He is bound by nothing and does whatever He pleases. Where then is our assurance that God won’t run amuck and cross some inappropriate line? God’s perfect character is the only guarantee He offers. Because God is good, everything He does and allows is good by definition.

We might not like the way God operates, but we can’t do anything to change it. Being close to God requires absolute submission to His authority and that means accepting all of His decisions. God is quite clear in the Bible that He constantly does wrong to do right. During the graphic fall of Jerusalem, He called a sadistic army in to rape, torture and kill His chosen people and then He declared the whole thing to be a display of righteous judgment. We struggle with this because we don’t see any positive outcome, we only see the horror in the moment. Yet when we read about another Man getting publicly degraded and tortured to death, tears of gratitude well in our eyes for we know His death brought about the salvation of the entire human race. The cross is rare in that it is one case in which God really gives us a bigger glimpse of the good end result of His using evil. As much as we hate the suffering Jesus had to endure, we would never wish it away for it was that very suffering which saved us. When we compare the suffering of the cross to the good that came out of it, it’s obvious which is greater. And so it is every time God employs evil methods in this world: the final resulting good is exponentially greater. At some point, we must take His word for this.

Lance Welton #racist vdare.com

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Greg Johnson #fundie counter-currents.com

Confessions of a “Transphobic”

I never had a chance to read Gavin McInnes’ article “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural,” since Thought Catalog has taken it down. (But we can read outraged reactions from around the web.) McInnes has apparently been hounded out of his job as chief creative officer of something called Rooster, which I am too unhip to have heard of.

I am sure McInnes’ article is somewhere out there on the web, and I am sure someone will send it to me eventually. But I don’t want to read it until I have written my own take on the subject matter. Frankly, I am jealous that McInnes wrote on this first, since I have been kicking a similar idea around for years. I did not write it out, because up until May of this year, I was living in San Francisco, and the trannies there are far scarier than the antifa. Like the lesbians of Berkeley, they can reduce a man to a skeleton in under 30 seconds.

“Transphobia,” like “homophobia,” is an inherently dishonest term. “Phobia” derives from the Greek “phobos” or fear, and phobias are by definition irrational fears. But transphobia is neither irrational nor a fear. It is an emotion, of course. But it is a completely natural, normal, and healthy emotion. Which is as rational as any emotion gets.

Specifically, transphobia is a perfectly natural feeling of revulsion at men who have their dicks chopped off and women who have their tits chopped off — among many, many other things — in order to “change their sex.” Of course, one’s sex is determined by one’s chromosomes, so “sex changes” do not change anyone’s sex. They merely transform a man into a butchered simulacrum of a woman, or a woman into a butchered simulacrum of a man.

Again: sex-changes are futile, because one cannot change one’s chromosomes. One can only butcher and drug one’s body to look like someone of the opposite sex. And when many transsexuals finally awaken to the horror and futility of what they have done, they kill themselves.

The revulsion I feel toward transsexuals is not based on “meanness” or “ignorance” as liberals would have it, but on sympathy. When a healthy person sees another in pain, he recoils in horror because he feels the pain of others (which is the literal meaning of sympathy — suffering with others). I love my penis, and the thought of losing it fills me with horror. And when one sees self-inflicted suffering, it is natural to feel loathing and anger as well, because it didn’t have to happen. And by hurting themselves, self-mutilators hurt the rest of us as well. I am a bit overly sensitive, perhaps, but I even cringe at the sight of tattoos, partly in pity, partly in revulsion.

The kind of people who don’t feel sympathy and horror at radical forms of self-mutilation are, frankly, sick. They lack elementary sympathy for the pain of others. They may even take pleasure in the pain of others. Or, like most liberals who champion trannies as the next great minority crusade, they take pleasure in the discomfort that sexual mutilation causes “those people” — conservatives, Christians, rednecks, hicks, etc. — the hated others of the liberal loveys. Trannies and other freaks are just tools in the culture war. But in this case, the enemy is not the Right side of the culture, but nature herself — mental and moral health, which apparently drives today’s Left to paroxysms of sadistic rage. Because they’re evil, of course.

After a healthy person feels sympathy-based revulsion at sexual self-mutilation, the first thought that pops into his mind is, “These people must be crazy.” But let’s just withhold judgment for a bit and ask the transsexuals themselves what they think. Interestingly enough, they too claim to suffer from mental illness, namely the feeling of being a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. So the real issue here is not whether these poor people suffer from a mental illness — they admit it themselves — but rather what sort of treatment they should seek. Self-mutilation is not the cure for mental illness, but just another symptom.

If a man thinks he is Jesus, we do not crucify him. If a man thinks he is Napoleon, we do not crown him emperor. If a man thinks he is a woman, why then should we go along with it? Shouldn’t we try to help him get over his desire to mutilate himself, just as we help anorexics to stop starving themselves, and cutters to stop carving themselves?

And since when is it consistent with the Hippocratic oath — the “First, Do No Harm” part — for doctors to mutilate healthy bodies and turn them into parodies of the opposite sex?

What would I do with transsexuals? First of all, let me say that I have actually known two people who have embarked upon this path. To all appearances they were good-looking heterosexual men who dropped out of sight and then re-emerged as not-so-good-looking women. But all their likable traits and shared interests were disconcertingly intact. So transsexuals are not some abstract other. They are very real to me. This is me being real: having a real reaction to real people undergoing real, drastic transformations. I feel compassion and revulsion toward the transsexuals themselves, and righteous indignation toward the people who enable and exploit them.

So what would my policy be?

First, I would simply say “No.” Every decent society should provide healthcare for the mentally and physically ill. When people are mentally ill, they cannot make responsible decisions for themselves. Thus a decent society needs to exercise paternalism in the interests of the mentally ill. And the primary interest of the mentally ill is to get better, to triumph over their delusions, not to be humored in them, much less aided in radical and futile forms of self-mutilation. Again, self-mutilation is a symptom of mental illness, not a cure. Compassion and responsibility require that we simply say “no.”

Second, the mutilation of healthy bodies is contrary to the proper aim of the medical profession. Thus every doctor who performs sex change operations should be stripped of his license and drummed out of the profession. Sex changes should be outlawed, and any doctor who performs them should be jailed. Indeed, the same treatment should be meted out to doctors who perform any and all forms of genital mutilation.

Third, we must keep a sense of perspective. I don’t hate transsexuals. (I am rather proud of my book Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, so if I did hate them, I would have no problem admitting it.) Transsexuals aren’t evil or threatening. They are not “sinners.” They are simply sick people who should be cared for, not hated or harmed.

The truly evil people are those who exploit these unfortunates for gain: the doctors who mutilate them for money and the Leftists who use them as the latest totems of diversity, progress, and enlightenment — thereby revealing that their true enemy is not injustice or inequality but nature, health, and sanity. Craziest of all, though, is a society that consents to be ruled by such monsters.

If you think you might know anything about who wrote this

Please alert the authorities. I'm not joking.

Matt #sexist #psycho incelocalypse.ru

[Life Fuel] Found an empty building near the edge of my town

I found a fully abandoned storage room near the edge of my town, I took a drive at 4 AM to it to bring rope to it, most of it being metal rope with spikes on it

As I was driving I got anxious someone would see me and question what I am doing, the more I drove the more anxious I got but luckily there was no one to see me, when I got there I saw there is nothing to tie a victim to so I will have to bring a chair there and tie them to it, preferably a dentist chair

The building isn't very far away from the road but still far away enough to be safe for relentlessly torturing a femoid since no one will check it and people walking on that road won't see anything suspicious, so after I bring my "torture equipment" I shouldn't need anything else, to be perfectly honest I am both anxious and exited to see a real life experiment on how someone who previously lived a privileged life reacts to months (or years, If I choose so) of unrelenting torture, sleep deprivation, isolation from anyone other than the torturer and boredom of just being tied up and looking at a wall, as for kidnapping the victims I can knock them out when they are sleeping with a heavy wrench, muzzle them and put them in my car

If a femoid refuses to eat/drink so they can die as soon as possible, I will dry drown her, rape her and anything necessary to prolong her suffering, as well as force feed her even tho I don't have the devices that were used for that in prisons

"I have lived a life of pain and suffering, now it's time to bring that pain to the people who actually deserve it" - ER

Pumkin #psycho #pedo incels.co

[News] Foids will do anything. Adam Savage get's #MeToo'd by his sister.

This is funny and sad at the same time
1) Kids getting anal raped isn't even going to hurt if it's another kid. Talking physics here. Nobody is thinking Adam had a huge cock at 10. His little pecker is going inside a little anus. It fits perfectly. Kids are made to have huge shits that are bigger than a dick and also kids regularly get their temperature checked anally. It's usual for kids to play with their anus as well. There was literally no pain from what he did

2) Anally raped for multiple years? Bitch please!! You know she enjoyed it or at the very least it wasn't a great discomfort to her and she probably feigned annoyance. I can see her watching Saturday morning cartoons when Adam comes up from behind her and lowers her bottoms then goes right into her anus. She just keeps watching cartoons as she is getting drilled into the bedroom floor until Mom calls for them to come and get breakfast. Then she picks up her bottoms, adjusts her panties, then goes WITH A SMILE to go eat breakfast with her family. At no point was she hurt. It was just something to do. Something to pass the time. Same with married women that don't 'feel' like having sex. They just go starfish and let the man do what he needs to so he can get it out of his system and do normal things.

TKKMfamily #fundie amazon.com

[from a review of "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains"]


The title of this book is a little bit misleading. This guys claims that he was formerly an "apologist." Unfortunately, having a head full of knowledge, answers, etc. does not an apologist make. A true apologist is able to look at the philosophy of atheism (or any other competing worldview/religion) and recognize the internal flaws and inconsistencies of the philosophy.
Atheism is full of poor philosophy (begging the question, special pleading, etc.), and a true apologist would not only be familiar with the objections presented toward Christianity by atheism, but would have an understanding of why the atheist's arguments are flawed. Being familiar with their arguments is worthless if a theologian is unable to explain the internal inconsistencies and poor philosophy.
On to the substance of the book...
As stated in many of the comments here, this is just a guy who threw a temper tantrum when things didn't turn out the way he wanted them to. He blames God for the way God's people act as a result.

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Rape

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. What women have that men don't is of course sex. Disclaimer: Rape is bad and shouldn't be done.

Female perspective of rape
Rape is bad and shouldn't be done. However, feminist females expand the definition of "rape" as being any sex they later regret. It is not so much that they will lie and say you raped them when they know you didn't. If you have sex and then they regret it for some reason, such as that you are of lower perceived status than they thought, then as far as they are concerned you "raped" them. The very same physical actions on the man's part could see him categorized either as a great lover or rapist depending on the later claimed emotional response of the female. Since it is not possible to objectively examine an emotional response, it follows that most rape cases are now prosecuted on spectral evidence, similar to the Salem witch trials.

Rape Fantasies
While females don't want to be raped, females (most of which aren't feminist) generally like manly men who take charge of them and do what they want to them, not feminine men begging them for sex and asking their permission nanosecond by nanosecond. Hence most erotic fiction aimed at females contains rape or quasi-rape scenes and females getting off on being raped is well known in criminology circles. While rape fantasies could be due to child abuse or sexual harassment, men also get abused and sexually harassed, but rape fantasies are gendered.

One plausible explanation of modern rape fantasies is that too many women combine their preference for sexual submission with ridiculous neuroses they have about men having to fix their economic problems. See 50 Shades of Grey becoming the best selling book ever after the financial crash. A story women masturbated to globally about a poor woman entering a sex slavery contract to pay for college.

Other more plausible explanations for rape fantasies in general would be a self-reinforcing gluttony on their natural preference for sexual submission through degeneracy like BDSM, and a total lack of assertiveness and an abundance of natural narcissism which causes their sexual fantasies to be receptive rather than active and extremely self-centered.

[...]

Rape and Incels
While incels do not support rape outside a vocal minority of reprehensible people (Submitter's note: Links to a certain special fiend of ours)... Involuntary celibacy is much more painful for men than rape is for women. Deprivation is much more agonizing than discomfort. This does not excuse rapists, but it is something women don't understand.

eugene c. chavez #fundie greenspun.com

[On euthanasia for the terminally ill who suffer dire pain]

You lose. Suffering is temporary, God is eternal. You won't suffer eternally, Winston, if you love God. But suffering will be eternal for those who oppose God. No one can euthanize a soul in torment. It's just a question of a few years, and we'll all find out for ourselves. --Eternal life; or eternal pain.

William Lane Craig #fundie reasonablefaith.org

So Christian theologians of all stripes have to face the challenge posed by animal pain. Here recent studies in biology have provided surprising, new insights into this old problem. In his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, Michael Murray distinguishes three levels in an ascending pain hierarchy (read from the bottom up):

Level 3: a second order awareness that one is oneself experiencing (2).

Level 2: a first order, subjective experience of pain.

Level 1: information-bearing neural states produced by noxious stimuli resulting in aversive behavior.

Spiders and insects—the sort of creatures most exhibiting the kinds of behavior mentioned by Ayala—experience (1). But there's no reason at all to attribute (2) to such creatures. It's plausible that they aren't sentient beings at all with some sort of subjective, interior life. That sort of experience plausibly does not arise until one gets to the level of vertebrates in the animal kingdom. But even though animals like dogs, cats, and horses experience pain, nevertheless the evidence is that they do not experience level (3), the awareness that they are in pain. For the awareness that one is oneself in pain requires self-awareness, which is centered in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain—a section of the brain which is missing in all animals except for the humanoid primates. Thus, amazingly, even though animals may experience pain, they are not aware of being in pain. God in His mercy has apparently spared animals the awareness of pain. This is a tremendous comfort to us pet owners. For even though your dog or cat may be in pain, it really isn't aware of it and so doesn't suffer as you would if you were in pain.

Silentscream #fundie neoseeker.com

Rape victims are an entirely different case. Rape is a very horrible thing and no female should ever experience that kind of tragedy, but if a girl ends up getting raped, and she gets pregnant, why abort the baby? In doing so, it only makes the mother selfish because she would only be thinking of herself. Think about it this way: rape victims don't truly recover. Ask any woman who has had it happen to them; they tend to forget about it as the years go by, and they learn to live with the past, but in the back of their minds they are still grieving over what happened to them. Even if the mother aborts the child, she is still at risk of being traumatized for life. Having the child there would play no significant role in the mothers depression because she is still going to cry, and scream, and rant every chance they get. It's not the baby's fault so it should not suffer.


[Many reasons. Maybe she doesn't want to constantly be reminded of the rape every time she looks at the child. Maybe she doesn't want a child to someone who has violated her. Maybe she doesn't want to go through nine months of pain, only to give birth to a child that wasn't made through love.

If a woman is raped, then I think they have every right to be 'selfish' just for once and get rid of the baby, if they choose to. What's wrong with being selfish every once in a while?

You say that she will still go through all the pain, suffering and depression... But she will eventually get on with life. Having a baby as a constant reminder of it isn't exactly going to help with the moving on.]


You bring up some good points, but we don't live in disney. We're not all made through love. I wasn't expected, many of my friends have told me they weren't expected either. The fact of the matter is, no child should suffer because of the crimes committed by any of these sick freaks. It's like killing another human being because someone related to them broke the law. Everyone deserves to be selfish every once in a while, but not when they are deciding whether a baby should live or not. At least out it up for adoption.

[So a mother should have a child ... because life isn't like Disney? Well those rape-victim mothers can sure as hell try to make their lives a little bit happier, at least!

A child is hardly suffering if it's being aborted a few weeks into the pregnancy. Maybe if you kill the child when it's five years old for having a sick father THEN it would be cruel.
A mother IS suffering by keeping a baby she does not want.

And put it up for adoption? So she still goes through nine months of pain, only to give birth to a child that wasn't made through love, then she gives it away?
Why should a rape victim have to go through so much more worry (pregnancy, adoption, etc) when there's a much easier option?]

Again, not everyone is made through love. I don't care if the baby is 5 years old or 5 minutes old, it's still a living, breathing, developing human being. It feels pain. Inside the mother it feeds off of everything she puts in her body in order to live. Killing the baby is not going to help the mother in her depression, if anything, it would just add to it when she realizes she killed her first child.


Giving birth is a natural occurrence. Actually, a normal child birth is not considered an emergency UNLESS there presents complications. Moreover, life-threatening complications for the mother could be detected at an early stage and if they are then by all means abort the baby. We don't want the mother to die. But in the natural process of giving birth. the mother goes through pain, but it's does not affect her life-span. Your whole argument is based on solely the fact that the mother was forced into the birth, which itself is wrong and I do see your point but we're getting into something much greater when we talk about whether the baby should be aborted because you are snatching them of life. My point is simple, I've said it once and I'll say it again, the mother WILL STILL go through pain and suffering even if the child is killed. If she doesn't want to see her kid, then put it up for adoption. Don't take its life because of a crime it did not commit.

itsjustnotfairwhy & Looks-are-everything #sexist reddit.com

Re: The psychological pain a manlet has to go though is worse than the psychological pain a rape victim goes though

yeh, it's fucking over if you're not six foot or taller
you are LITERALLY invisible towards women, and everyone gives you a smug look when walking past you because of your short stature
nobody will respect you and being confident will only make you look like a major fool
it's over man, it's NOT FUCKING FAAAAIR

(I'm 5'6" and have been sexually active since I was 15 and am in a wonderful relationship with the girl I love and who loves me back. Being shorts not that big of a deal.)

You're her supplemental income, there is no such thing as love for a 5'6 man, stop coping. She's banging a male model on the side

justanotherrabbitkin #sexist justanotherrabbitkin.tumblr.com

Man on woman sex is never consentual

Everyone knows that 1 in 4 women are raped every day, but the sad truth is that it’s really every woman that has sex with a man is rape. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be attracted to a man. Either the woman says no, but the monster does it anyways, or the poor thing is pressured into it. So you may joke about being a rape baby, but unless the birth was due to egg donation or cum donation, you WERE a rape baby. And you wonder why divorce rates are so high. It’s a terrifying thought that vast majority of men insist on being attracted to poor women, whether cisgendred or transgendered, and only  poor women, whether cisgendred or transgendered. It would be so easy for them to just start inserting their terrifying sex rods into other men (consentual or not because they deserve a taste of their own medicine), but no, apparently they can’t help being aroused by something (bullshit). And you wonder why feminism is needed. God help the women.

Justanotherrabbitkin out.

#women #feminist #feminism #woman #voice #rape #rapist #politics #rant #rants #men #consent #consentual #sex #rabbitkin #rabbit kin #otherkin #kin #equality #help us #men are evil

Unknown author #fundie en.minghui.org

As Dafa practitioners, we do not belong within the Three Realms, and this human world should not have any effect on us. Human notions may however sometimes create additional difficulties for cultivators. I would like to share some of my personal experiences in breaking though human notions. I woke up one morning to a swollen and painful throat. I instantly attributed these symptoms to certain foods I had eaten the day before, and a few glasses of water effectively relieved my sore throat. My symptoms recurred the following morning, and two glasses of water again helped to relieve the discomfort and pain. On the third day however, the symptoms refused to go away no matter how much water I consumed.

That evening, while contemplating why the water was not working, the word “human notion” suddenly appeared in my mind. I pondered over these two words before suddenly realizing that I had been treating the issue like an ordinary person. I was believing that my condition was an illness and viewing water as a medication to relieve the symptoms. Practitioners should strive to think otherwise, and I resolved to eliminate this human notion. This realization prompted me to search inward for the cause of my sore throat. A few days prior, I had a conflict with my wife. Though I refrained from arguing with her, I was upset, and the resentful, accusatory, and hostile thoughts I harbored against her were unbecoming of a cultivator. My sore throat disappeared as soon as I recognized and eliminated this shortcoming.

I had suffered from severe backaches for a long time. The pain would flare up in the midst of my daily activities, forcing me to lie down for a while to relieve the aching. As cultivators should be free of illnesses, I started searching within myself for the root cause. Although I uncovered a number of attachments, none resolved the pain. One morning, while eating white melon seeds, I suddenly recalled why I had started eating them regularly. Several years ago, I had hit upon the notion that my backaches were due to a calcium deficiency. As white melon seeds were supposed to be rich in calcium, I had developed the habit of eating them regularly. Over time I had forgotten the reason for this habit, but the idea was certainly based on an everyday person’s notion.

This revelation led me to recall the circumstances under which my back had been injured. Seven or eight years ago, while attempting to cross a blocked-off part of a street, I was forced to climb through a gap in the wall and jump down to reach the adjourning street below. I landed abruptly and begged Master for help. Master helped banish my pain and I was able to stand and continue my journey. If I had immediately rejected the human notion of sustaining an injury, I would not have needed to seek Master’s help. My backache disappeared after this attachment was eliminated.

I used to suffer from severe knee pain, which forced me to walk slowly. Despite searching within, I was unable to discern the reason I had this condition. One morning while practicing the exercises, my leg suddenly went limp and I fell to the ground. I knew that Master was adjusting my body and immediately thanked Master before standing up and continuing the exercises. However my knee continued to hurt even after I completed the exercises. I was puzzled. Master had adjusted my body, why did the pain remain? A phrase from Master's teachings suddenly surfaced in my mind,

“When a tribulation arrives, if you, a disciple, can truly maintain an unshakable calm or be determined to meet different requirements at different levels, this should be sufficient for you to pass the test. If it continues endlessly and if there do not exist other problems in your xinxing or conduct, it must be that the evil demons are capitalizing on the weak spots caused by your lack of control.” (“Expounding on the Fa” from Essentials for Further Advancement)

The word “conduct” continued reverberating in my head. I then realized that this referred to the way I had treated this tribulation. I deliberately adopted a slower walking pace to accommodate my knee pain. By doing so, I was acknowledging the existence of the condition, even though Master had already eliminated the cause. I started walking briskly and found that my knee pain vanished.

Because of our special environment and circumstances, attachments to various fears easily surface. In such situations, acknowledging the fears is equivalent to treating oneself as an ordinary person. These fears occasionally strike me when I run into patrolling police officers, or when a random passerby walks behind me. My sense of fear and danger is heightened, even though there is nothing to be suspicious or fearful about. My irrational fears came to a head one day when I started experiencing debilitating fear while walking around my own house. This continued for a few days until I was seriously contemplating selling my own home. At this point, I stumbled across a paragraph in Zhuan Falun (Lecture Six, Cultivation Insanity):

“With this fear, it may indeed bring this person some trouble. Once you are scared, it is an attachment of fear. Isn’t that an attachment? Once your attachment surfaces, shouldn’t it be removed? The more you fear it, the more it will appear like a sickness. This attachment of yours must be removed. You will be made to learn from this lesson so that you can remove your fear and improve.”

Upon analyzing my previous experiences I realized there had been nothing to fear. During my first encounter, I had let my human notions take over and this increased my sense of paranoia, which fanned the flames of suspicion and fear. Master had taken mercy on me and pointed out this paragraph so I could realize and effectively eliminate this attachment.

Cambria Will Not Yield #racist cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com

The Ebola “crisis” is not a new crisis; it is part and parcel of the liberals’ assault on the white race. Just as whites are forbidden to protect themselves against the deadly assaults of black barbarians roaming the nations of Europe, so are whites forbidden to protect themselves from the deadly black Ebola virus. This assault on the white race, the Christ-bearing race, is wrong from the standpoint of the Christian faith, but it also goes against the liberals’ stated faith, which is to love the negro with their whole heart, mind, and soul. If they truly loved the negro they would have taken the trouble to know him. And then they would have kept him in captivity and not left him to his own devices. “Because of slavery,” the CNN reporter said. Yes, because of slavery the black man actually had a longer life expectancy than the white coalminers in the North, and he was made to stay with his family instead of roaming the streets, killing and raping white people and forming umpteen polygamous families.

What has Africa become since the liberals of the West “gave Africa back to the blacks”? In Africa: A Political Travelogue, Thomas Molnar points out that the most poorly developed, diseased-ridden, poverty-stricken nations in Africa were the ones that were outside white control and white influence. Independence? What is independence for the blacks? It is the absence of white restraint, which means blacks are free to destroy themselves and whites through murder, mayhem, and hideous diseases, which are the result of their desire for unbridled murder, mayhem, sexual depravities, and bestiality. If the white man does not control the blacks, they will destroy themselves and the white race. That is the reality that goes against the liberals’ faith. It is their utopian belief that once the black man is free from white restraint, he will “astound the world.” So said the late John Paul II who was not the first nor the last negro worshipper to occupy the chair of St. Peter. Shouldn’t a “Christian” whose Lord said, “I am the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” be interested in the truth? Yes, a Christian should be interested in the truth, but a utopian needn’t be interested in the truth at all. He sees everything in the light of his utopian vision. Hence the great divide between the anti-Christian Christian clergymen and the Christian Europeans. The former have exchanged Christ for the negro, and the latter are still connected, through their people, to the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

The Ebola crisis in Africa and its spread to the West is simply another hideous manifestation of the liberals’ revolt against the God of Christian Europe. In old Europe men and women suffered and died as they do today, as they have always done since Adam and Eve disobeyed God. But the men and women of old Europe, of Christian Europe, did not suffer and die without hope and without experiencing genuine moments of joy in between the suffering and dying. Because they had faith in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, they had hope that the joyous white moments here on earth were a prefiguration of an eternal life where there are only white moments and no more suffering and death.

The liberals’, in their desire to create a kingdom of god on earth, the negro god, have created a world without white moments. There is no joy amidst the pain and suffering, because there is no hope that there is a Savior who will redeem our pain and suffering and turn our white moments on earth into eternal white moments in heaven. A liberal cannot have white moments, because he has lost all contact with the God who lives in and through His people. The liberal can sneer at everything decent and honorable, which gives him a certain perverse pleasure, but it is nothing akin to joy. And the liberal can sing hymns of praise to his black gods who will rule over a new Babylon consisting of midnight trysts under the palms and endless wine and cheese parties. Is that not paradise? No, it is not. There is a certain unhallowed thrill in tasting previously forbidden fruits, but we have already seen how quickly forbidden fruits become bitter ones. The liberal has written his own death sentence, and like his devilish master, who also wrote his own death sentence, he is bereft of all joy here on earth; he’ll never have white moments of grace, and he is without any hope for the next world. Was Dickens so wrong for feeling that a Christ-centered non-utopian Europe was still better than Satan’s brave new world of sneering death heads?

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

“How pathetic to believe that a personal God would intervene in a school test while letting children in Africa starve and die of Ebola.” Rich Latta

Here are ten things to do to be an atheist:

1. Deny the Book of Genesis--which explains that we live in a “fallen” creation—evidenced by disease, pain, suffering and death. Then complain about how God (who you believe doesn't exist) allows disease, pain, suffering and death.

2. Expect God to feed starving children, while humanity spend trillions of dollars (that could feed starving children) on war, porn, gambling, entertainment, etc., as well as on space exploration--trying to find out what the Book of Genesis already tells us.

3. Ignore the Bible’s instructions on how to contain infectious diseases through quarantine, and complain when it spreads.

4. Believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything, and then crown yourself intelligent for believing the impossible.

5. Believe the insanity that nothing is actually something. Then give yourself another intelligence crown.

6. Believe atheist sites that tell you that Einstein, Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain and many others were atheists when in truth none of them were so foolish as to embrace atheism.

7. Regularly have fellowship with other atheists to strengthen your faith and to tell each other that you have no beliefs.

8. Go to Christian sites and push your narrow-minded and unthinking views on strangers, as though you were some sort of religious zealot.

9. Sin your wicked little heart out and “enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season,” because in your own mind you have dealt with God and the consequences of sin.

10. Don’t read the book, “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think.”

caamib #fundie caamib.wordpress.com

Four common types of hilarious fallacies liberal lunatics use to attack me

Posted on October 11, 2015 by caamib

Insane accusations against me, especially those made by immensely stubborn and mentally challenged haters, amount to roughly four things

1. Insane lies that have nothing to do with reality, like that I wanted the government to force women into sleeping when men with my former program was basically a dating service where everybody had the right to refuse everybody and this was plainly written (even by feminists). Or a lie I don’t believe mental illnesses exist or that I don’t believe in psychiatry at all. In fact, those acting like they don’t are the myriad of liberal lunatics who want to diagnose online despite them not being doctors and this, um, not being possible online in any  case, something any shrink would tell them. Ironically, these tools also claim therapy is a solution to any problem).

2.Claims I still have some problem because posts from said I did years ago. Like “He has penile insesitivity!” Umm, yeah, I had some when I just started having sex, jesus. Time goes by. Things change.

3. Claims that I am bad for having common sense ideas on things like consent. Ummm, you’re the bad ones here, willing to traumatize consenting kids with cops, lawyers and other vermin, while still believing you’re helping the poor child you’re traumatizing with your hostility towards sexuality of absolutely anybody but retarded sluts and sacred liberal groups like Muslims or blacks. Of course, a black or a Muslim raping a 2 month year-old is A-ok but a white guy sleeping with a willing 17 year-old girl is a criminal. Another example of this would be me considered bad for refusing to acknowledge that awful feminist trap of standing up for “victims of female-on-male rape”, when something like that can’t exist due to basic biology, namely sex being a female resource. Nonsense like the belief that women can rape men can only be created by over-socialization and indoctrination. It doesn’t exist in nature.

4. Interpretation of events that actually happened in light of liberal lunacy. A most common example of this is the claim I raped some women in 2012-2013 thought this never happened. In the first case it is a woman whose pic I posted on this blog in 2012 and who offered to have sex with me to take it down. Another is a woman who I told that I’ll call her in her home if she doesn’t have sex with me. This woman accepted only after asking to be given things. None of this is rape in my country or any country in the world. It is rape only in the demented minds of feminists, which would also mean some demented US/Canadian colleges or a portion of insane feminist prosecutors/judges. Nowhere else. One of these girls is laughing at my accusers, calling them mentally ill and calling me “her rapist” from time to time to mock these freaks. Insanity of this claim is even greater when we know women love to be beaten and raped and hate respect and consent. In patriarchy women want kisses. In feminism women want bullets. 

Hilarious. But so are the liberals. Mental patients wanting to put sane people in hospitals.

Ap0calypse #fundie incels.co

Actual incel definitions vs what society wants incel definitions to be

A surge of new guests and members are exploring incels.me recently, and I would like to take the time to clarify some of the confusion that has been going around, particularly about our definitions and ideology. Here are some words that are twisted by anti-unattractive male activists.

Incel
(society definition)-Hateful, violent, misogynistic male terrorist that is unable to get laid due to females around him being able to perceive his misogyny, creepiness, low confidence and bad personality automatically. They believe they deserve 10/10 females and that all women should be enslaved and have their rights taken away.
Example: You see that 10/10 6'4 male model that has sex 5 times a week? He is an incel since he says stuff that I disagree with online.

Cool Fact: According to their incel definition, it is just an anomaly that females are unable to detect bad personalities in tall/attractive males before entering abusive relationships with them. But lonely males on the internet that would actually make loyal partners are the problem.


Incel
(actual definition)-Any male who is unable to get laid due to his appearance and to a small degree, mental problems (autism, Aspergers, Actual Depression). Due to dating standards, genetics (mostly), and society, many males are unable to get laid due to their appearance. Problems like hair loss, short stature, poor eye shape, and overall facial structure are purely genetic, and have been proven to be the key factors in determining one's reproductive success. Males who are average/above average height with a decent face are not considered true incels since there will be females attracted purely to his appearance. Females cannot be considered incels due to how male biology functions. Due to their higher sex drive and other factors, males have a diverse amount of tastes in different types of women. Traits that would spell a death sentence for males will have hardly any negative effects on females. In a female viewpoint, they can consider themselves incel, but this is usually due to the fact that most men they see are invisible due to their height, face, or baldness; while tall and handsome men are the only men they desire. Since these tall handsome men are in high demand, they can by picky when choosing long term female partners and will discard so called femcels.
Example: You see that short, balding, unattractive male over there? He is an incel no matter what ideology he believes in.

Blackpill
(society definition)-"I will espouse misogyny and hatred towards all women"
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? Why do you want to enslave all women to be your sex slaves????


Blackpill
(actual definition)-"I can identify the importance of genetically controlled physical features in males, which determines their overall happiness, dating lives, and treatment by society due to overwhelming data and past/current abuse due my appearance. If you are considered below average looking in the society you live in, your life will be considerably harder."
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? I can see how your negative dating experience due to your short stature has impacted you life, I appreciate your viewpoint on the matter and wish you good luck.

Chad
(society definition)- Any male that is attractive to women due to his confidence, feminism and personality.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". Women only go out with me because they see my meek and submissive personality as a chance to use my money and resources while giving me sex once every two months. Most of my past relationships resulted in my partner leaving me for a more attractive male, but since I am a self identified feminist I will get laid much more than any male model.

Chad
(actual definition)- Any male that is attractive to the majority of women due to his physical appearance. Males with a nice jaw, good eye area, and tall stature typically fall into this category. After years of crucial dating and socializing experience due to their enhanced genetics in their youth, they are usually very confident and outgoing, and will live happy lives. Due to the halo effect, Chads can get away with things usual males cannot in social scenarios. Also, most chads don't even need confidence to get relationships since women will go out of their way to lock them down for a relationship.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". I am 6'4 with a handsome face, I can install tinder and get laid faster than you can possibly imagine. Tinder experiments have shown that I can say literally whatever the fuck I want and still have females be attracted to me.

Aetherapologist #fundie reddit.com

Consent means to express a willingness to be involved in whatever one is brought to be involved in. There is no stage during human development when a child cannot express willingness or unwillingness to be involved in whatever they are brought to be involved in. It's practically a young child's job to let you know if they don't like something. If you believe that sexual activity requires some "true" form if consent that children cannot give, well you're just wrong. In order to justify treating sexual activity as something that needs a special kind of consent, it would have to be true that it is importantly different from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in. And it would have to be importantly different in some way that makes a special form of consent a relevant concern.
Children are brought to be involved in a very lot of things against their will and they are rarely traumatized for it. Sexual activity possesses no feature that makes it importantly different from all the other things they do. I'm opposed to anyone of any age or level of mental fitness being forced against their will into doing anything, but apparently, doing so doesn't result in trauma in children. But as opposed as I am to making kids do anything they don't want, I'm infinitely more opposed to causing them life destroying psychological trauma. Cultural conditioning is the only reason why something inherently pleasurable would become traumatizing. Decriminalization of pedophile sexual activities is supremely important to combating that fear conditioning. If I believed decriminalizing sexual activity with minors wouldn't result in many parents and caretakers treating sexual activity the same as they treat all the other activities they do with their children and involve them in it even if they are unwilling, then I would be delusional. Hopefully, laws which punish non-consenting sex would still be enforced in those cases, but I wouldn't count on it. But since it's true that there is nothing inherently harmful about sex and that it is instead inherently pleasurable, then that means public hate and disgust for treating it as just another activity parents do with their kids is based in moral beliefs about sexual purity. If the laws aren't about concerns of children's well-being, then they have to be about the hate and disgust people feel for pedophiles and nothing else.
In order to justify treating sexual activity with children as uniquely different from all the other things parents and caretakers do with their children, there needs to be an argument for what that difference is and why it is relevant. Everything depends on being able to argue what that important difference is. If you can't say what they difference is, then you can't win the argument.

Lisa Andrews #sexist houstonchronicle.com

A Harris County jury will continue deliberating on Thursday about whether a former Baylor College of Medicine doctor raped a patient while she was hospitalized in 2013 for an acute asthma attack or he had consensual sex with the woman.

The jury mulled the question for more than six hours Wednesday before calling it a day at 9:20 p.m.

The woman reported to Ben Taub staff that she had been assaulted in the dark by an unknown physician, but it took two years for Houston police to file a criminal charge against the suspect. Investigators connected DNA from her rape kit to Dr. Shafeeq Sheikh, an internal medicine resident on call at Ben Taub that night who swiped his badge to enter her floor at least 12 times.

The 32-year-old woman, who has suffered from asthma since she was 8, told jurors this week the attack derailed her life and marriage. The woman was identified as Laura in a series of Lisa Falkenberg's columns about the incident. The Chronicle does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.

Sheikh lost his job and had his license revoked in 2015 by the Texas Board based on the finding that he posed “a continuing threat to public welfare.” The following year a Harris County judge cleared Ben Taub and Baylor of liability in a civil lawsuit brought by the patient.

Defense lawyers at the eight-day trial introduced evidence about the woman’s career as an actress and model, noting that she showed off her cleavage and rear end in what they posited were sexually suggestive online ads. DNA evidence indicated she had sex with her husband her first night at the hospital, which meant she wasn’t so debilitated, they said.

Their client, a father of four, certainly breached the Hippocratic oath and his marriage vows, his lawyers said. But they contend the patient seduced the doctor and reported the “wild” rape story to make her husband jealous and make money off a civil lawsuit.

[...]

“He made a mistake, but he didn’t sexually assault her,” attorney Lisa Andrews said in her closing argument, pointing to her 46-year-old client. “Here we have this Latina woman with her fake boobs that came onto that little nerdy middle-aged guy, and he lost his mind.”

Total Imbecile #sexist #psycho incels.co

[RageFuel] The audacity of people on r/DACA

Sometimes I browse subs like r/povertyfinance or r/DACA to read about people who have it worse than me and feel better about myself and occasionally I get reminded that unless theyre also incel they really dont For example take this post on r/DACA:

Is anyone else exhausted to the point where they wonder why life is worth living when the government they work so hard to contribute good things for thinks of you as a deplorable item? I don't think people ever fully understand unless they're in our shoes the kind of pain and suffering we go through just to try to make a living while being in limbo. Even if it's a United States problem, I can't fathom how I can keep being alive in a world where people can classify others differently based on being brought to this country without a choice. Idk how many of us go day to day masking how we really feel just to get by but there has to be someone else who feels the same. I feel so alone. It's so selfish to say as I have a loving wife who would die for me and a decent life with an amazing job yet it's just gotten to me to the point where I feel like why do I bother? Life shouldn't have to be like this, the internal suffering is too much, I know things change but why does it have to be this big a deal in the first place? Why does life with daca feel like a punishment? I don't know how much more of the uncertainty I can take, it hurts. It really really really hurts

This post legit sent me flying into a rage Imagine having a wife who loves you and youre complaining about life and how lonely and unfair it is and asking if its worth it just because, get this, youre not a citizen of some rando country JFL Id gladly move to any shithole if I could live with a gf who loves me there, LOL @ money, LOL @ legal status, LOL @ anything else mattering but sex and love Materialistic and vapid reddit cucks, FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Anonymous Gossiper #conspiracy givemegossip.com

History today asks the question
Why nobody in the middle ages noticed either avery
Or Stonehenge until a one man did.
In the whole of the roman histories no roman historian gives mention of it
And in John Aubrey's own time no one was aware of it.
He is famous for discovering it, literally discovering it.
In light of the above evidence of photo fraud and clear evidence of first construction in the 1950's from a empty very flat surfaced cleared area,
Isnt it also suspicious that it was only in the 1970's John Aubrey and his work was given any acclaim whatsoever, before this he was discarded and considered a nutter into psychic phenomena inaccurate biographies, and "folklorist"
Why was it that he was suddenly brought out as a great scholar in the 1970's , with his published works fallen into obscurity and with accusations of his own works changed by his fellows, how can we in fact trust anything he purportedly wrote?

[link to www.historytoday.com]

Is John aubrey The Man who discovered stone henge A reliable SOLE source for the existence of an old stone henge??
He was the first source or something nobody previous to him had ever noticed!
Of was he even a source at all?
After all, it was only the 1970's after what we know was the real building of stone henge in the 50's that his name was dug up and his alleged work of "discovering" out of the obscurity and the supposed myths of England ,the great unmissable stonehenge henge that the romans didn't even notice even though they camped near there, that Aubrey was made publicly known as the first archeologist and discover of the unmissable Stonehenge that nobody noticed except for myth stories that could have been forged into older histories, or merlin making stones fly out of Ireland!
lol

What some who knew him well says of his character

"a shiftless person, roving and magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than crased. And being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and misinformations, which would sometimes guid him into the paths of error".

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Such a man , discarded a obscurer until so long, until needed in the 70's
Who wrote books on Aubrey's papers also included "Architectonica Sacra"; and "Erin Is God" ???
An occultist no doubt , i contend could have gad his works altered
By the same gang that built stone henge in the 50's
As thry could have altered the myth histories and made up stories of merlin and his flying stones, because the fact is NOBODY NOTICED STONE HENGE IN ANY WAY UNTIL AUBREY WAS SAID TO AND ONLY THEN IT WAS IN THE 1970's that anyone saw his writings !

What AUBREYS reputation was in regards to his published works.

The only work published by Aubrey in his lifetime was his Miscellanies (1696; reprinted with additions in 1721), a collection of 21 short chapters on the theme of "hermetick philosophy" (i.e. supernatural phenomena and the occult), including "Omens", "Prophesies", "Transportation in the Air", "Converse with Angels and Spirits", "Second-Sighted Persons", etc. Its contents mainly comprised documented reports of supernatural manifestations. The work did much to bolster Aubrey's posthumous reputation as a superstitious and credulous eccentric.

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Why was Aubrey not noted until the 1970's
WE ARE MEANT TO BELIEV EIN STONE HENGE
HE WAS THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED IT
YET IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 1970's he was DUG UP AND NAMED AS THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED IT
Why?
Why?

And then we have a real proven promotor of forgeries!
Promoting the forged myth itself!
I contend the actual idea of an ancient myth is a myth!

Stukeley, William, 1740, Stonehenge A Temple Restor'd to the British Druids. London

Stukeley was also involved with Freemasonry and instrumental in British scholarship's acceptance of Charles Bertram's forged Description of Britain.

William Stukely the anglican catholic freemason stooge , and promotor of forgeries and fairy tale druid temples

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

So with men like this dug up to prove a myth that we know was built from scratch in the 1950's and stone henge being such a massive unmissable structure on a flat plain!! that nobody before them ever noticed
Apart from merlin myths that are forgeries themselves
How can any sane person believe in stone henge
Stone henge built by idiots for idiots in the 20th century of vatican idiocyA history of forgery forgers quacks and the practitioners of the occult
Who rule over idiots

Don't be an idiot
Believe in jesus christ the son of the living God
And be wise enough to forsake your conning fraud making thieving pagan overlords who produce only fake stone temples of idiocy for you to marvel at like idiots.

Sola Gratia #fundie forums.christianity.com

Unrepentant heathens will be lit on fire for all eternity!!! They will have resurrected bodies that can never die. However, they will be on fire and burn in intense unimanginable pain and suffering!!! Screaming from the tops of their lungs for trillions and trillions of googles!!! Never, ever, not even for one (1) minute having rest from being on fire!!!... There are not long enough graphs to put the equation of eternal Suffering and pain on. Think of being in your garage and accidently having the gas can fall on you and spill all over you and your clothes. Then your nieghbor throws his cigarette over the fence and fffrrrooommmmm!!! You've just been lit on fire! You start screaming and yelling for help! Your eyes are burning with fire so you can't see, therefore you run into the outside wall of your house and fall down and just keep burning and screaming in pain!!! Well that would be a vacation to those who will burn in the lake of fire!!! What's my point? Even if the homoSEXuals, liars, ABORTIONists, and all haters of GOD, succede in their political whoredom, who do they really wind up burning in the end???????

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In your worldview, pain and suffering are simply chemical reactions taking place in a bag of chemicals. Why would that be wrong? When baking soda reacts with vinegar do you get upset? Do you say that it is morally wrong? Your view of morality does not comport with your view on origins. In my worldview, people have intrinsic and objective value, since they are made in the image of God. It is because the Bible is true that we can call pain and suffering "bad." In the evolutionary view, they can never be more than chemistry.

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In your worldview, pain and suffering are simply chemical reactions taking place in a bag of chemicals. Why would that be wrong? When baking soda reacts with vinegar do you get upset? Do you say that it is morally wrong? Your view of morality does not comport with your view on origins. In my worldview, people have intrinsic and objective value, since they are made in the image of God. It is because the Bible is true that we can call pain and suffering "bad." In the evolutionary view, they can never be more than chemistry.]

Lefrog #fundie mmo-champion.com


It is. But you can't treat people in a way that is criminal, regardless of how they act. Therein lies the the fault with victim blaming. I know you said devil's advocate but this ought to be intuitively obvious? You can perhaps rightfully call a child a slut (but you won't be a nice person for doing so), but that's about as far as you can go. You can't rape her and then justify it as "well she acted like a slut so I treated her like one".
It's illegal to rape women for being promiscuous.

There in lies the problem with modern society. Because girls who act and dress promiscuously, sometimes also engage in sexual activity with older men. It's also illegal to have consensual sex, and the responsibility is thrown entirely on the adult. Controlling sexual urges during a consensual encounter is a lot harder than people think. It's not only in our genes, but also embedded in our society. There is a reason why so many people cheat when they are in a relationship. But there is a fundamental difference between wanting that ultimate please with someone and willing to break the law/relationship over it and going as far as knowingly hurting them for it.

Sometimes the adult may not know the true age, sometimes the adult will give in to temptation. But the thought process going through a man's brain is entirely different from a "I'm going to rape her" situation. Yet the punishment and branding stays the same, especially in cases involving minors.

200 years ago it wasn't uncommon to get with someone younger than 18. In fact, nature itself makes girls ready in the 10-13 age. Now I do agree, that in this day in age, getting pregnant or even engaging in sexual activity before 17-18 can be damaging, because so much of our future rides on our ability to focus on learning during our teen years and our ability to grow up with a healthy mental state. But we are fighting against our nature in doing this, and the fact that society has deemed it ok to punish those who break this rule but at the same time deemed it ok to leave all the temptation in there is wrong. It's similar to bringing alcohol to an AA meeting. In either case you have to be very strong willed to go against your natural instincts when being tempted, and some people just aren't.


No, girls that young giving birth are risking a whole host of medical issues. Nature makes girls capable by 13, it does not make them ready.

I'd have to research this more to find any kind of correlation between a healthy 14 y/o and a healthy 18 y/o as far as risks to giving birth. Again though you are right here and what I meant by ready was capable. But it would be wrong to state that all girls under 18 are unfit to become parents, or are at larger risk than if they were 18+. Those girls whose bodies develop and mature faster are also those who seem to favor promiscuous clothing as well, and as also more like to want to consensually engage in sexual activity. Therefore it also seems plausible that men's natural attraction to females happen when they think that female is ready to give birth regardless of age.

Honestly, I don't really see this happen all that often. Most cases of pedophiles (in the news at least) seem to be of either people who abused positions of trust (might as well be forcible rape) or predators who groomed little girls for sex (pretty much is forcible rape). But I acknowledge that could well just be my perspective. My position though, is that there's no reason why you can't wait a couple of years with an underage partner. Err on the side of caution when it comes to people who are potentially not ready.

I agree here, but I do occasionally read about a case of statutory rape that just doesn't seem to make sense. There is also a huge difference in being attracted to someone underaged that looks, talks, acts, dresses like an adult and an attraction to the looks, talks, and acts of someone who is clearly still a kid.

Edit: this is why I think society is partly to blame. We should keep children as children, so that people are less likely to be attracted to them even if they somewhat look old enough. Nothing more offputting to me than a girl who acts like a child with her mannerisms, despite how old she is.

Well the law does have to make up some number, but it's sad to see people automatically branded as pedophiles and rapist (not the legal definition, but that of purely forceful sex) when the parties involved can be one of the numerous cases when the sexual act in question is not damaging to either party. Especially when both parties are wired perfectly normal and subject to society's teens' provocative displays and their own sexual impulses.
I take issue with trying to blame it on provocative displays. Really, human adults in general aren't such hopeless creatures who can't control their base desires.

Don't agree with this at all. Just look at how many people commit crimes of passion, and how many people are addicted to drugs, alcohol, or smoking. Look at how many people eat without control, or spend way too much time on entertainment to their own detriment. Human adults in general have a very hard time struggling with control, specially when having that control isn't specifically rewarded in any way.
I don't think any of the other little vices that you mentioned compares to sexually assaulting a minor.

Oh they don't! I was referring to being able to say no to sex with a minor who looks,acts, talks, and dresses like an adult who is the one wanting to initiate the sexual act in the first place.
Sexual activity in men in my opinion is almost equivalent to a drug. It is why the porn industry is so damn huge. Sex is not one of those things men can just shrug off and be 100% in control about, because on some level sex is a primal instinct embedded in all of us. Look at how hard it is to become a celibate priest or monk, and they already remove themselves from situations where they can give in.

Clyde Lewis #conspiracy groundzeromedia.org

I.N.G.S.O.C.:
INTERNATIONAL GLOBALIST SIGNIFICANTLY OBVIOUS CONSPIRACY
When a person decides that world events are not as spontaneous as one would think, you begin to swallow the bitter pill of realizing that past idealistic views of what moral excellence consists of becomes a subjective blow to your faith.

You find yourself scratching at the bizarre surface of what can be called reality and want so badly to get your blissful ignorance back. The transformation that happens during your awakening is not always comforting, not always pleasant, but you realize the perseverance is your goal. You have to commit to living life to its fullest despite the fact that much of the game you were participating in was rigged for the benefit of the few.

The goal of the so-called conspiracy or the cryptocracy is to maintain humanity in constant state of ignorance, suffering and conflict.

These conditions are precisely what we are used to. We have always existed under these conditions and it seems that the more we struggle with this revelation the more cynical we become.

Throughout history and in our own present we can count on the world’s most powerful individuals to abuse their power and with this constant and dependable fact we can safely say that any kind of conspiracy or great plan is inevitability.

The year 2014 is still new and there is really no need to sabotage any and all hopes for a better world, and my intent is not to shatter anyone’s dreams, or to instill panic for a nebulous year. My intent is to acquaint you with the reality that the time for the power elite to establish their stronghold is growing short and their plans for full spectrum control are becoming more and more desperate and evident.

Claude Steiner once said that “paranoia” is a state of heightened awareness and determined that the alienated are simply those individuals that have been at the receiving end of abuse at the hands of the powerful.

He postulated that the cure for paranoia is a therapeutic healing of the soul. The problem however was that the practice of soul healing or “psychiatry” became mired in political control and infiltrated with irrelevant medical concepts and terms.

Soul healing was replaced with “programming” and “chemical enslavement” and that while the powerful still try to implement policies that bring about pain and suffering, we tend to now be passive about it because now we have drugs and programming to erase the harsh impact that it once had.

This creates what is called “The Flawed World Theory” or “The Making Manifest of All That is Hidden.”

The transmogrification of the world population into the New Dawn of the World order requires a series of psychological and physical warfare in the form of “trauma events” and events that, when filtered through the media, have a ritual occult and initiatory effect on the populace.

These are psychological crimes or ritualistic crimes that are committed in the “open marketplace.” Ritualistic crimes and the initiatory desensitizing are no longer limited to the allegedly spontaneous events like assassinations and mass murder delivered by the media.

They can be found now in the entertainment we choose. We now live an age where virtual trauma is part of the psychological diet of most Americans. Even in the most innocent of books, games and movies we find that violence and loss of control of one’s own fate is now an underlying message in today’s entertainment.

In the new programming that has been arranged and shown to the masses, criminals become heroes and psychopaths become trusted partners and good friends who are needed in world full of undesirable monsters.

It works for the populace in their much needed fiction. We are playing in the fantasy world where vampires are misunderstood and criminals are heroes, only if they have good intentions like doing it all for the greater good of protecting home and family.

We are also exposed to a fictionalized view of the police and how we think the criminal justice system works and how in some fictionalized reality we condone vigilante justice not just in the television shows and films but in our own reality.

In the harsh world of the New Order, suspects are criminals before they receive their day in court, and we assume that is the NSA is monitoring the phone calls of an individual that they most certainly are an enemy of the state.

We believe that the powerful are the good guys and that what they say is for our own good and all along we are falling for their way of reminding us how they are needed and that we are no longer capable of fighting the nightmares that they have generated.

The cryptocracy is counting on you to not recognize the devil that's in the details.

inkbleedingdreams #fundie inkbleedingdreams.tumblr.com

I’m going to be totally honest. I’m pro-life, from the moment of conception, in every scenario.
1. If you’re raped, that’s terrible. However, that baby you’re carrying didn’t rape you and rape does not justify murder. Also, I think pro-choicers understand how few abortions are in rape cases.
2. If you can’t handle even carrying a baby to term and delivering it, DON’T HAVE SEX. IT’S NOT NECESSARY TO YOUR LIFE, I PROMISE.
3. I understand that even if abortion was illegal, woman would still try to have them. I understand that it’s more dangerous that way. Quite frankly, if you ruin your health or get yourself hurt or killed trying to kill your own child, I really have no sympathy for you. I don’t for any other type or murderer who dies in the process.

Like, I know this is harsh, but I am so ridiculously sick of only seeing pro-choice crap on my dash. Abortion ends a life. There can be no denying that.

The Mistake of God #sexist #transphobia incels.co

RE: [JFL] Previous females, now trans males, explain life isn't better as a man; it's much harder.

”TL/DW: Title. They say they feel like outcasts and they are not treated as nicely as before by people. They discover men are NOT treated more seriously. "I get worse treatment from others and I wish someone had prepared me for this". One, after harassment "I felt like if I had my old body, I would have received more support".

Still, even if it is a 20+ min. video, it's totally worth it watching it completely. Give it a shot, boyos.”

Hey, there's male privilege: it's for Chads.

That's the central reason why these imbeciles chose to mutilate themselves in the first place. These retarded foids saw all of the success and social validation that chads enjoy and in their blind female logic, they began to believe that all men were experiencing the life a chad lives by default because all of these idiots can only see chad as men. FtM abominations seriously thought that they could instantly replicate the success of a chad's lifestyle through a mere sex change operation when they never understood that it doesn't take a man alone to be a chad, but a chad to be a chad. Now let's laugh at them burn in the hell they have damned themselves to forever.

James Rink #conspiracy #ufo #crackpot supersoldiertalk.com

SCI MAJIC12 Alcohol Usage

Roswell beings educated Mil Intel about consciousness and how it can be manipulated and exploited with substances. Alcohol is a pushed because it calcifies your pineal gland. Marijuana is prohibited because Roswell ZR explained its value. Marijuana legalization will come with Disclosure because they are intimately connected to understanding the biological connection our consciousness has with other plants and species and what information those life forms are attempting to communicate and how. What is alien?

Alcohol instead impairs that mind body plant consciousness connection and interacts with you with a mark of the beast. Alcohol brings out the worst in humanity. This is why its pushed. Who worships the Devil? The Vatican does. Belief in God is not required for belief in the Devil.

The Majestic 12 in its earliest formations served the Vatican exclusively on all matters relating to God. The presence of beings were withheld from the Vatican by Mil Intel however the Vatican was already in open dialogue with ZR prior. As far as we were concerned, as long as the Vatican wasn’t against us, we could do pretty much anything. So we did. The Vatican wanted Disclosure kept from the public because they worship the Devil and feed on children. Those networks were used for exploiting and collecting blackmail on politicians by creating classified sources and methods be individuals who have legally not committed a crime be responsible for finding volunteers who will act on their own accord in classified settings. Typically this meant preventing the left hand from knowing what the right hand is doing. Those who were move the children were taught never to ask questions or you risk the chance of being killed next. Reasons of National Security were the threat of ETs in Space and the power hungry Vatican essentially forced the hand of the United States through people’s faith in false and dogmatic religions.

So while we kept those programs alive we introduced severe crime bills designed to kill two birds with one stone. Many people in Gov are very racist people who feed on the Black community’s ignorance to their crimes. Its disgraceful. Alcohol drinking was adjusted because the exclusivity and illegality yet easy accessibility and constant advertisements enabled people to be sneaky to get jt which allowed blackmail/evil energy to essentially be collected on consumers of Alcohol. At the same time we intensified the growing process and manufacturing process of marijuana with a higher level of intelligence thanks to mang ET contacts that happen naturally to those who have compatible vibrational states of consciousness.

This was used for two purposes. We wanted to naturally allow culture to explore refining marijuana however since we were essentially working for the Devil/Vatican we instead withheld vital knowledge about marijuana’s cocreative consciousness impact it has on the mind body link. In Operation STATGATE MJ12 used RV to explore cause and effect changes in environment while under the influence of marijuana and alcohol. We learned that alcohol inhibits the consciousness from controlling the beast. Marijuana was the opposite. The beast cowers to Marijuana. Using the STARGATE device we were able to peer into the REALITY of our Matrix of consciousness and not inward projection that makes RV inaccurate compared to a STARGATE.

We knew that Alcohol, mass incarceration of blacks, make marijuana illegal but fund the drug cartels as informants, trafficking everything for sources and methods to collect intelligence. All to keep Roswell secret. The Vatican had a lot more control over the world back in 1947 than it does today. We may witness in our lifetime the destruction of the Vatican for the first time in over 89 years. The institution is corrupt and the definition of evil / the Devil. We did both Good and Evil. We played the role of Gods and created the Matrix of the mind many people are stuck in. We are here to break from that system, accept Disclosure, and bring DARK TO LIGHT.
We weren’t ready then. We are now. Our future is amazing. We have spent decades prepping you for it so we can make a TEN THOUSAND YEAR LEAP in civilization development in under a decade. Innovation flood gates have been busted wide open. A Flood Approaches.

mad_mav70 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[My children] have found out that I know more science than their teachers, and I'm a creationist. Most physicist can't wrap their minds around a singularity, I understand it. They don't understand time or the difference between micro and macro evolution. As far as society suffering, atheism is causing more suffering than ignorance ever could. Every time you see a kid take a gun to school to solve a problem remember there was a time they would have turned to God.

startertehgymcel420 #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Why rape is considered so horrible

firstly, I'm not trying to bait IT by saying rape is justified or anything like that. Rape is bad and all, but surely there are worse things that could happen to someone? Like being robbed, beaten, tortured, mutilated, or murdered right? This is a blackpill, rape is basically sex with an undesirable (ethnic/sub5/whatever) man, females consider sex with men like us to be worse than being tortured or murdered. They sometimes compare a man raping a female to be like a gay man raping a straight man, foids consider sex with us to be as bad as a straight man being anally raped. Now think about how good your chances for ascension are, females consider fucking you to be the worst most traumatic experience imaginable.

[unnamed] #fundie reason4living.com

What is submission?

There are a lot of misconceptions about submission and submissive people. Before we can intelligently consider what the Bible has to say on the subject of submissive wives we need to clear these misconceptions out of our way. Let me begin with a few simple statements about the nature of submission:

Only a strong person can be submissive.
Submissiveness is not timidity, it is not servility, it is not subservience, it is not docility, it is not degrading, it is not a sign of weakness.
Submission is a sign of strength, not of weakness and a greater degree of submission requires a greater degree of strength of personal character.

Submission is an act of the will — it is the result of a choice, a decision. The act of submission can only come from a choice that a person makes. Submission cannot be enforced upon a person. Either a person submits of their own free will or they do not submit at all. Submission is a gift that one person chooses to give to another person. By contrast oppression is the act of extracting something from a person against their will. Submission and oppression are, therefore, opposite qualities of a relationship and not even remotely similar.

The submission of a good wife is a glorious thing that is intended to help her and her husband to have a contented life together. Problems in life and in marriage are more or less inevitable but when a woman is submissive to her man it is much more likely that those problems can be resolved harmoniously, without unpleasant quarrelling and without bitterness and resentment. Those people who look down on submission as if it were something demeaning, degrading or humiliating are merely showing that they have no understanding of what submission is and that they are quite ignorant of its power.

If you are a Christian wife who has been feeling uncomfortable with the Biblical demand that you submit to your husband then, I hope, these statements have perked up your interest and given you a glimpse of the bright cheerfulness ahead. Being submissive to your husband does not mean, as so many ignorant detractors of submission seem to think, that you should be an empty-headed bimbo, or that you should have no opinions of your own, or that you should be like a doormat.

If you are a Christian husband I hope that you will take care to understand the nature of submission and be careful to understand your responsibilities in response to your wife's submission to you. A submissive wife is not a justification for an abusive husband. God commands men to love their wives with the same kind of love that he [God] gave to his people ... that's a pretty tough assignment to give a mortal man and it doesn't include the possibility of abuse.

Usually when I am asked to comment regarding the submission of wives, I find myself in a debate where somebody is trying to prove from scripture that women do not really have to submit to their husbands or obey them. In this article I will attempt to demonstrate the error in such thinking. The argument is not especially difficult but it does tend to focus on the negative side of life rather a lot and consequently doesn't make submission sound very desirable. So, before I get into the detailed passage-by-passage arguments I would like to try and explain why a wife who is submissive towards her husband is such a glorious and powerful component of an earthly family and of the Christian family at large. The Christian message is, after all, “good news” and hence a reason for delighted cheerfulness and joy, but in these focused theological debates it sometimes seems that the Christian life is all long faces and dour clothes and instructions towards restrictive behaviour.

A submissive wife is one whose heart is inclined towards satisfying her husband and who has made a choice to be led by her husband, to accept his authority and to be his helper in the broad biblical sense of that word. She does not seek to please her husband because she is afraid of his rebuke or rejection or punishment, but because she delights to please him and finds satisfaction in doing so.

For a man, a submissive wife is a pleasure to be around because she helps him to feel peaceful and contented, she is a reliable helper who can be depended upon. He can trust her with his deepest desires and fears because he is not afraid of her scorn or her rejection or her anger. He can relax with her because he knows that even when he makes mistakes, she will be working with him to put them right and minimize the consequences rather than using them to prove a point or as an excuse for rejecting him in some way. A man who has a submissive wife acquires a greater sense of self respect because he knows that she respects his authority in her life and she is not in any way trying to belittle him.

A submissive wife is one who makes a choice not to resist her husband's will. That is not to say that she cannot disagree with him or that she cannot express an opinion. Indeed the submissive wife is, by definition, a strong woman and will usually therefore have her own opinions and these may often be different to the opinions of her husband. Can she express them? Of course she can, and indeed it might often be wrong for her not to express them since she is, after all, supposed to be her husband's helper, not his slave or doormat. Expressing her opinions and giving advice and suggestions will often be a valuable part of the help that she gives her husband.

Let us see how this works in life by using an analogy of a road for life and junctions in the road for each of life's decision points of choices. The married man and woman set off walking along the road of life and at each junction they choose which road to take next. Sooner or later they will arrive at a junction where they each desire to take a different road and hence there is a disagreement:

In the disharmonious family there is a quarrel, there is cajoling or bullying, there is intimidation and bitter words. The quarrel might last for the rest of their lives with neither giving ground and thus they never move on or, finally, either the husband and wife continue along one road together with one of them feeling resentful and both of them feeling bruised and wary of the other, or if they could not even obtain an unpleasant agreement then the marriage might simply fall apart and they separate, each taking a different road. None of these outcomes is pleasant or desirable.

When a submissive woman finds that her wishes conflict with those of her husband she has little or nothing to fear. If her husband is respectful then they will discuss the matter together agreeable, frankly and cheerfully and through the discussion they might reach either a compromise or one of them might change their mind completely and accept the other person's wishes. If this happens then they can then continue along the road they have now agreed upon with no sense of bitterness and without having expressed any angry words. However agreement might not be reached so then what? If they cannot reach agreement then the submissive wife needs only to obey her husband and accept his wishes graciously. Having done this there are now only a few possible outcomes, all of which have positive aspects and none of which is particularly terrible. In the first possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects and, in due course they will discover that they have chosen a good route through life and both will be happy. In the second possible outcome they will take the road the husband selects but, in due course, they discover that it was not such a good choice after all. All they do is turn around, go back to the junction and take a different road; there has been no need for argument, nobody has felt disrespected or belittled and they have not bruised one another. Although the husband's choice turned out to be a bad one, they have discovered the mistake together, discovered it quickly, and swiftly got back onto a better road and, in the process, they have strengthened their bond by having been able to disagree with dignity and mutual respect. They are not stuck in a perpetual argument at the junction, they have not separated and the process of finding a mutually acceptable road has not weakened their marriage.

If the submissive woman has a husband who is not respectful and who is inclined to abuse her gift of submissive then still she has little to fear. The worst possible outcome is that they will travel a bad road together until the next junction. Although the road might be bad it is good to remember the positive aspects of the situation: They have still remained together, they have kept alive the possibility of improving their relationship as they make their way through the troubles of life, they have not wasted time and damaged one another in a bitter quarrel and they are not still standing at the junction locked in argument. They have moved on, and therefore given themselves the hope of another choice later. This, remember, is the worst possible outcome. Even with a selfish husband it is still possible that he will acknowledge that the road is bad and that they will turn back to take another route.

I have mentioned this example of a road journey to try and illustrate that submission can bring real and worthwhile benefits to a marriage. The scripture also indicates that the act of submission by a woman is able to influence a bad man to change his ways but even if he doesn't change, her choice of submission will still allow her to avoid the worst of the possible problems that a bad marriage and husband might bring.


The key text concerning the submission of wives to their husbands

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery -- but I am talking about Christ and the church.

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Taken from Paul's letter to the congregation at Ephesus, chapter 5, verses 22 to 33.


Submission in the Christian world

Submission of one person to another is described in various forms in the Christian faith. There is the submission of wives to husbands, of slaves to masters, of Christians to one another, of Christians to the ruling authorities, and Christians to God. If my own experience is anything to rely on, then it seems that we Christians do not much like the idea of submission and, if we think about it at all, then we do so on order to reduce its application to our day to day lives. In this document I hope to redress the balance slightly.


We don't really like the idea though ...

In the “Western World” of the twenty-first century, the form of submission that is perhaps most frequently contested is that of wives to husbands. It has been pointed out on several occasions and by various people that the scriptures do not say that wives are to obey their husbands — only that they are to submit to them. Now, each of the clauses in the preceding sentence is true; the problem comes with the word “only” that is used to connect the two clauses. The women (and many men) who want to limit the authority of a husband over his wife are seriously mistaken if they think that a husband can expect less compliance from a submissive wife than from an obedient one; the truth is quite the reverse. Obedience is easy. Submission is hard. Obedience demands little. Submission demands much. It is not possible for a wife to submit to her husband without also being prepared to obey him; a submissive wife is also an obedient wife.


The meanings of the words "submit" and "obey"

If I obey then I do what those who have authority over me tell me to do. There must be an explicit command given before I can obey it and consequently if no command is given then it is not possible for me to be either obedient or disobedient. Obedience does not of itself require me to be cheerful, willing, co-operative or contented. I can be surly, rude, bitter and unhelpful and still be obedient. I do not have to be willing to be merely obedient because mere obedience can be forced upon me. For these reasons, obedience is easy when compared to full submission.

In order to submit to a person who has authority over me, I do not need to wait for an explicit command but instead I can attempt to anticipate the commands and thus avoid the need for them to be given. Anticipating the commands does not mean that I can substitute my own agenda or my own will but rather that I am trying to imagine what the person in authority will want me to do next; I am trying to make my will conform to theirs. Attempting to anticipate the commands does not allow me to disobey any command that has been explicitly given — those I am still required to obey. If I am to be truly submissive I must also learn to be contented, cheerful, willing and co-operative even if I do not like doing what is required of me. Finally submission is a choice that I must continuously make. It can be seen therefore that submission is far more demanding than merely obedience and requires much more of me than does mere obedience.

It is also worth repeating that submission is NEVER enforced upon a person. Submission is the opposite of oppression. In fact submission is a gift that one person gives to another. In a marriage, submission is the wife's gift to her husband. If the husband is wise he will treasure that gift and handle it very carefully because his own happiness depends on it. Submission is a gift that must be renewed each day or even each moment.


Trying to wriggle out of the obligation to obey

It has been claimed that a wife need only obey her husband when her husband's will conforms to the will of God and that is right for a wife to disobey her husband when what he commands is wrong. At first sight this argument seems to be very reasonable but unfortunately it leads into chaos and emptiness and also leaves the wives in a very cruel “no-win” situation. It is true that all husbands are fallen and sinful and it follows that they will make mistakes and that they might desire and command what they ought not desire and command. It is also true, but more frequently overlooked, that all wives are fallen and sinful and it follows that they will make mistakes and that they might desire what they ought not desire. God knew both of these facts when he arranged for scripture to be written and yet he still gave wives the instruction to submit to their husbands. He knew that husbands would wield the authority that he gave them imperfectly and he knew that wives would respond to that authority imperfectly. It is a terrible wrong for husbands to abuse their authority but it is no less terribly wrong for wives to reject or usurp their husband's authority.

Some of the people who claim that wives have the right to selectively submit to their husbands have put much emphasis on three New Testament passages - Acts 5:1-10, Acts 4:19 (and a similar passage in Acts 5:29) and Ephesians 5:21. It is worth looking at these to see what they add to the debate.

Mademoiselle #fundie disqus.com

Original quote:

"I say atheism can not claim absolute morality and the morals they claim are taken from Christianity. Or at the least from religion.
So I am now calling on the atheist community to prove me wrong."

Champoogne:
I was raised to believe that you should treat others as you wish to be treated. That you should never force your will on someone else. And you don't really need to be on this planet very long to realize that it's in everyone's best interests to get along. It's a lot more pleasant that way. We are all people sharing the same space and everyone's got the right to live comfortably and harmoniously. And, I simply fail to see why God must be a part of that equation. Or any other higher power.

Mademoiselle:
Who taught you that? And who taught them that? So you aren't religious and think you don't need God to be moral? Maybe your parents weren't either but maybe your grandparents were or your grandparents parents.... And this is where they got it from:
Luke 6:31 (KJV)
"31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Champoogne:
Or maybe it was a long string of atheists/agnostics? Why are you assuming that if we go back far enough in time we'll eventually hit someone who believed in God?

Mademoiselle:
Because we will. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Champoogne:
It doesn't work that way, sorry.
Extreme logic fail.

Mademoiselle:
Yes it does. Provide proof that every single one of your ancestors have never ever ever been exposed to and influenced by Christianity.

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

Famous actor Jackie Gleason feared the afterworld and read hundreds of books searching for answers. Too bad he rejected the one true Book that proclaims all the answers—the Word of God. Sadly, Mr. Gleason has no rest day nor night in the fires of Hell if he died in his sins, as it appears he tragically did. Gleason told 60 MINUTES that he didn't believe God is vengeful, but 2nd Thessalonians 1:8 warns that God will take “vengeance” upon the wicked for ever!

If you refuse to fear God now, you will fear God in eternity... YOU WILL FEAR GOD IN ETERNITY! Matthew 10:28, “...fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” I shudder to think what Rock 'N' Roll satanist Ronnie James Dio is suffering this moment in the fires of Hell. The Bible says he is in torments as the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. It is not my place to say who went to Heaven or Hell, but the Bible makes very clear that anyone who dies in their sins without having believed on Jesus as the Christ is doomed.

Many victims of horrible accidents are deliberately placed by doctors into a coma to allow the body time to heal without the patient suffering inexplicable, excruciating, physical pain and emotional suffering. This woman was placed into a medically induced coma for 5 1/2 weeks. She was the victim of booze. The beer companies won't show you that!

There won't be any escape nor relief from the torments of Hell. The Bible says that there will be NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT in Hell from all the horrifying cries of the damned, from the agonizing blood curdling pain caused by being boiled alive in molten sulfur.

bob #fundie bobstruth.blogspot.ca

Has ANY female EVER been hurt by rape?

When Bob's mother was growing up the advice or rape that women of Bob's grandmother's generation gave them was "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Feminists have decried this age-old female advice. It perpetuates ancient female knowledge that sex is a normal body activity that can be enjoyable, even if it wasn't her idea. Many years later Bob learned that the counselor's training manual at a local Rape Crisis Center contains advice for counselors to deal with women who enjoyed the rape and had screaming wild orgasms during the rape. Often, according to the manual, it leaves them confused about whether or not they are really a "victim" or a beneficiary of the rape.

Over several decades Bob has known several women who supposedly were raped, or legally were raped. For example, Bob once dated a young woman whose first sexual experience was being raped by a Catholic Priest at the age of 19. She was confused about the theological and religious implications, but she liked the sex well enough to give up celibacy and take up with men like me. One of the young females in Bob's high school had been doing sex with her uncle about once a week since she was 11 years old, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Legally, it was one of the most harshly prosecuted kinds of "rape" despite the lack of harm. The last time Bob saw her she was a well adjusted 29 year old wife and mother who still occasionally met her uncle for sex, and still enjoyed every hot fucking bit of it. The fictional rape of Scarlet by Ret Butler made Gone With the Wind into the best selling novel of all time, and rape continues to be a dominant theme in most female's chosen fiction.

Meanwhile the feminazi has condemned rape as the worst possible crime. Their rape-hate propaganda campaign has made virtually all sex into rape and all men into evil rapists. Any man convicted or who pleads guilty to a rape crime is vilified for life. Forever he must register his location with the blue gun thugs, have his neighbors notified, and not live near any normal location. Often he is driven out of town, every town. And the definition of "rape" has been expanded to include every sexual encounter that the female regrets the next day or the next year. Sex with young women is defined as "rape" for the purpose of vilifying young men, even while the woman is the active sexual aggressor. Sex is defined as "rape" by law when the female has had a few drinks for the purpose of vilifying young men, while a man is responsible for all of his actions such as sex or driving, even when he drank more than she did. An encounter where she went to his hotel room at midnight for the purpose of sex is called "rape" for the purpose of vilifying young men, if she didn't enjoy it as much as she hoped she would. And while it's not "rape" the playful or incidental touching of a girl by a 6 year old boy is now prosecuted criminally as "sexual abuse."

Over the past several decades Bob has read probably thousands of news stories about "rape," known several females who claimed to have a "my rapist," but Bob has never met a woman who suffered any actual harm from rape, by any definition. Now we are not talking about murder of battery which are different crimes. All you hysterical femorrhoids who immediately switch mentally from "rape" to serial murder can back off. Murder is a different topic. We are talking about rape, the forced sexual joining of a man and a female. The humping up and down without her controlling the man and the situation.

We are also not talking about the pain that some virgin women feel during their first sex. Virginal pain is normal to being female and sex regardless of the circumstances. Normal sexual feelings are irrelevant to the topic of rape.

In Bob's experience from talking to many females, the female often got hurt feelings from rape, mostly from the loss of control over the man and the situation. Often feminist females hold onto and nurse their hurt feelings for years or decades, refusing to let it go, waiving "my rapist" like a flag for admission to the feminist victimology club, much like DAR applicants pointing to "my ancestor." But were they hurt by the rape? Other than a few hurt feelings, not at all.

The counselor's guide for the Rape Crisis Center teaches counselors how to convince well fucked women that they are "victims!" when they had a good time getting laid. Grandmother's "relax and enjoy it" would be good advice to many who phone the Rape Crisis Center. But the femorrhoids who staff the Center work in the rape-hate industry. Every rape is a fate worse than death and the female is destroyed for life (don't ask them how). There are many urban legends about some female who almost died from the injuries suffered by rape, but like other urban legends nobody is able to track down who or where it actually happened. The so-called victims are encouraged to dwell on their victimhood, to amplify and magnify, to seek counseling in order to wallow in their hurt feelings. Having a good time and letting it go just isn't acceptable to those who use rape as a weapon in their hate war against men.

Bob has never met or known any woman who was hurt by rape other than a few hurt feelings which would go away quickly if they weren't fed and amplified over and over and over. Let's face it. The insertion of a cock into a cunt is a normal, natural body function for both the man and the female. It's how cunts work and what they do. It's their normal function. There are two billion or more women on earth who, on average, enjoy sex ever week or two. That means that a million women somewhere in the world are enjoying the insertion of a cock into their cunts right now as you read this article. It just doesn't cause physical injury to the female no matter who decided that now would be a good time to do it.

How about you readers? Do you know any female who was actually hurt by being raped, by being forced to accept a man's cock in her cunt? If you do please let us know with specifics, not urban legends. Leave out the mass murder scenarios too, that's murder, not rape. Bob just doesn't think rape actually hurts anyone and therefore is not is a serious crime at all. What do you all say?

Graham Linehan #transphobia #sexist dailymail.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Willy #fundie patheos.com

Wow, this comment really opened my eyes. I mean, this is mind blowing stuff. You make some powerful points, except ... let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality…. Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.

DesertFox #fundie freeconservatives.com

[On the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."]

There are things that are best just not talked about, much less openly celebrated. Queerness is one such thing. It is not normal and everyone knows it, but political correctness forces us all to pretend it's fundamentally no different from normal sexuality. It is different, and to deny that in official policy is to deny reality, which has its worst consequences in military settings. It encourages falsification and lying, which seriously undermine morale.

Most seriously of all, it tells the normal soldier that what makes him uncomfortable doesn't matter. IOW: HE doesn't matter. Queers comprise about 2% of the population, and they're more important than the 98%. Talk about favoritism, and it sets up a divisive dynamic. Normal men are equipped biologically to feel revulsion toward queers. Fighting against biology has you fighting against yourself, and that's the last thing you want or need in combat.

Some queers aren't a problem. They're the ones who lived with DADT. The problems will be those who want to push things. And they will.

Y=X #fundie blogger.com

I just know some atheist is going to mention

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Allow me to answer this in advance. When a virgin is raped she is no longer pure and thus her chances for marriage are greatly diminished. God provides for the woman who has become impure due to rape. Since no else will want to marry her, God commands that her attacker marry her and pay her family a tidy sum.

The man who rapes a virgin has clearly shown an interest in the woman and so forcing him to marry her doesn't cause him too much distress on him and lessens the chance the marriage will be a really bad existence for the woman. Making the attacker pay her family a tidy sum helps the family out and in this way the girl helps her family out. So, instead of the woman being considered defiled and an outcast the family can embrace her. She gets a husband and the family gets money. God setup rules to help even the lowly out.

God has a plan for each of us and we just need to seek Him to find out what His plan is.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #conspiracy #quack #wingnut naturalnews.com

Who’s worse? LGBTQP pushers who want to mutilate the genitals of children, or vaccine pushers who want to cause brain damage and death?

In case you missed it, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently sat down with the producers of the new Vaxxed2: The People’s Truth vaccine documentary to talk about the epidemic of vaccine injuries that’s sweeping our nation. And after watching or listening to what they have to say, you might ask yourself, Who’s worse for society, LGBTQP lunatics who want to turn all of our children “trans,” or vaccine industry propagandists who want to force chemical syringes on our precious little ones essentially at gunpoint?

As the official narrative goes, vaccines are the most awesome public health invention pretty much ever, which somehow means that everyone must be forced by the government to get them because they’re simply wonderful. The science is settled, we’re all repeatedly told, so there’s no room for “my body, my choice” when it comes to vaccination programs that aim for total societal compliance.

But the truth of the matter is that vaccines are risky, to say the least. Not only that, but they don’t actually work, in many cases, and cause more harm than good. Vaccines are also responsible for causing many of the recent outbreaks of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) that we’ve been hearing about in the news, further demonstrating that vaccines are not the “miracle” medicine that the pharmaceutical lobby claims them to be.

This is why Vaxxed2 was created, by the way: To tell those with ears to hear the ugly truth about vaccines that health “authorities” refuse to disclose. Vaccines are not safe and effective, nor are they miraculous at accomplishing anything other than furthering the eugenics agenda of harming and destroying the next generation of youth.

“I have never seen so much death,” says Polly Tommey, the executive producer of Vaxxed2, about the tragedies she’s encountered while touring America as part of the film’s production.

“At every single stop we had at least one dead baby, a Gardasil death, paralysis from the waist downwards, untold damage. Vaccines are killing of America, that is what the people of America will tell you that vaccinated” themselves or their children, she adds.

“When you look into the eyes of parents whose children are brain-damaged like mine, or dead from a vaccine, their soul is broken, it’s ripped from them, it is the most painful – you can feel it as they come towards you – the pain. But when an unvaccinated family with beautiful, healthy children come towards you, you see joy and light and love, everything is great in their eyes.”
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to vaccination is the fact that vaccines are untested chemical cocktails that, if you read the fine print in vaccine inserts, are really no different than the cross-sex and gender-bender hormone drugs routinely administered to today’s LGBTQP-confused youth.

“If you look across the whole range, you’ve got 72 shots given to a child up until the age of 18 … you’ve got multiple shots going in at their well-baby clinic visit, so you’ve got multiple shots, none of which have had a safety study on this whole group going into a child at the same child at the same time, not one single safety study,” warns Jonathan Tommey, another of Vaxxed2‘s creators.

“So, this 1986 Act (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) that was passed by (Ronald) Reagan in government giving no liability to the manufacturer of vaccines is a criminal offense to the American public,” he adds.

Anna Rountree #fundie eternityrace.com

“What do I do?” I asked.
“Wait, Anna,” my Father said.
There was silence in heaven. It was as though everything held its breath. Everyone in the throne room was silent. Gradually, with a gentle, pleasant breeze, the garment moved toward me. I held out my arms as if someone were going to help me put on a coat. The mantle was shimmering. It was like breath. As I slipped into it, however, I realized that I became transparent, invisible in certain areas. The only parts of me that could be seen were my hands, my feet, and my head.°
Before I could think about this further, Jesus said to me, “Anna, take these.”
“What are they?” I asked.

The Shoes
“Shoes of porpoise,” he said.’ I felt this was a play on the word “purpose,” but I did not know why.
I looked at them. They too were gossamer. They laced up the front like high-top work shoes that covered the ankle, but there were no soles in the shoes. “They have no soles,” I said.
Jesus smiled, “No, the Godhead is to be the expression of the soul.” (He seemed to enjoy His pun.) “These shoes keep your feet naked, touching the holy ground above, but leave you unjustified before mankind. You will be invisible to man but intimate with God. These cover the ankle and the heel also. Invisibility will work the cross in your life to the point that there will be no exposed heel nor any strength in the natural man displayed.”

I sat on the sea of glass to put them on. “These are the strangest shoes I have ever seen,” I said.
“Yes,” Jesus answered. “Few want to wear them. They are out of style.”
“Will they stay on?” I laughed.
“Yes, unless you yourself take them off. You can expose your walk before mankind, but there will be no life in it. The worm of death will crawl in and out of that exposure, Anna.”° Then He asked, “Can you walk in the fire of invisibility that mankind will not give you glory? Few alive today will wear these shoes, for they want their glory from mankind instead of God.”’
I finished lacing the shoes and stood. The tops of my feet were invisible. “Lord,” I asked seriously, “am I going to be able to do this?”
“No,” He smiled, “but I will, if you will let Me.”
I searched His face. “I believe,” I said softly. “Help my unbelief.”

A Burning Flame of Love
Suddenly, the throne became a towering column of fire, roaring louder than any forge on earth. I involuntarily stepped backward, for the fire seemed hotter than the furnaces that melt iron ore into molten magma.
“Anna:’ my Father said with a voice of thunder, “can you live within the fire?”
“Father,” I said hesitantly, “I cannot wish for painful experiences, but I can wish for You. Give me the grace to desire You more than life itself.”
Huge hands of fire reached out to me. “Come,” He said.
With a big gulp, I began to move forward slowly.
Jesus took my hand. “I will go with you,” He said gravely.
Suddenly, when Jesus took my hand, my yearning for my Father grew more intense. I began crying out in my desire for more of Him: “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!” As I began to call to Him, it was as though God opened Himself with a great, silent cry or hunger on His part to have me closer also. It was as though we were instantly sucked into Him.
We were standing amid coals that were white from the intense heat. I too began to heat up. The light was so bright that I could barely see Jesus for the glory within the blazing, white haze.

Caamib #fundie caamib.wordpress.com

The word rape has various meanings today. Some, like the one which will be about its sane legal definition, are sadly mostly historical in current Western culture, though they still subsist in some saner cultures even today. So what are these definitions?

Sane definition of the act of rape – This definition is also consistent with Common Law (“Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will”) and even with evolutionary psychology (“Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects” is the definition used by Thornhill & Palmer in A Natural History of Rape).

So rape can only be performed by a penis and of course women can’t rape men.

Sane legal definition of rape – Sane legal systems differentiate between act of rape and a crime of rape. A sane legal definition of rape doesn’t believe all acts of rape are crimes of rape. What nonsense would it be to believe that and to treat the whims of some sluts as actually defacing a virgin or a married woman !

A sane legal definition of rape would define rape as a property crime against the woman’s father or husband. Also, rapes against prostitutes should be prosecuted. But it would certainly never account for rapes of sluts, and would consider raping a slut a justified response that should be praised, not persecuted.

Current insane definition of the act/crime of rape – I am saying act/crime of rape because insane modern Western cultures basically don’t differentiate between the act of rape and a crime of rape. In any case, this definition had been, especially since 2000, expanded to include much more than just the actual act of rape. It now includes any form of coercion, inserting objects into sexual orifices, even the insane claim that a woman can rape a male ! There are feminists/liberals insane enough to believe Brock Turner raped some unconscious woman he fingered or that I raped a woman who offered my sex herself in a phone call, simply because I put her picture on my blog when she decided to torture me (as she later admitted herself).

An actual moral definition of rape used by feminists/liberals – this is what almost all feminists and liberals actually see as rape. It is defined as any act a straight white male does to get sex. Asking a woman out by a straight white male is rape to liberals. Going on a date if you’re a straight white male is rape. On the other hand, no actual act of rape, even rape of smallest children, is rape if it is done by Sacred Classes like blacks, Muslims or Hispanics.

I will admit that there are some feminists and liberals who don’t believe so, but these mostly stop calling themselves feminists or liberals once they realize what these ideologies are about.

It is also true that this definition isn’t yet widely used in law but and police officers and judges who don’t use this definition are seen as vermin by liberals and there are places in the West where it’s slowly getting there .

Female definition of rape– Women simply define rape as sex they regret, and pay basically no intention to any other circumstances, including physical pain. So this definition is completely silly and shouldn’t be regarded by anybody sane as anything more than what 5 year-old children think. That some legal systems are starting to bring this definition into equation (though usually by ignoring the sex with a member of Sacred classes females regret) is simply a symptom of a decaying society.

mt75689 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Look in the mirror pal, the problem doesn't lie with theists, but with atheists themselves.

Atheism is a mental illness that can only be treated biologically. It's sort of an autistic, schizophrenia with some components of bipolar disorder, marked with narcissism and Tourette’s syndrome.

The core of an atheist's thinking is the same sort of pathology that characterizes other mental disorders.They have a glitch in their brains
that produces feelings of superiority over which they have no control.

The next time you’re watching or listening to an atheist, observe the symptoms… Note the anger, the pessimism, the negativity, the name-calling, the bursts of rage, the gratuitous insults, and the desire to present an image of superiority over Christians.

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

Generally speaking, we are a drug-oriented society. We are always looking for a single drug or a pill that will cure or control the condition. This is also true in regard to cancer. Although drugs may be effective in controlling the symptoms, no drug or pill will be found to cure cancer.

In fact, the outward symptoms of any health problem is nothing but the body’s manifestation of its own defense and remedial effort to correct the adverse condition and restore health. A tumor is nothing but the body’s effort to isolate the affected cells in order to protect the rest of the organism and extend life. Therefore, the effective cure for any health problem can be accomplished by the body’s own extensive healing mechanism. We are equipped with a marvelous healing system, more effective than any healing system devised by man. This built-in healing system is capable of correcting any condition of ill health if given the proper conditions. Consequently, the first principle of biological medicine is to create conditions most conducive to stimulate and activate the body’s immune system.

But we should also realize that there can be divine intervention for healing in our lives. The age of miracles and healing is not past. God can heal and does still heal today. “Bless the Lord O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases,” (Psalm 103:2, 3). It is difficult to enjoy life if we are in constant pain and God would like us to be healthy. The apostle John was inspired to write, “Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers” (III John 2). God does expect us to do what we can for ourselves. Also, God has given us a variety of principles for healthful living — not the least of which is the list of clean and unclean foods recorded in Leviticus 11.

Physical healing should be distinguished from divine, miraculous, supernatural healing. If a sick person asks for healing, then God will make his decision regarding whether, when, why, and how to heal. God may heal now to show mercy, to express love, to encourage the spiritually weak, to reinforce faith, or as a witness of the gospel. To get the big picture, we must keep in mind that this physical life is temporary and we are going to die sooner or later. Therefore, it is vitally important to remember that one’s ultimate reward is neither determined nor affected by whether he was or was not healed during his physical lifetime.

Caamib #sexist voat.co

The word rape has various meanings today. Some, like the one which will be about its sane legal definition, are sadly mostly historical in current Western culture, though they still subsist in some saner cultures even today. So what are these definitions?

Sane definition of the act of rape - This definition is also consistent with Common Law ("Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will") and even with evolutionary psychology (“Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects” is the definition used by Thornhill & Palmer in A Natural History of Rape).

So rape can only be performed by a penis and of course women can't rape men.

Sane legal definition of rape - Sane legal systems differentiate between act of rape and a crime of rape. A sane legal definition of rape doesn't believe all acts of rape are crimes of rape. What nonsense would it be to believe that and to treat the whims of some sluts as actually defacing a virgin or a married woman !

A sane legal definition of rape would define rape as a property crime against the woman's father or husband. Also, rapes against prostitutes should be prosecuted. But it would certainly never account for rapes of sluts, and would consider raping a slut a justified response that should be praised, not persecuted.

Current insane definition of the act/crime of rape - I am saying act/crime of rape because insane modern Western cultures basically don't differentiate between the act of rape and a crime of rape. In any case, this definition had been, especially since 2000, expanded to include much more than just the actual act of rape. It now includes any form of coercion, inserting objects into sexual orifices, even the insane claim that a woman can rape a male ! There are feminists/liberals insane enough to believe Brock Turner raped some unconscious woman he fingered or that I raped a woman who offered my sex herself in a phone call, simply because I put her picture on my blog when she decided to torture me (as she later admitted herself).

An actual moral definition of rape used by feminists/liberals - this is what almost all feminists and liberals actually see as rape. It is defined as any act a straight white male does to get sex. Asking a woman out by a straight white male is rape to liberals. Going on a date if you're a straight white male is rape. On the other hand, no actual act of rape, even rape of smallest children, is rape if it is done by Sacred Classes like blacks, Muslims or Hispanics.

I will admit that there are some feminists and liberals who don't believe so, but these mostly stop calling themselves feminists or liberals once they realize what these ideologies are about.

It is also true that this definition isn't yet widely used in law but and police officers and judges who don't use this definition are seen as vermin by liberals and there are places in the West where it's slowly getting there .

Female definition of rape- Women simply define rape as sex they regret, and pay basically no intention to any other circumstances, including physical pain. So this definition is completely silly and shouldn't be regarded by anybody sane as anything more than what 5 year-old children think. That some legal systems are starting to bring this definition into equation (though usually by ignoring the sex with a member of Sacred classes females regret) is simply a symptom of a decaying society.

David J. Stewart #fundie #homophobia #sexist jesusisprecious.org

One of the best sermons I've heard is titled, “It's Time To Come Out Of The Closet” (MP3 by Dr. Jack Hyles). The Bible is under attack as in Elijah's time. Where were the 7,000 men who hadn't bowed their knee to Baal in Elijah's day? Why did Elijah have to stand alone? Where are all the millions of born-again Christians today speaking out against homosexuality? Where are they so silent? Why are Christians silent about the sex perversion, which is deliberately being targeted at young teens today, with perverted Taylor Swift videos and the entire sleazy music video industry? You silent Christians... COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!!! There are millions of born-again Christians across America, who are silent, when they ought to be standing with the Elijahs of our generation.

Identify yourself with the KING JAMES BIBLE!!! If you can't be out there fighting with Elijah, then at least show support for Elijah. You can help Elijah's cause for the Lord. You can encourage the Elijahs of our generation who are fighting for God. You can let everyone know whose side you're on!!! I stand with everything that Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) stood for during his 55 years of earthly ministry!!! Brother Hyles is in Heaven looking down, but I am still here, and I'm going to be A VOICE for the Lord Jesus Christ and promote the teachings of the Elijahs of our time, and Brother Hyles was an Elijah!!! I stand with Pastor Curtis Hutson! I stand with the preachers of our generation who STAND for the KING JAMES BIBLE!!! God pity the neo-evangelical, weak-kneed, wimpy, compromised, sissy, preacherettes of our generation. All they know how to do is criticize the Elijahs of our generation. Where are the 7,000???

If you can't get in the battle, then get into the grandstands and cheer the ones who are in the battle. There is something that YOU can do to help promote the old-time religion. I'm going to stand with the churches and men of God who preach the literal blood of Jesus sprinkled on the Mercy Seat in Heaven. I'm going to expose the Dr. John MacArthurs of our time, who deny that Jesus' blood is in Heaven on the Mercy Seat in the Holy Place (Hebrews 9:12, 24; 12:24). Also, W.E. Vine (i.e., Vine's dictionary) denies that Jesus' blood made it to the heavenly Mercy Seat. Perhaps this is where Mr. MacArthur got his heresy, from corrupted Greek study aids. It's time that we offend the liberals! Offend the neo-evangelicals! Offend the modernists with the truth! You silent Christians... COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!

The hallmark character trait of being a Christian is CARING! Along with CARING comes everything that matters: doctrinal integrity, moral standards, family values, the value of life, cleanliness, justice, honesty, et cetera. I CARE, because God CARES, and God's Holy Spirit indwells me as His child. And if you're a born-again Christian, you ought to CARE too. If you don't care, it's only because you've substituted the wrong things to care about in your life. What are your priorities? Caring is not something that you can teach a person—you either care or you don't. Pray and ask God to burden your heart for OTHERS, and help you care more. God will often give you a burden, a heartache, an affliction, a loss, hard-times, or something you didn't want or expect, in order to mold you into Christ's image. The old adage is true, no pain means no gain. If we don't suffer, we cannot grow. We all want God's blessings without any pain, suffering or heartaches, but it doesn't work that way. Unshakable faith only comes from having your faith shaken!!!

It's not enough to say that the King James Bible is the BEST Bible. No Sir, it is the ONLY BIBLE!!! Where are the 7,000 people who didn't stand with Elijah? They're hidden in cellblock (Watchcare) Bible study groups! They're hidden in dead churches where Hell is never preached about, and women wear pants, and Walt Disney is promoted to the youth, and the damnable heresy of Lordship Salvation is taught. You women without femininity, come out of the closet!!! It's not enough to just not bow to Baal, you need to STAND WITH ELIJAH!!! What are you doing for God??? Where are the 7,000 Christian people that could have stood with Elijah, there's a battle raging!!! You silent Christians... COME OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!

KvltWarrior98 #fundie incels.co

Onto the actual definition of the blackpill and the incel phenomenon.

Here is my take on this topic.

De facto speaking, we are (admittedly, kind of angry) egalitarianists who argue for a percieved better solution to our problems. After all, what is wrong in being vocal in what you believe in? We are defending our ideas and expressing our capacity to think for ourselves...

We are in a sense a conglomeration of different individuals (with different ideeologies) united under a basic deprivation of our needs (biological ones), forming a reactionary collective towards post-modern society's view of the act of reproduction; nothing more nothing less.

The blackpill ideology is basic evolutionary biology, how it manifests itself in today's society and a reaction to that. It is an empirical (and sometimes controlled) observation and conclusion of human nature. The blackpill also intends to return to older values as those values are - at least trough our experience - better suited than those of today, on the topic of family, love and reproduction.

We are acknowledging an unfair system and trying to combat it. That is what the normies, and leftists fear... by example we are deconstructing their narrative of the pink-tinted, happy-go-lucky worldview. We want equality of outcome and - in the end - rational fairness towards our biological needs.

They fear us for we gave ourselves a name and have an idea that that they do not want to admit it is true, for it has profound consequences of one's well being when it settles in.