Similar posts

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ Holy crap, bill-11b. I’m disappointed in you.
Tubman helped people oppressed by slavery to escape to the north, a key figure in the underground railroad. She is an American hero and a champion of the cause of freedom. And yet you say that choosing her is “pandering”. Well, I don’t care if it’s pandering or not. It’s a good choice. I’m not going to complain just because she’s a black woman. That would actually be racist.
Also by your logic about morality, and having wars to conquer new territory, then I suppose today the US could declare war on Canada, and if we won then that would be ok. If might makes right then there is no such thing as morality because you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it. You really don’t want to follow what you have said to its logical conclusion. I guess you don’t believe in unalienable rights. Or I guess if I can extort some free crap out of you then that’s my right. And you call yourself a conservative.
Frankly I’m disgusted.
]

What protects our right to free speech? A loving government that just LOOOOVES having citizens speak out against it?

What protects our right to trial by jury? Just because it’s a neat idea on a piece of paper?

NO. The threat of citizen violence against the government via the second amendment is the only thing that prevents that government from trampling our rights.

Look at how much regulation the government does of our daily lives. We don’t do anything about besides vote, and when that doesn’t work, what are our options? Accept the status quo, or grab the pitchfork and musket. Thus far we’ve accepted the status quo.

But the only reason the BoR still exists is because “the people” have the collective threat of violence on our side to prevent the government from burning the constitution and doing whatever they want to us.

As for invading Canada, yes. If we as a people decide thats what we want to do, then we should. They have in their own rights to fight back, and if they win, guess what? We’ll likely lose land and have to pay some sort of war reparation. If we win, we get their land. That is literally how war works.

As for Tubman, why does Jackson NEED to be replaced at all?

Putting a black woman in his place is blatant pandering.

If the treasury said “We’re looking into making a $25 note, and we’ll be going with Harriet Tubman” then that’s great, go for it.

But to erase one of the nation’s founders, and in his place put a racially and sexually pandering figure, is progressive politics at it’s finest.

I don’t understand how people don’t see that for what it is.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

image
N B 4

“THAT MAKES US JUST AS BAD AS THEM!!!”
I know I was whiskey boarded as a cherry as I think most grunts do (or used to, before hazing required congressional hearings) and it sucks ass, yeah, but it’s not gonna kill you and it leaves 0 lasting physical damage, and at worst will leave you with drowning trauma.
And anyway, anyone who makes it to the point of being waterboarded either doesn’t have long to live anyhow or will spend the rest of their life in a cell, so, who gives a fuck.

[ Torture is wrong, and it is wrong in so many ways: If you have any respect for the Rule of Law, you won’t torture anybody because it is illegal in every civilized country in the world. A moment you make exception or precedent for anybody, sooner or later it will be your turn to be tortured. That is something history is teaching us.
If you are doing it as revenge, you are descending to their level and when you do that, being their equal, you lose any right to criticize them.
If you are doing it to gather information, you will not get anything useful because people tortured will say whatever to stop torture. It is a fact that torture is ineffective as a tool of intelligence gathering.
]This is why my first comment was what it was.

Uniformed soldiers should never be tortured to gather information, you’re correct.
Non-state, non-uniformed terrorists and insurgents have no rights, you see, because they have declared themselves to be outside the purview of the rule of law.
“Descending to their level” is the oldest excuse in the book. They hit first, retaliation with whatever means are necessary is absolutely justified. If it isn’t, then shooting a home invader that’s raping your wife is “descending to his level,” nuking Japan to end the war or the fire bombings across Germany both of which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, were “descending to their level.”
If torture never produces actionable intelligence, why would the CIA employ it? Aren’t they our resident experts in human intelligence extraction?
Of course some people will lie to make the torture stop. Many will also tell the blatant truth in hopes that they wont be subjecting again. Even a true believer can be broken if he’s pressed the right way. There’s a reason we have people who are experts in reading body language and physical cues to tell if what they’re saying is desperate hail mary, or the God’s honest truth.
As for that last bit, it’s called “sin eating.” Some people are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect this nation, including surrender their own morals, values, “soul” to do so.

Why is it just in the face of this enemy that we feel surrender and defeat would be better than doing mean things? What the fuck happened? When did we as a society become so fucking spineless?
Be glad no one is asking you to do the dirty work that they’re willing to do on your behalf.


[ bill-11b
You are so wrong…
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/torture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_2.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html
"Similarly, Americans may choose to draw their own conclusions about Wednesday’s 480-page report by the US Senate intelligence committee, despite its conclusion that “enhanced interrogation techniques” do not yield any useful intelligence.”
Torture doesn’t work at all. It’s a disgrace how we trample on the freedom of no cruel and unusual punishment. If a government wastes it time and resources on false claims, it’s not being spent towards towards actual terrorists.There’s a huge difference between warfare after you are attacked, and the torture of suspected terrorists.
When people say the whole descending to their level, it’s because we expect torture and other horrible things from terrorists. Not the U.S. military, which I hope you’re at least holding to higher standards than barbarians.
We hung people in WWII because of waterboarding.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/jan/12/bobby-scott/bobby-scott-after-wwii-us-executed-japanese-war-cr/
Here one from McCain was actually tortured in Vietnam.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/
It’s chilling that anyone has to go through torture let alone ann american soldier
]

Okay, that’s great and all, butimage

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ Abortion is always wrong and is the ultimate evil because it kills a human life but deliberately killing thousands of civilians (as long as they are not american of course) is totally ok. Never mind some of those civilians may have been pregnant and carrying fetuses. I guess only american lives are the only lives that count as human lives. ]

Nice cultural relativism there. As it turns out Americans =/= Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans/Pashtuns, or American infants.

A mother choosing to end an inconvenient child =/= killing savages that refuse to enter the 18th century and choose to export violence around the globe.

I enlisted to serve America and America’s interests and to protect Americans and our way of life - and if securing and defending that way of life costs every drop of middle eastern blood. So. Fucking. Be. It.

That isn’t what I want, not even close. But I will not allow America to be destroyed in the name of fucking tolerance and whatever other liberal bullshit policies you think will appease them into loving us. If it comes down to total war, that will be their choice, not ours.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com


Islam is a disgusting belief set that preaches violence, rape, and hatred not just towards outsiders, but towards it’s own followers as well.
Child marriage and rape, death penalties for female rape victims labeled as adulterers, death penalties for gays, sex slavery, etc are all very prevalent in modern day middle eastern islam.

I find it to be a repugnant belief system that should have been left in the pages of history hundreds of years ago.
That being said, I don’t expect to change the world, nor do I have an interest in killing 1.6 billion people across Africa, the ME, Asia, and Europe.
However, I think islam as a belief system needs to be completely eradicated and forgotten like the cancer that it is.
Here’s the part that’s unpopular:

As long as islamists either insist on carrying out attacks in the west, or not standing up to those who do, islam has no place in the western world.
We should run raze mosques and run them the fuck out of our countries, right back to their third world shitholes, where they can brutalize and rape one another to death for all I care. |

Yes, that is collectivist. No, I don’t give a fuck.
The constitution is an ideal document. We live in reality, not in utopia.
Sometimes you have to do some shit that you don’t like to protect your own way of life. If they don’t want to play ball, fuck em.

If you don’t like that plan, then I implore you, please, explain to me how we determine who is a peaceful moderate, and who is a fundamentalized jihadist?
Keep in mind
All of those friendly people were peaceful moderates.
Until they weren’t.

Omnios #racist allspark.com

My thing about death is not meant to be taken as an anti-anything statement. It's just, well, we'll all die sooner-or-later, so why even bother with terrorists?

As Breakdown said: What's it matter if it comes from above or behind? Death is death!

What would be their next attack then? Our planes are safe as Fort Knox, and you can't get anything past security these days. We have security everywhere, and we have people checking out everyone that comes into the country legally.

Maybe we should bring those internment camps back that we had durning WW2....

We did it with the Japanese, Germans, and Italians back in WW2, so why not now?

Just get all of the middle-easten people in the USA in compounds, and let them live peacefully untill the War on Terror is over.

If any middle-eastern person comes into the USA (legally or illeagally) just piut 'em in one of the compounds.

Search everyone of them, and problem solved!

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ What do you think of the official changing of Jackson's face on the 20 dollar bill to Harriet Tubman face. ]


It’s bullshit pandering, nothing more.

It disgusts me to see people on the right celebrating as if this is some civil rights glass ceiling we needed to break.

If they’re gonna replace anyone, it should be Lincoln, seeing as he was a tyrannical fuck head anyhow.

[ You’re saying that replacing someone responsible for the trail of tears and the Indian removal act with someone who actually did some good is bullshit pandering? ]

Indians
>On our land
>Why wouldn’t we remove them?

I’m so sick of hearing about the poor fucking Indians. Jesus Christ. Maybe if they’d evolved culturally past 400bce they’d still be here and we wouldn’t.

I think you’d be hard pressed to find another nation that’s conquered territory and then carved out spots for the conquered natives to remain autonomous.

Jackson was an American war hero and unlike Lincoln, he didn’t kill 600,000 Americans, and unlike Hamilton, he didn’t support centralized banking, which as we’ve seen has turned into a shit show and allowed the government to keep their boot on our necks financially.
And yes, a black woman, by this president, at this time in history, is absolutely pandering.


[ Cool. So if you conquer a place you have a right to treat the populace however you want? That’s not how that works. You aren’t right just because you won. ]

And yes, actually winning a conflict where you’re specifically trying to conquer new territory does make you right.

I don’t understand why we’re the only people on earth that have to answer for taking of new territory, when we’ve put it to much better use than the people who were living on it previously. Somehow we’re the most humane conquerors in history, save for maybe Cyrus of Persia, and yet we’re expected to answer for every death. Sorry, I won’t apologize for things that happened during a war, 200 years ago.

[ So the Nazis are only wrong because they lost. Got it. I’m not asking anyone alive today to answer for the people that were killed, but the people who did the killing sure as hell are responsible. ]


You’re asking America as a whole to say “we were wrong, so sorry” and change how things work because whiteguilt.exe

Based on your logic, Washington and Jefferson should be kicked off the 1 and 2 dollar bills, because they were slave owners after all, and we can’t have that in our history.

“History is written by the victors.” If the Nazis had won, do you think your history book might be a little different? I do. We wouldn’t know about a great number of their transgressions. And from their point of view, they’d teach that they were the morally righteous group.

Might literally makes right. Unless someone can or will challenge your authority, then saying “you’re wrong” is just whining.

Violence is the root of all authority, and consequently, the reluctance to engage in it, or failure to use it to your own advantage, places you under the authority of someone who can.

Why do you pay taxes? Because you’ll get fined if you don’t. What if you don’t pay the fines? Men with guns will come and find you. What if you don’t go with them voluntarily? They will force you, with lethal force if necessary.

There is no authority without violence, or the threat of it, and consequently, conquered people have no choice but to submit to their conqueror, or fight him to the death

[ Hey Bill. I mean sure, you’re an angry old piss ant who’s angry at the world because you get your rocks off to dead children overseas. But I mean are so fucking dense, so fucking delusional to think that the Native Americans were on OUR land? Oh so just shelling them off their properties, confining them onto small plots of property on the opposite end of the country, landscapes and climates they grew up in is a sense of “entitlement”? The US government killed more Native Americans than they killed protecting their own land, and somehow they’re the fucking problem? I mean do you just gargle with the government’s dick or are you so fucking stupid that you honestly believe any of that was justified? Sure, I mean, since when did you give a shit about human rights? You’re a cranky old has been who spends more of his time pretending his military service makes you some kind of fucking god when really, my friends and family in the military would sooner put a boot up your ass for your sadistic and pathetic excuse for morals. You’re a tool. A racist old windbag who’s beyond his glory years who spends his time pretending to be some just cause on a website filled with people a quarter his age. Now, you see I’m one who prefers to use logic and facts instead of some fucked up bias he learned from watching Alex Jones and Bill O'Rielly, but in this case, I’m willing to make an exception. Because frankly, no one cares about your shitty, cynical world view. In fact, your delusions of grandeur are so misguided you think that people actually respect you just because you were in the military. You’re a disgrace to the uniform and anyone who died protecting the liberties of everyone in this god damned country. You and people like you are the problem with this country. Not Obama, bot MUH Muslims. Nah, just a bunch of has been whiners who hide behind a badge or uniform as if it excused your sorry excuse for an exisance. Get fucked. ]


LOL Wat?

Do you get this pissed at Alexander being called “The Great” since he killed a whole fuckload of people, took their land, and made it his?

It is our land, because they lost it to us. What is so hard to understand about that?

If someone else fought the US, and took over our land, it would cease to be our land, and would be their land.

Would I be happy about that? No. But my choices would be to die fighting for my land or accept my new rulers.

Also, just for giggles, how old do you think I am, exactly?

EL KABONG #fundie forum.myspace.com

The End of the World as We Know It

What with abortion as the birth control of choice and the low birth rates for white or european women, our world population is taking an incredible turn. In the near future, france, germany, and england will see the largest percentage of their population will be middle-eastern, asian, and carribean.

The U.S. is currently going through a browning as our hispanic population swells and our caucasian population shrinks.

The last bastions for the caucasion race is canada and scandinavia, but even those locations are not immune.

This will change many features of our current social constructs, particularly the economic, religious, and political.

Hang on, things are about to get really different.

What do you think about the pending changes this difference in growth rates will bring about?

Hyve #fundie mmo-champion.com


"An Australian woman who spent eight months in prison in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on charges of having sex outside of marriage after she was gang-raped told her harrowing story to Yahoo 7 News.

What is happening in the UAE isn't acceptable by our standards, and I don't think it is right to imprison victims, but I think it is even more wrong, to impose our morale views and opinions on another nation. They've built their society to support the needs of Western & Middle-Eastern Businesses. If they start to give more to either side, it becomes too extreme for either party.

It isn't fair on the girl, and my views on rapists are fairly extreme themselves (Castration as punishment), but to go around trying to moralise their world is what has started almost every war, battle and conflict in the Middle East. Just leave their world alone. If you've not done deals, worked and been to these places and seen the people, you can't pretend to know how it really works.

I was unable to sit in on an online video meeting with a few people from the Middle East, because they thought I was too pale and untrustworthy. If you don't look right, or they don't trust you, you don't get the deal. The UAE acts as the middle man, they've got the people needed for all your business desires and needs, and you just tell them what you want to be said and done.

They take a cut, get rich and live happily ever after. If they start allowing women to live a westernised lifestyle, then that Middleman Status is gone.

I don't hold to the notion of moral relativism. What the UAE does is reprehensible regardless of whether or not it might be profitable or convenient, and they should be called out for it.

Why? Please explain why our values, morals and way of life is better then theirs? They're the rich, powerful and successful society with less domestic issues.


I'm well aware mate, just saying we are usually not expressing our concerns with these kind of issues sufficiently. I realize thats part of the game as far as diplomacy goes but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical on our parts.

But why should we express our concerns? That is their way of life. They don't make big public announcements on how they believe our women dress like whores, and how the men are homosexual scum.

We don't interfere with them, they don't interfere with us. It isn't just diplomacy, it is just common sense. This belief that we should all be international policy, spread our amazing society around the world, is just bullshit. All of Western Society is fucked up beyond repair, and we want to start enforcing our values on them?

I'm not claiming their society is perfect, far from it, but I would much rather live in their society, and then Western Society, and the Billionaires who visit and live there, seem to think the same.

F. Roger Devlin & Arthur Kemp #racist amren.com

A Home of Our Own

Those who attended the 2013 American Renaissance conference saw a change in mood and emphasis from previous gatherings—probably the result of watching Barack Obama coast to reelection with just 39% of the white vote. The new feeling is that the strategy of “awakening” whites and gaining power through democratic electoral means is not working. The demographic shift is too fast and our own progress is too slow; the opportunities we thought we saw are vanishing, and a strategic reorientation is becoming inevitable.

This reorientation will be toward the creation of autonomous white territories that can eventually become independent states, and Arthur Kemp’s Nova Europa is a fine introduction to this subject. The starting point and greatest strength of his thinking is a firm grasp of the territorial nature of politics.

[...]

So what must whites do to ensure their physical and cultural survival? They must establish homelands where they are the majority and can protect their racial and cultural integrity. Blacks have many such homelands; the Chinese have a homeland; even Jews now have a homeland. Only white people no longer have a place to call home, and that is why only our survival is threatened.

When mainstream journalists discuss demographic change, they like to call it “the mass movement of peoples,” a conveniently neutral phrase that masks the reality that all this “movement” is in one direction—into white homelands. Although many whites are unaware of it, the norm in most of the world is for dominant majorities to enjoy special legal protections. As Mr. Kemp notes:

Japan, China, India, most sub-Saharan African states, most north African states, most middle-Eastern states and, of course, Israel, are ethnostates with varying degrees of legal enforcement designed to ensure that they keep their homogeneity.

This sensible policy prevents ethnic conflicts before they can arise.

Even many white liberals favor such policies—as long as the beneficiaries are not white. They will happily help protect the Tibetans or the Indian tribes of the Amazon from alien incursion. Why is it so difficult for such people to see that it is fair and right for their own race to enjoy the same protections?

Europeans today even fit the definition of those who wear the ultimate badge of fashionable victimhood, indigenous people. Europeans have a continuous historical link with a particular territory, are characterized by large degree of homogeneity, and are being colonized by aliens.

[...]

As Mr. Kemp notes, “there is currently no area on earth which has been specifically set aside for European people.” Why aren’t the heirs of Western civilization being afforded protections routinely granted to the hunter-gatherers of the Amazon jungle?

It cannot be because such protection would be “white supremacy.” This fashionable bogeyman—imagining for a moment that anybody really advocated it—would be incompatible with the ethnic nationalism Mr. Kemp advocates: “self-determination specifically eschews the claim to rule over others.” Mr. Kemp—a strong critic of apartheid—argues that the demand for black self-rule in South Africa validates white self-rule in Europe and North America.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

I know there’s no point but PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE HAVING A STROKE

So the real question here is, do I believe in biology, and to that end, do i believe the evidence that suggest man, just like every other living creature, has evolved over time by way of natural selection, and the answer to that is absolutely, yes.

I believe that homosexuality is a biological disorder, and that transgenderism, (excepting intersex people) is a mental/emotional disorder.

If we are to believe that man has evolved over eons by way of natural selection, then there is really no way someone can call a trait that leads to reduced reproduction or retards reproduction altogether as anything other than a disorder.

I think homosexuality is completely natural in occurrence (thought there are clearly people who ascribe it in a quest to be special) however that does not make it normal. People born with one foot arrive that way naturally, that by no means makes them normal.

To that end, I think homosexuals have no choice in their sexual attraction and as such should receive the same rights and have the same responsibilities as anyone else in society - that does not mean extra special rights, or the right to force people to labor for them, etc.

Transgenderism on the other hand, I find to be a mental or emotional disorder, as the person legitimately believes themselves to be something they aren’t.
I think most trans individuals need their family’s support, guidance, and help - not their enabling of a mental illness.
If after extensive counseling and therapy, a professional determines that the best way for a person to live through their disorder is to transition, then I see no issue with that. However, transitioning children, giving them hormones before they’re even in puberty yet, etc I see as child abuse and indicative of the parent’s own mental illness - a parent is there to raise the child, and that means sometimes you don’t give them what they want, because as it turns out, children are very poor longterm decision makers.

I don’t hate gays or trans people. I accept however that they are not what “normal” looks like, and for good reason - the species selects traits that make it stronger and better adapted to the world, and allow it to reproduce as much as possible, not traits the halt reproduction.

There would be, in my estimation, almost no anti-LGBT sentiment, if there wasn’t a practice of forced integration and acceptance by that movement.

The more a guy in a wig demands to be able to use the same restroom as a young girl, the more suspicious it becomes. The more gays try to force private businesses to serve them and use the law as their broad sword of forced tolerance, the more push back we will see.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ I've never understood how water board is torture or unendurable... It's the desire to breathe an adequate amount of air right? When they can't get enough air they have reflex and try to avoid the feeling of "drowning" or "choking"..? Can you explain water boarding? ]

You basically described it. It simulates the panic of drowning, and of course, if you’re in the custody of people who’s intent you don’t know, it works even better.
All torture is mental, the physical injury with most torture is just a means to an end.
With that in mind, waterboarding starts right in with psychology without the need to injure the subject.

I was whiskey boarded as a cherry in the barracks. Same concept, except a handle of jack instead of water. And trust me, it sucks massive dick, and it does induce panic, as I said, I can only imagine it’s even worse if you’re bagged and shuffled around and find yourself in a dimly lit connex with a couple of pissed off meat eaters who “soften you up” first before strapping you to a board and simulate-drown you.

I would say waterboarding probably does meet muster for “torture” - that said, I don’t rightly give a rats dick if we torture non-uniformed, non-state combatants who engage uniformed forces and civilians as an insurgency or terror force.

IMO, any captured EPW should be soft interrogated, and those determined to potentially posses useful intelligence should have the shit tortured out of them until they let it slip. Many will tell complete falsehoods to make the torture end, those people should be tortured further, until dead, in front of the next schmuck in line. Some one will eventually give us something we can use.

If we save one civilian or Soldier’s life, I couldn’t rightly give a fuck if tortured every EPW to death and then shot his dog to get the AI.

A British Man in London #racist abritishmaninlondon.blogspot.co.uk

This morning a middle-eastern type came cycling down the path whilst I walked the dog. He went to one side and refused to move and so did I. In the end i moved and then he began to criticize me for not moving. I saw red and said 'fuck off you bloody immigrant'. He couldn't believe his ears and it took a few moments for him to realise what I said. Then he launched into a tirade about my mother - a very alien line of insulting. I laughed and told him to 'fuck off' and called him a 'wog'.

In hindsight I am tempted to say I should have beaten him. He was older than me and incapacitated somewhat on his bike. He does not deserve an honorary fight between equals. What I find outrageous is that he can come to my country and behave like this with so much self-righteousness. I should have smashed him in the face, taken his bike and thrown it into the bushes.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

image
Run them over and shoot them for good measure.

[ For people who brag so much about freedom and liberty you guys are in a pretty authoritarian and opressive vibe right now. ]


You have the right to protest all you want.

What you don’t have the right to do is block anyone else’s right to free travel or destroy private property as part of your “protest”

One of the only legitimate purposes of the state is to step in when one person’s rights begin to infringe on another persons. In that instance, shooting rioters dead is completely justified and telling people in the middle of a highway to move or get run over is fucking fine with me, even if it’s not necessarily legal.

Wulf V #fundie amazon.co.uk

[Neopagan fundie reviews a children's comedy novel about the Norse gods visiting London]

Not a Suitable Subject for a Novel

What authors like Francesca Simon fail to understand is that Wodenism is a living and growing religion in England. It is the original and natural religion of the ethnic English people. The Gods of the English are in many[but not all] cases the same deities honoured by the other modern day descendants of the pre-xtian Germanic peoples, whether they be of English, German, Dutch or Scandinavian descent.

Making fun of our deities in a novel dishonours our Gods and causes offense to those of us who follow the ancestral Gods.
I would ask therefore that all potential purchasers of this book take that into account.
On a different note I would recommend that if anyone were to author a book about our Gods to at least be consistent with the names of our deities and not mix Anglo-Saxon and Norse names! I notice from browsing the book via Amazon book search facility that whilst Woden is referred to by his correct English name, Thunor is called by his Norse name Thor. Likewise Tiw is referred to as Tyr.

Lastly I would like to point out that as London is no longer a city inhabited by a majority ethnically English population it would be the last place in England that the Gods would choose to "return" to. They are ANCESTRAL Gods after all! Unlike the middle-eastern god our Gods do not consider themselves to be universal or require the whole world to worship them. They exist in the DNA of their people, their folc.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com


Non uniformed, non state combatants (say it with me now)
HAVE.
NO.
FUCKING.
RIGHTS.

Also, just because some of the people tortured give false information to make the torture stop, doesn’t mean that none of them ever give up actionable intelligence.
If 1 out of 100 waterboarded goat fuckers gives up AI, it’s completely worth it.

And because they’re not uniformed, and they have no state, we can summarily execute them and drop their fucking corpses in the Arabian sea, which is what we should have been doing from day one.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ Killing someone/wanting to kill someone based on political ideologies is terrorism, m9. You want more terrorism because people don't agree with you? Lol. ]

Killing someone over politics is terrorism, although, I’d argue deliberately killing one individual, especially a politician is an assassination, not technically terrorism.
Though that’s neither here nor there - in this country, we have a right to bear arms SPECIFICALLY so we can kill politicians when they refuse to do as they’re told.

Any politician who’s policy is to sell her countrymen down the river in favor of rape-hungry savages deserves nothing more than the bullet she received.

Das Erwachen der Schwerter #conspiracy daserwachenderschwerter.wordpress.com

Go to any Modern war; either in contracted official terms, or as a voluntary mercenary. Or just read about them. You will find out that everything is pretty much staged, regulated, politically restricted and ‘not total’ (war).

The men fighting them may be sincere. But the men financing, planning and ordering them, just play a game. Too many rules and intentional ”blunders”.

The only real wars of the last centuries, which were not restricted as in board games, were fought and led by Napoleon first, and Hitler after.

The part in Orwell’s book, 1984, where he described the wars and shifting alliances between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia; is nothing different from what is actually happening today.

Only small militias trying to fight for their own sovereignty, and even individuals, are in today’s world, real anti-establishment conflicts. But then they have to interact within the Modern system of international relationships, if they succeed in power. And thus every ”revolution” and ”independence declaration”, is the continuance of Institutionalized Law, with different faces. Just like in democrazy, the system and Ideal do not change, but only the faces. Heads or tails, 2 sides (left and right), same coin.

Even ISIS is controlled opposition. Founded, financed and restricted by certain Western intelligent services.
Every Middle-Eastern country, destroyed by the USA and NATO, had their own economic system and banks, uncontrolled by the Global Currency. And ”without notice”, it are exactly those countries being invaded and left in orchestrated chaos. There never were weapons of mass destruction or overly tyrant dictators; and even though they are dictators, that is simply how those people live their best standards.
ISIS is easily dealt with through a full-scale attack, but they are tolerated, until the Russians finally interfered to a degree. But of course, to have their part in world affairs.

All the criminals and gangsters and ”freedom fighters” and city-anarchists; are merely rats living in the sewers of the system. Even in prison – everything is an economy, or a part of the State’s ordering of society.
Small people ”fighting against the law”, not by actually fighting the law, but by committing degenerate crimes and thinking that they are ”out-laws”, but actually, they are in-laws as they never are an actual threat by overthrowing the State-system.

‘The System’ isn’t just the Institution as an abstract and bureaucratic building and its law enforcement, but it is organic, too: Institutionalized people. People who think by abstract laws and rules and morals. The Law is their thinking. As with traffick rules.
The people are the system, they are stupid. Genetically degenerating through medical, GMO and hormonal warfare and by propagating a system for the dumbest to easily procreate while making it for the most free-spirited, hard to live.

The system territorilizes the minds of its people through political law, academic learning and media propaganda. So, if a Western tourist goes to another country, far away with a different system, she will still, in most of the times, represent her government through the manner of her behaviour and thinking and living. As tourism is itself a part of systematic living (free-time and work-time).
The people as an extension of their Law and State.

You can’t have democrazy, or whatever system, without propaganda and restrictions in free-thinking.
Not a single system works without its propaganda. All the greatness you think democracy and humanism are, is only because you believe the propaganda. These idea(l)s sell themselves as such and become institutionalized / nationalized. Just like Islam, Communism, Christianity etc. Every person adhering these religions and oppositional systems, think greatly about them. Because each system propagates itself as such, and so the person will parrot.

Walking institutions/corporations… That is what most people are.
You can’t defeat the whole system, without taking down all of the people with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQfRdl3GTw4

Institutional thinking

Matthew Contessini #racist amren.com

Why Are Europeans More Racially Aware?

One of the most perplexing differences between whites who are native English speakers—whom the French call Anglo-Saxons—and continental Europeans is their attitude toward white nationalism and the rights of whites.

In the United States, which is home to more whites than any other country, freedom of speech and association are constitutionally protected rights, but meetings of American Renaissance and other pro-white organizations are disrupted by people who hate us. Even traditional supporters of the First Amendment, such as the ACLU, libertarians, the Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute take absolutely no interest in the trampling of our rights.

In Britain as well, pro-white organizations are attacked by radicals, vilified by the media, and shunned by the mainstream. Canada and Australia are no different.

In continental Europe, on the other hand, pro-white organizations are thriving. In France, the National Front is an influential and popular party, while the Bloc Identitaire is a rising youth movement. In Holland, Austria, and Switzerland, the Party for Freedom, the Freedom Party, and the Swiss People’s Party, respectively, are very strong. In Greece and Hungary, ultranationalist pro-white parties are surging. Since these movements are supported by millions of people, attempts by fringe groups to silence them would not be tolerated.

Why are continental Europeans more racially aware and much more resistant to the destruction of their heritage than whites from countries that were founded by the British?

There are many differences between the two groups of nations that influence their views and behavior about race. The most obvious difference is geographic. Because Britain, North America, Australia and New Zealand are geographically isolated, they have not been the victims of conquest by alien invaders, whereas the history of continental Europe is the story of endless conquests, often by savage Asiatic and Middle-Eastern tribes such as the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Arabs and Turks.

Conquest and oppression in Europe lasted throughout the 20th century. European ethnicities suffered endless turmoil that is forever etched in their collective memories, whereas the last successful invasion of an Anglo-Saxon nation was in 1066.

These different experiences resulted in different attitudes toward alien intruders. While Europeans are instinctively suspicious of foreigners that have brought them so much horror over the centuries, Anglo-Saxons, who did not experience the same fate—but were often conquerors themselves—have not developed that same defensive traits.

Continental Europeans have a profound knowledge of their neighbors, who are often traditional adversaries. Americans, who do not have a similar historical experience, have relatively little knowledge or interest in either Canadians or Mexican re-conquistadors.

Thus, when Americans see millions of Mexicans streaming across the border, the alarm does not go off, as it would for continental Europeans. White Americans see intruders as people who are “like us,” just looking for a better life. The invading Mexicans, on the other hand, see their misguided hosts as people who “stole” the Southwest from their fledgling nation in the 1840s. While Mexicans dream of recapturing the mythical Aztlan, their white hosts see no further than the fact that Mexicans do inexpensive yard work. For most whites that is all that matters.

[...]

Recently, Jason Richwine was fired from his position at the Heritage Foundation because of his studies of group IQ differences and what they mean for immigration policy. The American public and their elected representatives are apparently not allowed to have an interest in the quality of their immigrant population, even though ignoring quality has catastrophic consequences.

Unlike Americans, continental Europeans have a keen interest in differences between races and ethnicities. Every European ethnicity has a well-deserved, widely-known reputation. Consequently, when German author Thilo Sarrazin published a book in 2011 which concluded that Turks and other nonwhite immigrants are “dumbing down” German society due to their low average IQ, he started a national dialog on the quality of immigrant population. While he was eventually forced to resign from his position at the Bundesbank, Mr. Sarazzin remains a popular, respected, and influential public figure in Germany.

Several years ago, when Turkey was negotiating entry into the European Union, its bid was strongly supported by the governments of Britain and the United States. Germans, however, are painfully aware of the consequences of the Turkish presence in Germany and since Ottoman Turks have a horrible reputation among the Europeans that had a misfortune of interacting with them over the centuries, Turkey’s entry was effectively blocked.

American elites and many whites view the United States as a boarding house that is open to masses of Third-World immigrants. They apparently believe that this gigantic social experiment will somehow be successful despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Wotans Krieger #racist aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk

Problems regarding over-population and pollution of Mutter Erde will one day be resolved with the cosmos shaking event known as Ragnarok.
The catalyst that will start Ragnarok will be the final global war between the zionist world represented by the United States of America and her pet poodle the United Kingdom against their long time enemy Russia alongside countries such as China and zionist-free middle-eastern countries such as Iran. One can see these sides in the process of alligning now. This is the real reason why Israel and her zionist allies will do anything they can to resist Iran developing nuclear capability for military purposes.

[...]

Thanks to the traitors and idiots over the decades who have allowed England to become a multiracial cesspit every politician must in effect work for the detriment of the indigenous English and British population. Therefore the solution to the multiracial hell that we are experiencing can not be found in the ballot box.

However the `solution` is coming and it will be a final solution, not one instigated by us but by Mutter Erde Herself. The nuclear holocausts that will be unleashed by the zionists will cause a chain reaction throughout nature and will wipe out most of humanity. This we know has happened before many times in the unrecorded history of the earth. As someone far wiser than me once noted Ragnarok spelled in reverse is Korangar-the spear[Gar-Proto-Germanic] of the Koran. In otherwords Ragnarok will be initiated as the result of Islamic fundamentalism. Recently I noticed that likewise Walhalla spelled in reverse says Allah Law. So the Aryan spiritual forces of Walhalla, the Einheriar will find themselves fighting against hordes of the Law of Allah, in other words Islam.

David Shippers & Alex Jones #conspiracy apfn.org

[The U.S. government conspired with evil dark-skinned Arabs to commit the 9/11 attacks.]

David Shippers: The original report that I got was that they had arranged for three attacks on the United States - one, they were going to take down an airline; two, they were going to attack a federal facility in the heartland of the United States; and the third one was going to be a massive attack in lower Manhattan.

Alex Jones: The first was TWA 800, then Oklahoma City...

David Shippers: The original intelligence that was reported to me, and this was not first hand obviously, that the original plan was a suitcase nuclear weapon.

Alex Jones: Now we gotten that from Col. Roberts and a bunch of other people...

David Shippers: I've ran into a lot of nuts who came up with a lot of strange theories, outer space, and things like that. But these people who I was talking to were very, very credible people. For example, Jayna Davis took everything she had ...

Alex Jones: Tell us who she is, one more time...for those who just tuned in.

David Shippers: She was an investigative reporter working for a TV station in Oklahoma City at the time of the bombing.

Alex Jones: And they had these very middle-eastern Bin Laden, Saddam minions, interviewing these guys.

David Shippers: Yes, absolutely. She identified by the name the guy who was the one. Recently, she came up with some evidence that another guy there actually admitted that he was part of the World Trade Center bombing. He's still walking around. I mean they are taking people into custody, they are offering rewards, but these guys are still there and still doing their little thing.

M #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The San Bernardino False Flag: A Double Cross?

The San Bernardino shooting is a botched False Flag riddled with absurdities, irregularities, and mistakes indicating that there may have indeed been a double cross in this false flag ops.


Prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday President Obama chastised Americans to spend their time sitting around the thanksgiving table thinking about gun control.

Thread: White House: Americans Should Talk About Gun Control This Thanksgiving

Obama has repeatedly said that for his last year in office all his efforts would be put toward his top priority of Gun Control:

Thread: Obama says gun control to be top issue of final year

A pretty good indicator that mass shooting false flags are in order for the next year or so until Obama gets his way or leaves office.

Now in Nov, we had the planned parent shooting in Colorado Springs which was fit-to-order. It was Obama's and liberals wet dream. A white , Christian ,gun-lover attacked one of liberals most sacred institutions : abortion and killed three abortion workers. While the shooter looked like an MK-Ultra victim escaped from a mental institution, the leftist media was quick to seize the narrative of white Christian terrorist.

(See think progress “ Yes the planned parent hood shooter was a Christian terrorist” )


But this type of shooting does little to nothing to induce conservatives and moderates to give up their guns, as abortion clinics aren't sympathetic targets. More False flags were in order with targets that would prey upon the heartstrings of broader swath of the American population.

[We should note, around the same time as the planned parent hood shooting, there was a mass shooting in bunny park in which 17 people were injured. Of course this shooting was not ordered, the suspects were black, it didn't fit any of the pre-package scripts so it got little to no media coverage. Thread: There Was A Giant Mass Shooting NOBODY’S Talking About, Care To Guess Why? ]


Now comes San Bernardino. It was apparent Obama ordered a script white (probably Christian) anti-government gun lovers, to go on a senselessness rampage and attack a disability center. The reports on the police scanner indicate the shooters were three white males with body armor, military fatigues and automatic weapons and the Media seemed ready and eager to run Obama's script.

The shooters were obviously black-ops that are CIA/mossad/ or military, who are selected to advance this script. But Somebody apparently had ideas that they didn't like this script. Maybe a mid level manager of the operation changed it while Obama is over in paris, france doing -God knows what- for 12 days at the COP21 conference.

The script got flipped to the accused being a husband and wife, middle-eastern people. They conveniently are reported as dead, killed by police in a shoot out, despite zero footage of the shoot-out existing, which is incredible considering all police cruisers have cameras in them, there is tons of video surveillance in San Bernardino and some jurisdictions in California even require their officers to wear body cams. The accused may have been random muzzies taken out by black ops hit squads to fit the changed narrative or they may not even exist at all. All we know is the narrative conveniently puts them dead, with no chance of exonerating themselves and exposing a false flag.

The third reported shooter just disappeared down the memory hole.

In a press conference from Obama following the alleged mass shooting, Obama looks confused, frustrated and nervous. He doesn't understand how the script got flipped. In an attempt to defeat the new narrative he ridiculously categorizes the shooting as work place shooting of a disgruntled worker. .

Thread: Obama Just Said it! It May be 'Work-place Violence'--Gee, That Didn't Take Long Did It?


From here, the official narrative gets more absurd and stupid with a 100 plus journalist media circus being let into the accused's apartment, a crime scene (within 48 hours of supposedly the biggest terrorist attack since sept 11) to rifle around and create a forced narrative of muzzie extremists. The live broadcast from the crime scene featured the necessary Muzzie narrative trapping with prayer rugs hanging on the wall, Korans falling out of cabinets when opened etc. A stage show with a new level of ridiculousness with the media breaking and entering, criminally trespassing on private property, interfering with a federal investigation, Obstructing justice by contaminating the crime scene, and probably planting evidence to fit the muzzie narrative all to get the public to believe the new narrative was real.

Thread: Breaking!!! Over 100 JOURNALISTS destroy crime scene apartment in San Bernardino !!!!!!!!!!!!


It was as if somebody in the black ops department panicked and said “oh no” “now the script was changed we need to quick do something to reinforce the muzzie narrative”. Get the media and have the items planted.

Thread: Reporters Storm Mass Shooters' Apartment, Reveal Potential Evidence On Live TV


Soon after the Media Circus the F.B.I. held a quick press conference, in which they nervously and sheepishly claimed they let the media in, in an attempt to cover-their-asses and explain why evidence in a criminal investigation was flaunted by journalists on live TV and also officialize the muzzie narrative.

Thread: Just Watched the Press Conference on the Isis Shooting-Senators Demand Obama Release Immigration History of San Bernardino Attackers

All of this was probably much to the ire of President Obama who ordered a white Christian, gun loving, anti government shooter script and got crossed when somebody changed it to be a muzzie extremist scripted false flag.

From here they are stuck reinforcing the muzzie narrative in San Bernardino

With the CIA/mossad creation false flag and hoax group, ISIS issuing statements claiming credit for the attack

Thread: ISIS officially claims responsibility for San Bernardino shootings - meanwhile, Obama and the NY Times are continuing to push for gun control!!!

various commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Tfw you try to dunk on incels and end up just shitting on the working class

image

(der_nietzsche)
when equating love to game show wealth he's in this post saying love is earned by winning the genetic lottery and that ugly people don't deserve love

jfl at cucktears iq

(MMDT)
This idiot is actually AGREEING with us. Unless he thinks all poor people are that way because of their bad attitudes and laziness. What an absolute down syndrome

(satansbarbedcock)
I lean Republican and my general take isn't that being poor is just because of being lazy. Things can happen. Some people don't have right skills at the right place and time.

It just isn't that bad to be poor in the first world as long as you avoid REALLY terrible mistakes like having five kids or doimg meth.

Being ugly, though, that's become a lifelong struggle in the West

(waGeCel)
cope, statistics show you have more than 2/3 chance of staying in the same SES you were born into. tradcucks just like to espouse this shit cuz they got lucky, same with chads and stacies and justworldtheory

(Sniveling_Cur)
Everyone who upvoted that thread then went on to vote for higher minimum wage.

(Rammspieler)
When it comes to love and sex, Lefty's are even more Objectivist than Ayn Rand.

(Ub2-w)
it's because the left is not about equality anymore, no since the 60 after the Frankfurt school and especially after the collapse of the USSR, is about post-modernism in an western centric world.

Females are the principal victims of everything according to this doctrine and males the victimizer, to criticize how unjust and unequal a free sexual market is it's criticize femoid behaviour(since females are the gatekeepers of sex and they hold all the power in this situation)and correctly classify them as the eugenicist, hitlerian animals they are; That's intolerable because everyone know that males and the system that they founded are the core of all the inequality in the planet.

Who is hilarious since monogamy is literally the marxism of the sexual market.

(thepaj_)
He's saying that some people are born luckier and others but ad with money you can try and work your way to love.

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)

Be born in rural somalia Recieve barely any education, survive with foreign aid until you're an adult Go to Silicon Valley and become a rich programmer

Yeah I see no flaw in your reasining, we truly live in a fair world where everyone can get rich so long as they work hard.

Be born ugly with emotionally troubled parents Experience rejection and isolation during the critical years of socialization and development of self-esteem Bloom into a charming, beautiful person with people's skills and fulfilling relationships.

Yeah if I could everyone can I think

(unincelligent)
I love how their satire that's supposed to prove how insane and selfish we are is actually a really solid critique of our economic system. Of COURSE it's good that some people make 100 million dollars because they picked Door B and some people starve to death working 12 hour shifts! Stop being so entitled and try actually putting in some effort - money isn't everything you know, managing these investments is a real hassle

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)
That's why the blackpill resonated so well with a leftist like me despite the tainting with right-wing rethoric.

Both the blackpill and revolutionary theory have its roots in the fact that some humans will be born miserable and rejected while others will live shitting on everyone else. Be it the wealth or your parents or the facial symmetry that your genes encode both are angry reactions to cosmic injustice and to the cruelty of God.

(AyeThatsAGoodNagger)
Anybody got that meme of what happens when a liberal debates an incel? Bernie Sanders morphing into Ben Shapiro.

They’re such hypocrites. The chance to reproduce is way lower (meaning more basic and vital) on the heirarchy of needs than shit like the internet or a university education. But guess which liberals think people are entitled to.

(gufestus2)
Yeah boy. Everyone who's poor is because of his own volition. Being lucky has nothing to do with it. Just like dating. Whether you're born to a rich businessman from Switzerland or to a poor farmer in Somalia, it has no effect on how much wealth you're gonna get. Definitely not. Just be happy that you're poor and stop hating on rich people who force you to work 12 hours a day to barely feed yourself while they eat gourmet in Paris. If you didn't hate the rich so much you could actually learn how to do business like they do and maybe get rich too.

(Liptusg)
Funny how the liberal left in both the US and Europe supports socialism for exactly that reason. Are IncelTears going to support the redistribution of sexual access to the less fortunate? I thought they were against that kind of thing.

(AdAstraPer5-HT2Ar)
I spent some time on inceltears trying to assess how leftist they are and they have john oliver-tier pseudoideology.

Those are absolute retards that will simultaneously support Macron, oppose middle-eastern interference, condemn US imperialism in latin america and shit on Fidel for whatever propaganda they're fed.

Probably on par with /r/neoliberal as one of the subs I can't physically tolerate.

intelligentsia #racist stormfront.org

Saw this thread on the main page and thought I'd contribute! I was lucky enough to go to an all-white primary school, and the secondary school I went to only had ONE black kid! Doing anything remotely construed as "gay" got you a severe kicking, and immigration was something we never experienced as kids. There was none of this modern BLM, pro-gay, flag-waving BS. Oh to go back...

Even back then, blacks were distrusted and kept at arms length. But people kept their views very quiet, nobody openly criticised uppity blacks or called them out for their bad, entitled attitudes towards life. So, being a bookworm, I read LOADS. I immersed myself into the world of the Ku Klux Klan, civil rights, the notions of white supremacy and the REAL history of slavery. It all helped shape my opinions, I just wish I'd had someone to help guide me in the right direction as a lot of my attitude was initially tentative and slow-forming. But, when I hit the world of work - BAM. I saw it all for myself.

I saw blacks being promoted to senior positions by whites as visible "equality" measures, but the blacks, instead of continuing to promote equality, only promoted more blacks. In my first role as security, I was told that black workers smoking cannabis on the job wasn't illegal, it was just "a black cultural thing" that I "wouldn't understand". Once, a black girl stubbed her lit cigarette out in my face, then I was accused of racism for shoving her away! She fell over due to the force of my push, so I lost my job! The police did nothing when I reported it. Once I went to a restaurant with my girlfriend and two blacks made crude, sexual comments to her, licking their lips like animals. I've never experienced such violent, aggressive or sexual behaviour from whites, ever. Don't even get me started on the middle-Eastern immigrants I started to meet!

I figured enough was enough. Internet research led me to lurk here sporadically, and I've continued reading, learning, and slowly participating in spreading the word and helping others when and where I can!

der-himmelstern #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

I've seen many people putting journal entries together to denounce the horrible attacks committed by Jihadists
in the heart of Paris. These are terrible events but one thing that people don't seems to realize is that all of this
mess has been the result of our own governmental weakness and cowardice towards opposition.

I am not simply saying that our current governments are traitors because they let their own people die, when
they clearly knew who they were bringing in. No, I am clearly saying that our current traitor governments have
deliberately sponsored, armed and trained these extremist group in order to have an excuse and justify total war
against the middle-Eastern people. This is all part of the greater Israel project, a well known and documented
messianic plan to please the phantasms of a handful of psychopathic lobbyist Jews!

Let's look at this from a more distant point of view. False flag attacks have been used throughout history.

1) Some of the most renown examples are of course the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, organized and used as an
excuse to drag the neutral people of the U.S.A. into a war which they didn't want, during the first world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

2) Pearl Harbor, where the Jewish controlled government of the U.S.A. openly provoked and dishonored the
Japanese government by freezing their commercial assets, in violation of the international rights. They sponsored
Nationalist China, the enemy of Japan during the war. They basically did everything they could to force this
attack on Pearl Harbor. The day of the attack they literally let the Japanese execute their assault, claiming they
didn't know or thought it were American planes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-0gJMk1cU

3) There was also the Vietnam war which was instigated by Henry Kissinger, yet again a Jewish Zionist elitist psychopath.
He is also a great optimist of the concept of the "New World Order" The excuse was the incident of the Gulf of Tonkin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fJ58MXHZlA

4) The Lavon affair to blame terrorist attacks committed against American and British-owned civilian targets.
This was to justify a full out war against Egypt and permit Israel to grow it's stolen share of lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

5) Another time when the Jews try to blame Egypt was the famous "day Israel attacked America".
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html

6) Of course one of the biggest and most well know false flag attacks of them all is 9/11. I believe more than enough people
have proven this to be an inside job and there is very strong evidence that the Mossad, the Israeli secret services were
behind it. This is a rather good conference made by professionals, showing how strong the evidence is that the U.S.A. set
up this plot. This justified full out war against "terror" upon helpless countries who don't even know us namely, Afghanistan,
Irak, Libya, Lebanon, Syria today, Iran tomorrow and ultimately wipe out the whole of the middle-East in order for Israel to grow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Are the Charlie Hebdo attack and the new Paris attack any different? Do people truly believe that our governments didn't
know what kind of people they were bringing in? This is highly unlikely. As the below deviation shows, it was already known
that we were bringing in "terrorists", some of whom are soldiers from ISIS/Islamic state/Daech. Heaving these information,
our governments should have refused them the access of our lands and yet they did quiet the opposite. They tried their
best to make us feel guilty about a poor little Syrian child who drowned on some unknown shore.

If there is something that we have learned from these false flag attack is that our "democratic" governments will not hesitate
the least to send us all to the slaughter if we refuse to accept their planned wars. They will always use their media
propaganda to manipulate the people towards self-destruction and misery. On question must be asked; Who profits of this
crime? Is it Muslims who benefit from it? Is it the Aryan Europeans? Obviously claiming so is ridiculous. There is only one actor
on the scene who benefits from it, and that is Israel.

The greater Israel project has never been a secret. It was thought by the Zionists who find their roots in Theodor Herzl's
vision of a messianic promised land. They tried to get it by the Ottoman Empire before the first world war. They then made
a pact through the Rothschilds with England which became the Balfour declaration. This led inevitably to the second world war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The Jewish Zionists obtained Palestine and started to commit ethnic cleansing against the native population. These Jews
knew that if they don't rapidly grow their country in size they would never be self-sufficient to continue to exist. That is why
they are pushing these war agenda's in Western countries but the problem is that they need a good excuse in order to ruin
our countries through war for their interests. Their tactic is very simple. Subordinate our Aryan European interest by their
own and the only way to do this is by provoking such "terrorist" atrocities upon us. Yesterday they promoted the idea that
multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicism were a great chance for us and today they promote the idea that these same people
who THEY brought over here are the biggest evil of all times? It looks like we are so seriously gullible and manipulable that
we change our minds to whatever new propaganda they throw at us.

...
Today I will be a prophet.
I claim that they first tried to manipulate public opinion with the Charlie Hebdo attack. These Jews saw it didn't work and
now they are simply trying harder and bigger. If this time also, we do not fall into this trap, then I openly prophetize that
there will be yet another, much bigger attack! They will continue until they get the sheep folk to obey their Zionist desires!

The Jewish media has started to make it's disgusting propaganda to brainwash the masses. They try to confuse ISIS terror
with the Palestinian defenses. Do you notice the sentences "Je suis Charlie", "Je suis Juif" ("I am Charlie", "I am Jewish") at
0:46? They are so obviously trying to manipulate us that it becomes insulting to us. They like to play the game where they
pretend to be the same as us when those same people are clearly the ones who brought this upon us! If these migrants are
terrorists then why have these Jews done everything they could to bring them to our lands?!
There is only on possible explanation.

There is only one clear solution that everybody is too afraid to speak of. We must overthrow these governments of traitors
who vow allegiance to a foreign nation, a foreign race, a foreign religion and who works against our own interests.
Then we need to send many of these migrants back from where they came even if they are born here, there is no excuse.
If we had been more self-conscious we would never had let any migrants in and we would not have to live this through.
One day this will have to be done otherwise this will mean the destruction of our people and with it, the destruction of our
civilization, culture and morals. Let's just not be fooled by a simple facade. We must act, yes! But we must not attack the
wrong enemy. Our true enemy isn't thousands of kilometers away in the middle-East! Our true enemy is within our midst.

Well be to you all,
Hail victory,

Der Himmelstern

Zsolt Peto #racist 444.hu

[In a discussion about Middle-Eastern refugees coming to Hungary. Translation by me, with typos and such included]

I like that naive people like this exist. You think these will work 8 hours a day? I think not even 5% of them will....all that's left is welfare and if that's not enough the money, then crime

[Someone responds: "I can't respond to phantasmagories. I can make bullshit estimates too."]

Of course, you're right, I overestimated with 5%. Out of over 1mill, not even 1000 of them works. But we need this.
Can you count? 2000euro welfare a month multiplied by 12 months multiplied by 2000000 freeloaders. That's like 7-8thousand billion HUF/year. And don't say that we don't pay for it because we belong in the EU. And this is welfare alone, the expenses double with the other benefits.
I simply don't understand where you draw the line 10-20-50mill arab africans? What for? What are they gonna do here if they can't even read and write? Why should we welcome all the freeloaders of the world? But no one is holding you back. Go and work at them , pay a lot of taxes so they can be paid welfare...
Every sane man knows that this won't end well, I doubt the EU can solve this problem... The issue you think is a fantasy is already reality in several big cities.
I don't understand why you feel that going against common sense is good for you....I always swear that I won't stop to argue with people like this because why?? It's like you live on a different earth...

@Hungarian original

Szeretem hogy ilyen naiv emberek is vannak. Gondolod napi 8 órában fognak ezek dolgozni? Szerintem az 5%uk se fog ....marad a segély, ha az nem elég a pénz akkor bunözés

[Fantazmagoriakkal nem tudok mit kezdeni. Hülyeségeket tippelgetni én is tudok.]

Persze, igazad van túloztam az 5%kal. Több mint 2millából 1000 se dolgoznak. De kell ez nekünk.
Tudsz számolni? Havi 1000euro segély szorozva 12honappal szorozva 2000000 ingyenélovel . Az olyan 7-8ezer milliárd forint/év. És ne mond azt hogy nem mi fizetjük, mert az EU-hoz tartozunk. És ez csak a segély, egyéb elátásokkal ez a költség megduplázódik.
Egyszerüen nem értem nálad hol a határ 10-20-50milla arab afrikai? Minek? Mit fognak itt csinálni, ha írni olvasni se tudnak? Miért kellene a világ összes ingyenélojét befogadni? De téged senki sem tart vissza. Menj dolgozz rájuk , adozz sokat hogy teljen nekik segélyre...
Minden épeszu ember tudja hogy ennek nem lesz jó vége, kétlem hogy ezt a problémát az EU meg tudja oldani...
Az a baj ami szerinted fantázia az számos nagyvárosban már valóság.
Nem értem miért jó neked a józan ésszel szembemenni....mindig megfogadom hogy nem állok le diskurálni ilyenekkel mert minek?? Olyan mintha nem is ezen a földön élnétek...

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ The Republican favorite for President, Donald Trump, has confirmed his plan to force all Muslims in the United States to register on a database but has refused to respond to comparisons between his policy and Nazi Germany’s laws that required Jews to register ]


For once, he’s not wrong.
Close enemy outposts and recruiting centers on our soil and keep taps on potential enemy agents. I like it.


[ I disagree. We rail on FDR for the internment camps for the Japanese, we cannot sink to his level now ]

I was going to ask why they didn’t make the comparison to FDR, but I know why:
1) Hitler is evil, FDR is good, and progressive, and therefore, everything he did was good.
2) Right or wrong, the US was attacked by the Japanese government, and the detention of former Japanese citizens is an understandable, wholly immoral and unconstitutional, but understandable reaction.
FDR went a step further and detained all persons of Japanese heritage.

Number 2 is important, because the comparison to Hitler isn’t valid, while the comparison to FDR is.
The Jewish population of Europe and Germany hadn’t perpetrated a mass attack on anyone. They hadn’t formed terror groups which the “moderate Jews” remained largely silent on, or actively supported, that attacked Germans for decades all over the globe.
However, just as the Japanese had attacked America, and the threat of insider attacks was very real, we now have an enemy that has proven they are a danger to westerners, have no interest in assimilating, and we continue to accept them at record numbers in our unending quest for “tolerance.”

At what point does a group cease to be a protected class, and become a legitimate national threat?
The bodies keep piling up.

Hey look, it’s a moderate, peaceful muslim raised in the west.

Oh look, some peaceful muslim refugees.

Oh look, a friendly moderate muslim US Army officer


We can’t trust the ones that are here. We can’t vet the ones that are coming.
Americans will die because we’re bleeding heart fools.

No right is absolute. You don’t have a right to be armed while in prison.
You don’t have a right to incite a riot.
Sorry, I’m tired of it. It’s got to end somewhere.

[ Now I will say I think taking in refugees is a dumb idea, I do not think that Muslim Americans should have their rights curbed for crimes they didn’t commit. Its literally the same argument we make for gun rights. We don’t think that because a few assholes do something wrong that we are all to blame, and we call those who think that morons. Let’s not get on their level. ]


Except in this situation, as I’ve detailed above, seemingly “vetted” or trustworthy people have committed insider attacks.
That’s exactly my point, the Japanese never did, but we have living evidence that natural born citizens as well as immigrants and refugees are susceptible to fundamentalization.
We’re not talking about 100 million gun owners, most of who are sane, rational people.
We’re talking about a few million people who subscribe to a radical-by-nature belief system.
Let’s say the “religion” of nazism is akin to islam, and the SS are to isis.
The basic philosophy is “well if we kill the SS, but leave the nazis alone, all will be well in the world, because the SS are the problem, most nazis are peaceful.”
Simply saying “oh, it’s our religion, so we’re free to preach hate and terror” is such a cop out to me.
This has little to nothing to do with civil liberties, and a lot to do with common sense, and protecting westerners first, even if it’s at the cost of freedom for a group of people who refuse to police their own.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

[ “bombing doesn’t kill an ideology, it feeds it” ]

The only way you kill an ideology is to kill all those who practice it, burn their literature, and tear down their idols.
Go be a hippie elsewhere OP.


[ I’m sorry, but I thought we in western civilization looked down upon genocide, not promoted it ]

I never advocated genocide.

But the OP is completely wrong about how you destroy an ideology. I was educating him as to the proper method.

That said, western society’s endless tolerance will be it’s downfall.

Strange, we didn’t tolerate the nazi or commie mindset, yet now even conservatives are staunchly opposed to even questioning beliefs that might maybe just possibly pose a threat to our security and liberty.

If bombing people makes them violent radicals (this is fundamental islam; radical islam is to actually be peace loving and not want to marry toddlers but that’s neither here nor there) then I would say westerners should all be anti-islam radicals.

If their belief set is already so extreme, that a couple of attacks in defense drive them into the arms of jihadi groups, maybe the the line between peaceful moderate and violent radical is pretty thin to begin with.

The kid in chattanooga was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.
Nadal Hasan was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.
Syed Farook was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.

All of these people were raised in America, all had an education and good paying jobs. They were the epitome of the American dream.
And they killed Americans because their philosophy calls for them to do so.
It calls all muslims to do so, but most ignore it, until they don’t.

jmcconnell #fundie franklinunitedchurch.com

Throughout the history of the world, kings were famous for their harems. A harem is a group of women, consisting of wives, concubines, and servants, who live in the king’s court. Among other things, the purpose of the harem was to satisfy the desires of the king. The Egyptian pharaoh’s had harems. The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire kept large harems. In Mexico, Aztec ruler Montezuma II, kept four thousand concubines. Unfortunately, even in the Bible, King David and King Solomon had harems. I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon had a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Genghis Khan, the Mongolian ruler, apart from being one of history’s biggest conquerors, could well be one of the most prolific lovers of all times. Genghis had six Mongolian wives and married many daughters of foreign kings. Apparently the inmates of his harem numbered anything between two to three thousand. Geneticists from the Russian Academy of Sciences believe the brutal ruler has 16 million male descendants living today which is nearly 8% of the population of Central Asia.

Ismail ibn Sharif, ruler of Morocco from 1672-1727, claimed to be a direct descendent from the prophet Mohammad. He was known in his native country as the “Warrior King,” who defeated the Ottoman Turks and won independence for Morocco. He also holds the distinction of fathering probably the maximum number of children in history—more than 800.

Although harems are still somewhat prominent in middle-eastern cultures today, they have been largely out of style in modern American society, except in the cases of John F. Kennedy, Hugh Hefner, and Kody Brown, the star of the TLC reality show “Sister Wives,” which documents the lives of the Utah polygamist, his four wives, and seventeen children. Sadly, throughout history, many men of high position have used their power, money, and even religion to exploit women for their own pleasures and purposes.

This is why the gospel accounts of Jesus’ treatment of women are so surprising! Jesus, as God in human flesh, is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come (Eph. 1:21). If he so chose, he could have had the largest harem in human history.

But instead, he never abused his power by treating a woman with disrepute. He never suppressed a woman with his supremacy. He never objectified a woman with his authority. He never manipulated a woman with his money. He never even wounded a woman with his words. From the sinful woman who wiped his feet with her tears to the woman caught in adultery, Jesus always treated women with the utmost dignity, respect, and compassion. Jesus never had a harem, but from the early days of his ministry, as he traveled about from one town and village to another proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, many women willingly became his followers.

Ethnic Natsoc #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Posting here made me realize something about historical conflicts

I don't know who it was exactly but I remember not too long ago, that someone made a thread where he described inceldom as the first movement/group to unite men of all races, religions and political ideologies. When I was contemplating this recently, I realized something about history: when you come down to it, every single conflict between men in history was caused by the hypergamous nature of women.

For example, nationalism generally arises in a society when women start intermixing with other races and the men of their own race start getting less chances at getting a sexual partner because of it. In National-Socialist Germany, propaganda posters and films depicted the relationships between Jewish men and German women (never the opposite) as evil and they of course had the Nuremberg laws which outlawed marriages between Jews and Germans. So nationalism arises when men lose the monopoly on women of their own race. The main concern among white nationalists in Europe and America as well is the interbreeding between women (again, never men) of their race with men of other races. This is not limited to whites though, there were news articles for example about Middle-Easterners in France who are frustrated with their women marrying/dating black men.

Socialism could be said to arise when lower-class men no longer have the financial opportunity to marry or otherwise gain a sexual partner. The wealthy elite get all the women for themselves. Something similar happened in Islamic countries where polygamy is legal, where the rich elite men married most of the women, leaving the lower class unable to find a partner thus leading them to joining terrorist organizations like Boko Haram.

On the subject of religion, religion's main purpose has in my opinion always been to legitimize the institution of marriage. As we see in the west, women generally don't feel like remaining loyal to their partner in marriage without a faith forcing them to. We see that religious uprisings often happen right after women get more rights and thus get more opportunity to be whores and not give sub-8 men a chance, just look up photos of Iranian women before and after the Islamic revolution.

So basically, all ideologies exist purely for sub-8 men to increase the chance of gaining a sexual partner and all ideological conflicts were essentially a struggle to regain control over women, who naturally lack any form of loyalty for men that aren't Chad. If women were inherently loyal and not hypergamous, many of the major wars of history would not have happened and men of all races and creeds could live together in peace.

Wotans Krieger #racist #wingnut #psycho #elitist aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk

During the 12 years of the Third Reich attempts were made to re-establish the link between Blut und Boden, recognising that amongst the German peasantry (not to be misread in the modern sense as a pejorative term) the purest Germanic and Nordic blood was to be found, for by this time the German nobility had become bastardised by the blood of middle-eastern money lending families. We see this today with the supposed English Royal Family that will forge marital alliances with the most unlikely people, the mercantile class, which has its origins in mediaeval Jewry and money lending. Crowns can thus be bought for a few shekels.

In the Reich that is to come these bastardised noble familes will have no place of honour for they are enfeebled distortions of the once racially pure Germanic aristocracy. Thus we must begin again the restoration of the caste system. Building on the vision of the Rigsthula I propose that these reconstituted castes be as follows:

Kon-This must be a recogniseably priestly caste, separate from the one below. In contradistinction to Julius Evola I regard the mystic, priest and shaman to occupy a more important role than that of the Ksatriya warrior-noble. The present nobilities of Europe have long since lost any abilities which they once had, no doubt a consequence of their race-mixing with Levantine elements.

Jarl-The Aristocracy of regenerated Aryan man, occupying positions of leadership in all aspects of Germanentum. They must take their instruction from their spiritual superiors.

Karl-The producers and farmers of our folk. The term peasant must have its honour restored and once again represent the very best in Germanic man. The Karl must recover his mystic link with the land of his ancesters. England must once again become an agricultural not an industrial economy. Thus we can assist the earth to heal itself and we in turn will reforge our lost link with the sacred earth.

As far as the non-Nordic, non-Germanic and non-Aryan caste of the Thralls is concerned they will be banished from our sacred ancestral lands. Once our people and land have been freed from the dual poisons of capitalism and industrial exploitation the Thrall will cease to have a purpose and non-Nordic elements will be banished from our lands. The Rigsthula makes it clear that this caste was an alien one. The very presence of the Thrall in our lands represents a very real threat to our biological survival as a racial community. Some of these Thralls may outwardly appear to be people of our own blood but the obese, the sexual degenerate, the drug addict, the alcoholic and the career criminal should be regarded as part of this slave under class and the necessary corrective measures undertaken. They are the Untermenschen much prized by the liberal elite.

The Woden Initiate of today will form a part of the Kon caste of tomorrow. It is imperative that we focus our time and resources in building up our spiritual knowledge and powers in preparation for the age which is to come. Our descendants will together form the priestly caste which has been built from our loins and give the spiritual direction and leadership that our people need.

bill-11b #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

image

[ You know there are Muslims in the military, right? There are Muslims in my unit. Probably Muslims in your unit. What, is their idea of Jihad going to stop terrorists ]

Oh, you mean like MAJ Nidal Hassan?

You probably weren’t in or at Fort Hood for his “workplace violence”

Oh, do you mean like PFC Naser Abdo, whom I went through basic training with, who later went AWOL and tried to VBIED Fort Hood?

Listen, I’m fully aware that there are muslims who are bad at their faith and don’t follow it very closely. It doesn’t change the fact that islam is in fact a death cult, founded by a pedophile, under which the most peaceful people just want to rape children, marry little girls, and beat their wives savagely.

For bonus points, show me where, after said attacks, the attacks and the conspirators involved were not immediately condemned and/or disavowed by the whole of their religion.

I wish I could show you muslims condemning attacks like Charlie Hebdo, Garland, TX, or Chattanooga, but I cant because they only made excuses for those events.

Comparing Christian events from 1000 years ago to muslim events happening now is akin to comparing apples to rattle snakes.

Derryck Green #fundie derryckgreen.com


All Christians Should Support Capital Punishment.

Shane Claiborne- a social justice activist, a progressive Christian who runs the Simple Way community in Philadelphia, and an author who published Executing Grace earlier this summer about the death penalty- was recently interviewed by Relevant Magazine about what he claims is the Christian obligation to reject capital punishment.

Claiborne seems sincere in his religious opposition to capital punishment but his reasoning (in this piece but also his book) to support abolition are in conflict with biblical justifications for the death penalty, and don’t make much sense.

For example, Claiborne says-
“The consistent life ethic is beautiful. It says, “We are uncompromisingly going to stand for life.” The early Christians did that; they unilaterally spoke against violence in all forms. But what’s happened… pro-life has come just to mean anti-abortion… But it’s not the only life issue.
…The death penalty raises one of the most fundamental questions of our faith which is: Is any person beyond redemption? At the end of the day I think there are a lot of reasons to be against the death penalty, but for a Christian who believes that Jesus died to spare us from death and this idea of grace or as Scripture says “mercy triumphs over judgement.”

This is a bit convoluted and attempts to hide moral relativism posing as, but distorting, Christianity.

“Violence in all forms?” So murder, rape, and punishment for both are all morally equal and can be comparably defined as violence? How? Based in what functioning moral universe? The Bible and Christian orthodoxy are clear that gradations of violence, sin, and punishment exist precisely because of the morality attached to them.

The idea that one has to reject capital punishment to maintain pro-life ethical consistency is a false dichotomy, completely ignoring biblical teaching on the matter.
In my opinion- and based on the Bible, to be pro-capital punishment is to be pro-life.

It’s why the divine injunction of capital punishment (specifically related to intentional murder) is the only command repeated in each of the first five books of the Bible, beginning in Genesis 9:6, a universal proscription and application which predates the judicial and ceremonial laws of theocracy of ancient Israel. As such, this divine directive can’t be rationalized away as an injunction that was both historically and geographically explicit to the ancient Hebraic religious cultic practice.

So, why is supporting capital punishment equal to being prolife? The answer is found in the above scriptural passage: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” This divine imperative foreshadows the language found in the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue- “You shall not murder.” It’s precisely because we’re created in the image of God, that (premeditated) murder must be punished with this kind of required severity. Murdering a fellow human is a moral offense to God and must be treated and responded to as such.

Capital justice rightly roots out the evil in our midst, preserving the lives of the majority. It’s a tool properly used by the government to protect and defend human life, not a course of cheap vengeance. As stated earlier, all ‘violence’ isn’t the same because of the morality attached and required response to it. Those who commit the most grievous of crimes and worthy of the death penalty are killed, preventing them from re-committing their reprehensible acts, which violate the safety and security of other people.

Sparing the life of one worthy of capital punishment, for example a murderer, increases the chances that he or she will murder again. Are Christian abolitionists of the death penalty willing to see another innocent person murdered by someone that should’ve been put to death? Shane Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists of the death penalty never confront the real statistical possibility that by ‘executing grace’ to a condemned murderer allows him or her the ability to commit more violent acts and committing murder again- of another inmate or a correctional officer while imprisoned, or another civilian if/when they’re released from the penitentiary due to shortened sentences. I’m not sure the consciences of these Christian abolitionists of capital justice confront the reality that their “compassion” facilitates more murders of innocent people, and they’re obligated to explain how this unsound position and gamble can be characterized as compassionate.

Furthermore, Claiborne’s petition that no one is “beyond redemption” doesn’t factor in the dispute against capital punishment. The argument is that no person- regardless of the moral depravity evidenced in the actions s/he’s committed- is beyond repentance, spiritual conversion and redemption. As such, a person shouldn’t be condemned to death via capital punishment, but should be spared and given opportunities to be spiritually rehabilitated and saved.

Unfortunately, there are some people who’re simply beyond spiritual repair. History is chockfull of examples of people who committed atrocities against others who never repented of their evil acts. History also testifies that many people sentenced to prison for a determined length of time- up to life in prison- didn’t express remorse or realize spiritual restoration.

The redemption of the felon on death row is between the felon and God. It’s up to God to have mercy on him/her; we on the other hand, have to do what’s right and necessary for the preservation of civil society by protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Sparing the condemned doesn’t do that. It sends exactly the wrong message about life’s sacrosanctity to other violent criminals that have yet to be brought to justice. Abolishing the death penalty shows preferential treatment for the murderer at the expense of the murdered. Again, how is this grace or compassion?

Even still, the “beyond redemption” appeal by Christians as a religious protest misses a couple key points.

God works on his time- not ours. The potential of the condemned being redeemed isn’t predicated on his exemption from capital punishment- as if God needs as much time as possible to transform and save the lost.

What if the guilty rejects redemption? Life imprisonment, rather than death for the possibility of redemption is a huge moral gamble that doesn’t make sense.
Since the time-sensitive potentiality of the condemned being redeemed is considered, why isn’t the alternative? Rather than giving both God and the condemned inmate ample time to get to know each other, why don’t Christian opponents of capital punishment contemplate the prospect that the spiritual conversion of death row inmates might increase if the death penalty was more efficient and accelerated? Increasing the urgency of death could prompt a change of heart that 30 years on death row won’t.
To the point, being spiritually redeemed doesn’t revoke earthly punishment.

Claiborne continues-
“Today, black people are about 13 percent of the overall population, but they’re 34 percent of executions and 43 percent of death row.
We like to say it’s about the most heinous crimes, but really the biggest determinants in capital punishment are the race of the victim and the resources of the defendant.”
This is dishonest and Claiborne either knows it, or at the very least, he’s exceedingly naïve.

Claiborne completely ignores the severity of the crime(s) committed- the reason(s) why a person is on death row- and implies that the disproportionate numbers of blacks on death row and their executions are primarily the result of racial and economic factors, not (im)moral ones. Christians who share this position of disparate impact completely ignore or excuse the violent acts committed by black felons deserving of the death penalty, which are readily available from the FBI or the Bureau of Justice Statistics/Department of Justice.

Intentionally excusing blacks from human moral obligation and agency isn’t benevolence; it’s condescending racial paternalism used to advance a superficial agenda masquerading as justice.

Absolving blacks from moral standards and expectations that everyone else is subjected to might qualify as “compassion” or “justice” in the morally ostensible world of social justice activists. In the real world of cause and consequence, the majority of people on death row are there as punishment deserving of the crimes they’ve committed. If Claiborne is concerned about the disparate impact of capital punishment on black lives, he should instead focus on highlighting and condemning the contributing factors that facilitate the disproportional participation of blacks in violent criminality- the causative factor(s), which qualifies black felons for the death penalty.
Extending leniency to villains as compensation for their evil guarantees the actions of evil- including murder- will increase.

Sparing the life of the murderer doesn’t demonstrate compassion; it devalues it.
Of course, Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists argue that the ministry of Jesus in the New Testament has vacated the Old Testament moral and legal prescriptions for capital punishment. But this is a form of theological and biblical service buffet- simply taking away what one likes and ignoring what one doesn’t so as to reinforce one’s ideological predeterminations.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Jesus didn’t annul capital punishment in his Sermon on the Mount. During his Sermon in Matthew 5, Jesus says,
“You have heard it said, ‘An eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

How exactly is this nullification against the divine command of killing a murderer? Clearly, Jesus is referring back to the Levitical law of proportionality (Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:19-21a), meaning that punishments should fit the crimes committed rather than exceeding them. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon isn’t rescinding the command to punish murderers by death. Rather, he’s teaching his listeners- first century commoners and other marginalized groups- how to respond to insults and offenses in interpersonal relationships. This subversive teaching regarding self-control instead of retaliation in the face of public humiliation had nothing to do with government, governmental authority or how government was to administer punishment.

Aside from misinterpreting and misapplying Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount as an argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty, Christian opponents of the death penalty ignore or misinterpret Romans 13:1-5. Here Paul says that the government, being a servant of God, doesn’t bear the sword in vain. Rather, it rightly punishes criminals for committing evil. The Greek word for sword combined with the implication of the passage makes clear that Paul was indeed saying that civil government has a responsibility to protect its constituents, which included punishing by death those who commit evil, violence and threaten public safety.

A moral society that values life is duty bound to protect its citizens. It also has a moral obligation to prove the high value of life by punishing those who intentionally and without reservation, devalue it. In my opinion, contemporary Christian abolitionists of capital punishment undermine the sacredness of life by “compassionately” regarding murderers at the expense of the murdered, and future murderers at the expense of the future victims of murder. By seeking to end of the death penalty, they’re surrendering their responsibility to defend and maintain the inimitable value of human life using the pro-life teachings of Christianity to defend a pro-death position.

Capital punishment is a touchy subject and good arguments can be made to support both sides of the debate. But many of the arguments advanced by Claiborne- in addition to Pope Francis (here and here) and other Christian opponents of the death penalty, thus far, aren’t good arguments and they contradict and undermine the Bible in the process.

scythian #racist whitakeronline.org

That White people can’t ever see themselves as aggrieved IS White Supremacy. And I doubt non-whites will ever give up this belief.

Bob [Whitaker] has said that Hitler was a Jewish Supremacist – Jews were to blame for all problems, inherently evil, super humans in the bad sense. Jews were the problem, so Jews had to go.

You heard in Horus’ radio interview the recording of Obama saying: “White folks greed runs a world of need”. Is this not akin to what Hitler said about the Jews?

I’m going to assume since Abe Lincoln is Obama’s boy that he’s said many times: “All men are created equal” – how can you believe this & blame the world’s problems on a small global minority that is our race? That’s double think, and White Supremacist anti-white hypocrites of the same mindset will call us “White Supremacists” for pointing out the obvious simple realty that the Third World is the fault of Third Worlders.

What Obama said is White Supremacist, a lie, and an incitement for GENOCIDE.

If I went around saying: ‘Jew folks greed runs a world of need’, I’d be put in jail in Europe & Canada, financially ruined in the U.S. at the least – the Western versions of the Gulags. What if I convinced everybody that indeed the Jews were the cause of all the world’s problems? The Jews would be finished. White Supremacy says that you can say anything about White people & we can never be harmed; but people must be put in jail for saying “harmful” things about non-whites; and Whites must protect non-whites from other whites – the oft used excuse for whites killing a hundred million whites in the civil war & WW2 +.

And ‘White Power’ by definition means that anti-white white traitors have the power to subject their own race to an ongoing GENOCIDE.

The anti-white system is predicated on bullshit/double-think, “anti-racism” propaganda is get white people not to care about race – well if you don’t care about race then you don’t care about white genocide. And the deeper reality is that whites are “racist” if they don’t care about other races and “racist” if they care about their own race.

So I don’t think White Supremacy is dead, I think we are killing it because not only do we HAVE a grievance, we have the greatest grievance of all time.

Perhaps HD can write a petition asking Obama to renounce his genocidal statement; point out that Holder saying “white people don’t have civil rights” shows that U.S. “civil rights” laws break the international genocide law of denying group defense.

bill-11b.tumblr.com #fundie bill-11b.tumblr.com

on the murder of British politician Jo Cox

Golly, gee, oh my, what a shame.
Karma in fucking action. If only Americans had the balls to do the same thing.

[ Bill I understand where you’re coming from, but perhaps a less aggressive approach might make people more sympathetic towards your views, especially in a situation where someone has been killed ]

Except, I don’t give shit about people’s sympathies.
Every dead cultural Marxist is a win in my book.
Of course the left will stand atop her corpse and call everyone who disagrees with them a bloodthirsty savage (unlike the actual bloodthirsty savages they’re in favor of invading their country) but they’d do that anyhow, now they just have the corps to stand on.

[ What the actual fuck is wrong with you?? Oh yeah, kill everyone who disagrees with you. That’s real fucking smart.
Well, it certainly seems to silence the opposition.
]

Your king and my congress disagreed on tax rates… guess why we no longer have a king, and you still do.

Anonymous Coward #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Progressive Democrats Are The New Nazi Party

Their own actions speak for themselves,there is very little difference between radical left-wing progressivism and fascism.

Now that progressives are openly backing political violence against their opponents, they have technically crossed over.

NAZIs practiced or enforced:

Nationalized health care
Gun ownership rights stripped from citizens
Restrictions placed on free speech
Centralized control of the national economy
Capitalism banned
Centralized control of the media
Adherence to strict "green" environmental policies
Centralized control of education
Political violence against their opposition


The list goes on, but the key is progressive democrats today agree with pretty much everything the NAZIs did during their reign of terror against the world.


Progressive democrats are not liberals, not even to the slightest degree. True liberalism is a far right wing ideology that is predicated upon anti-authoritarianism, private property rights and the individual.

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

What a Christian Nation Should Do About Syria

image

ATTENTION: Major social media outlets are finding ways to block the conservative/evangelical viewpoint. Click here for daily electronic delivery of The Stand's Daily Digest - the day's top blogs from AFA.

Syria is a Muslim nation. This means that it cannot be reformed or turned into a democracy. It can only be contained. This sober reality should govern all our interactions with the Muslim world.

To be drawn into another ground war in a Muslim country, no matter how much satisfaction it might give to war hawks, is useless unless the goal is to subdue it, Christianize it, and govern it. Since nobody is talking about doing that, it’s best for us just to stay out of there. Getting involved on the ground will simply result in more carnage among America’s finest young soldiers for no long term benefit.

The purpose of our military cannot be to respond to every atrocity across the globe. Atrocities like the one we witnessed last week in Syria abound everywhere in the world. The purpose of our armed forces is to protect the American people and their security and safety. Syria represents no direct threat to America’s interests, and thus I believe it is a mistake to spill American blood and spend American treasure there.

There is a moral principle involved here also. We as a sovereign nation should respect the sovereignty of other nations. To invade their lands, unless they represent a direct threat to us, is to trespass where we have no moral right to be. At some point, unless we want to colonize the entire world, we must accept the tragic reality that in a fallen world man’s inhumanity to man will continue apace, particularly in Muslim lands and in the godless totalitarian lands of communism.

I believe we were justified in going into Iraq, since every intelligence community in the world, mistaken though they may have been, believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and had pledged to use them against us. At some point, especially when the threat comes from the Muslim world, you have to start believing them when they say they want to kill you.

Likewise, we were justified in going into Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks on American soil were spawned there. The blood of those 3,000 Americans cried out for vengeance.

So, while I believe we were right to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe we were wrong to stay. After we had neutralized the threat - by dethroning the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq - it was time to come on home, mission accomplished, with only a solemn warning to those nations: don’t make us come back, or next time we may bomb you back to the Stone Age.

President Bush’s decision to try to bring democracy to Iraq was predicated on a fundamental error in judgment, that such a thing is even genuinely possible in a Muslim land.

Islam is not, as President Bush foolishly and disastrously believed, a religion of peace. It is a religion of war, violence, and death and has been for every one of its 1500 years. It is dangerous to believe that Islam is simply a benign religious alternative to Christianity.

There is the further sobering reality that our interventions in the Middle East have made things noticeably worse for our Christian brothers and sisters. Saddam needed Christians because they were the only honest, trustworthy people he could find to help him manage his country. Once we took him out, what little protection the church had under Saddam vanished like smoke, and now the Christian population in Iraq is a fraction of its former size.

Christians in Syria know that Assad is a bad guy, but again, he had provided them with a modicum of protection and stability that no successor will. Christians in Libya knew that Gaddhafi was a bad guy, but he too provided some protection for the Christian community, protection that is completely nonexistent since we took him out.

Bottom line: our military intervention as a Christian nation in Muslim lands has only created chaos and instability, and made things measurably worse for our fellow Christians. And we have, in my judgment, been guilty of moral transgression by inserting ourselves where we have no right to be.

With regard to ISIS, our focus should be quite simple: keeping ISIS out of the U.S. That means implementing President Trump’s travel ban, and extending it to include way more than six nations. It means extreme vetting for every Muslim refugee, none of whom should be allowed into America if there is even the slightest doubt about the risk they may pose. (No one has a right to immigrate to the United States.) It means aggressive monitoring of every Muslim community and every Muslim mosque, as New York did under mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg.

As a Christian nation, our sole role in Syria should be focused on getting every Christian who wants out of Syria to safety in America. Let’s ask the churches of America to each sponsor one Christian refugee family from Syria, and accept the responsibility (no government dollars involved at all) to sponsor them and resettle them in America, and help them to integrate fully into American society.

As far as Muslim refugees are concerned, if Islam is, as all the elites insist, a “religion of peace,” then among the 57 Muslim majority nations in the world there must be a plethora of havens of tranquility for Muslim refugees. Let’s help them find a place in a nation that shares their religious ideology, while we protect the integrity of our own culture and its values.

One of the reasons so few Syrian refugees are Christians (99.5% of them are Muslims) is because the refugee camps are run by brutal Muslim forces who make such camps virtual death camps for followers of the cross.

Let’s use American influence to make the refugee process a safe one for Christians who would like to flee Syria in order to live in a Christian country. Other than that, except to come to the aid of our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel, let’s just stay out of there.

Ehud Would #wingnut #racist #fundie faithandheritage.com

All of the Allied countries are, in the wake of WWII, suffering the recompense of policies which they took up in their polarization against Germany. And polarization is the perfect word for it, because the policies of the Reich had been deliberately modeled after the American template. The resolution to side with Bolshevism in its total war on Christendom required a complete inversion of our society.

Implemented by JFK in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would kick off the advent of “the Great Society” under the Johnson administration. This was but a reincarnation of the Enforcement Act of 1875, a bit of Reconstruction-era legislation principally designed to punish the Southern states and make blacks content there, so as to dampen incentive of their migration northward; to the consternation of liberaldom, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1883. But far be it from liberals to concern themselves with trifles such as legal, logical, or moral consistency: in 1964, once they had fully subverted the Supreme Court, they were finally able to ram their illicit legislation through, establishing that central plank of communism: the effective abolition of private property. Since then, and on that basis, Americans have been denied their God-given rights of both property and association. So it was that (state-created) black civil rights were said to have nullified the God-given rights of White men. As surely as day turns to night, the denial of those essential rights in the private realm was the perfect predication for the denial of the same in the national scope: so came the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, removing any national discrimination in the immigration quota system. Which is to say that in order to prevent the American people from ever reining in a government which was announcing itself as an enemy of the nation, that government opted to appoint a new people who neither would nor could hope to ever depose them.

Any who objected to the top-down resolution to replace the American people were met with accusations of Nazism – the anti-communist reactionary policies of our sister and foremost tributary nation, against whom Americans had fought what were, to most men, two rather mysterious world wars. Though precious few were ever able to say that their minds had fastened upon any justification for our campaigns against Germany, the fact that we nonetheless waged merciless war against her, and drowned our doubts in the economic windfalls which seemed just as mysterious, had deeply seared the public conscience.

[…]

On all these bases the communist internationale won the Cold War before it ever began, because America had sold herself out as the mercenary muscle of world communism from the time of the Lincoln administration, which famously praised Karl Marx as among the great “friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.” And the history of common cause between the American Union and world communism is well-documented. By the time of the 1965 Act, Americans retained little moral conviction, it having been systematically stripped from them in stages by all the little concessions to “progress,” which ever proved to be but a euphemism for the rejection of Christendom in favor of Marxism. By the time most came to understand what had happened, they were already so deeply invested in the system that a man could not oppose the course that had been set without siding against much of his country’s and, by extension, his own legacy.

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?

Skeptics often claim, “The Bible is not a science textbook.” This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.

With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, “Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?” The answer is yes.

The Hard Facts

A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:

“And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19–20). The Bible is clear that representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals and birds were present on the Ark. A technical term used by some creation scientists for these kinds is baramin—derived from the Hebrew words for created kind. Within these baramins is all the information necessary to produce all current species. For example, it is unlikely that the Ark contained two lions and two tigers. It is more likely that it contained two feline animals, from which lions, tigers, and other cat-like creatures have developed.
Another lesson from Genesis 6:20 is that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. Therefore, this preservation of the world’s fauna was divinely controlled. It was God’s intention that the fauna be preserved. The animals’ recolonization of the land masses was therefore determined by God, and not left to chance.
“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
The dog kind diversifying

As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.

Modern Recolonizations

One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.

Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.

Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americas—over a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood period—an assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.

The rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood.

As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3

Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oard’s studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.

Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossils—fossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.

One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.

Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.

We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.

It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.

The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.

Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
Recolonization Theory

The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).

More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5

Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earth’s previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor6, and another by Holt7.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Conclusions

We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.

Starting from our presupposition that the Bible’s account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.

Paul M. Dohse #wingnut paulspassingthoughts.com

Let’s talk about root causes. All political victories start with your base being united and activated. The Democrat party is girded by leftist ideology; without leftist support, the party will collapse. Now, what is the crux of leftism? It’s self-esteem built on being better than others. It’s self-esteem and self-worth based on how many people worship you because you have what they don’t. People in general don’t realize there is a minority of people in the world seeking to be gods in their own right. As much as I like movies, movie stars have a god complex. Obviously. As much as I like many musicians, most have a god complex. As much as I like sports, many have a god complex. Journalists think they are the gatekeepers of truth and justice; that is, according to their own version.

And politicians primarily protect their right to godhood. There is a reason most musicians are politically left. There is a reason most athletes are politically left. There is a reason why most movie stars are politically left. There is a reason why movie stars are called before congress as expert witnesses on a variety of social issues which on its face makes no sense at all. They can act, or sing, and that makes them an expert on climate change?

And regardless of what seems to be the case, you never criticize God because any criticism of God must be based on a misunderstanding because our universal presupposition is that God is love and perfection. I agree with that; but such is hardly true of the press. We must ask ourselves why Trump’s “fake news” mantra is deemed sacrilegious by journalist icons like Chris Wallace despite overt and incessant misrepresentations of truth by the press. Obviously, the press deems itself above being questioned; to do so is a violation of the First Amendment via debate and contrary ideas which has never had anything to do with free speech. The opposite is true.

The essense of sin is a desire to control others. Sin is the basis for caste systems that dominate the world. Another angle on this is self-worth based on comparing yourself to others rather than being the best YOU that you can be.

Please note: leftist ideolgy is predicated on others being less. Self-worth is predicated on where you are located on the caste social ladder. Individualism makes all of that irrelevant. Individualism seeks its purpose in self-assessment that is true, earned, honorable, and pleasing to God; leftist ideology is predicated on being worshiped. It is predicated on being a legend in your own mind. The shortcut to all of that is being a victim; self-pity is not only self-worship, but a way to get worship from others on the cheap.

Trump, as an individualist, has committed the unpardonable sin. He is actually working to enable the little people to be the best they can be. In contrast, according to leftist ideology, the little people are preordained to worship the elite. And the best way to injure an individualist is to destroy his or hers legacy. “You didn’t build that.” Individualists want to be remembered by their truthful accomplishments and the example they set for others after them. They are purpose-driven.

The Democrats must satisfy their base, and we now know why their base was rabid over Trump being impeached. Rather than stating numerous examples such as what the actor Rob Reiner tweeted, I will give the thumbnail:

“Donald Trump will forever be known as the only third President in American history to be impeached.”

Bingo. That’s it; the goal was to inflict the ultimate injury. A political cartoon also shows Trump at the cleaners with mud on his suit labeled, “impeachment” and the clerk telling him, “that isn’t going to come out.” Again, bingo. My reply to the cartoon which appeared on Twitter follows:

“And that was the whole point of why they did it knowing that the stigma of impeachment is WHAT [impeachment, period, the big “P”] and not WHY especially in a low information society. They were going to find a reason to impeach him and when you have the majority it can be for eating a ham sandwich. Sad. Petty. Evil.”

The tweet was pulled down shortly thereafter and I am unable to find the cartoon.

This isn’t about Trump at all: he’s just the lightening rod for the whole issue; the collective rise of individuals leads to elitism and their lust for godhood being diminished. Individualism is the primary nemesis of caste.

And caste must confiscate every pursuit of individual liberty and happiness and demand that it be burned on its alter as a living sacrifice. And at some point, we the people must question our funding of these religions for our own entertainment.

While we celebrate their gifts, what they really want is the surrender of our right to exist other than what our existence contributes to their worship…which is our reasonable service in their eyes.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

**If you are comparing Christianity to Hinduism, I’m sure you can make a very good case for the superiority of Christian morality and the affects on civilisation. India is an easy target for this kind of analysis since its such a big, corrupt, impoverished, divided mess right now and is going to be for quite some time.**

You don’t have to point to India at all. When Arthur Danto critiqued Hinduism he did so without leveling a single accusation against Indian society. Deconstructing Hinduism can easily reveal it’s flawed philosophical center.

**Christianity may have had a significant influence on the development of science, capitalism, western morality, human rights and democracy but now we have those things, they have taken on a life of their own and they can be adopted by non-christian countries.**

It’s funny because Danto makes the very same argument in Mysticism and Morality but then contradicts it by rejecting Hume’s Fact/value dichotomy (to the best of my understanding). Moral beliefs are predicated on factual beliefs. The protestant work ethic that transformed a wilderness into 2 first world nations was predicated on the factual beliefs that there is a God and that imitating this God is the supreme end. If God laboured to create the world, and if man is made in the image of God, then man imitates God by creating as well. If God realized his godhood via the act of creation, so too does man realize this humanity via creation and thus leaves his indelible stamp upon nature.

The European settlers certainly believed all this and were able to accomplish in 500 years what the aboriginals could not in 10,000 years (excluding the Mayans who were advanced).

But this Protestant work ethic crumbles if belief in the God that inspired it crumbles. Witness this in the low levels of job satisfaction rampant across the west. Witness how millennials disdain manual labour and measure the worth of work solely on the metric of remuneration. Christianity is still relevant today.

quick edit: In philosophy, “factual beliefs” are different from their counterparts in the domain of science. In the latter, they must be verified empirically whereas in the former they are merely true/false statements about the universe that needn’t be verified empirically.

Serato #fundie debate.org

Your cattled determinations may think as ends to predicates of originality, but freed from the infinitude of barbed invisible fencing (?) no, you're slopping from the community troughs placed before your snout. Your ideas are not free ranging. You're mooing from the artificial insurance of the cozy insides of barn doors; confiding hereby to be slaughtered, you're simply another cow grazing amongst the pacified herds of society. So you cannot hear what I can say. Yet truly I say, it is you in whom free will is reined inspiringly, unknowingly, as higher a society you cannot see, yet they see your ego and knows always its castle it craves endlessly for new marbles.

This society everywhere sits wily to conspiracy. While evolution to all particulars its greatest lie so high no skies its limit, this is where I'd begin to reground your education. I'd absolve you to yourself some truths, as these truths told but unheard to the conformist. Be not afraid, yet wholly profane the world lashes with a bitter face, to the nonconformist. So become again as an infant, as an infant conforms to nobody. As is the Bible, the mind of an infant is also pure in heart.

The Bible is ripe with a moral vigor that domesticates always the mind no matter the past, the present or future, never will antiquity be there found. It is as true today as yesterday. Only with day-by-days setting, with each new rise enlightening closer the future, its meaning and accuracies then becomes better defined. Such an arduous climb for the mind awaits you, yet prefigures silently the soul inside you; for you lost faith, as Jesus said you would.

Whoso expounds now the Truth, asks for Truth, shall begin now to revere above all travesties to truths told alike as lies, shall then speak within the dwelling intuitions to the soul. As now one key opens a door, as two keys given opens more, as one more becomes ultimately three. Therein this the trinity to me becomes this to you the goal, becomes this to you and I as the predominations to life; and to all those that still strife, I promise, never is there an expiration to our faith.

William Barr #conspiracy #wingnut washingtonpost.com

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horo­witz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding that the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said.

It’s not yet clear how Barr plans to make his objection to Horowitz’s conclusion known. The inspector general report, currently in draft form, is being finalized after input from various witnesses and offices that were scrutinized by the inspector general. Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report. It is standard practice for every inspector general report to include a written response from the department. Barr could forgo a written rebuttal on that specific point and just publicly state his concerns.

Spokespeople for the inspector general and the FBI declined to comment.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement that the inspector general investigation “is a credit to the Department of Justice. His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves. Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”

The Russia investigation was opened after the FBI was told of statements made by a then Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians possessed hacked Hillary Clinton emails. Papadopoulos’s alleged comments were key because they were made well before any public allegation that Russian intelligence operatives had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

The attorney general has privately contended that Horowitz does not have enough information to reach the conclusion the FBI had enough details in hand at the time to justify opening such a probe. He argues that other U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, may hold significant information that could alter Horo­witz’s conclusion on that point, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Barr has also praised the inspector general’s overall work on the matter, according to one person familiar with the matter. The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings.

But the prospect of the nation’s top law enforcement official suggesting the FBI may have wrongly opened an investigation into a presidential campaign, even after the inspector general announces the agency was justified in doing so, will probably generate more partisan battles over how the Justice Department and the FBI operate.

It is not unusual for an attorney general or the Justice Department to disagree with some of an inspector general’s findings. However, typically those disagreements occur because senior leaders at the department believe the inspector general has been too critical. In this case, Barr has conveyed to others his belief that Horowitz has not been critical enough, or is at least reaching a conclusion prematurely.

People familiar with the draft language of Horowitz’s report said that while it is critical of some FBI employees, and found some systemic problems in surveillance procedures, it overall does not agree with Trump’s charge that the investigation was a “witch hunt” or a politically motivated attack on him first as a candidate and then as president.

Instead, the draft report found that the investigation was opened on a solid legal and factual footing, these people said.

Part of Barr’s reluctance to accept that finding is related to another investigation, one being conducted by the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, into how intelligence agencies pursued allegations of Russian election tampering in 2016. Barr has traveled abroad to personally ask foreign officials to assist Durham in that work. Even as the inspector general’s review is ending, Durham’s investigation continues.

Barr’s disagreement with Horowitz will probably spark further criticism from Democrats, who have already accused Barr of using his position to protect the president and undermine federal law enforcement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged in September that Barr had “gone rogue.”

In recent weeks, Democrats have charged that Barr’s Justice Department was too quick to decide not to investigate Trump over his efforts to persuade Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to announce an investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. The Ukraine controversy has led to an impeachment inquiry.

Criticism of Barr previously centered on his handling of the Russia investigation. The case that began in 2016 was taken over in May 2017 by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. After a nearly two-year investigation, Mueller filed a lengthy report of his findings to Barr, by which point he had charged 34 people with crimes, including 26 Russian nationals. Those charged and convicted included Trump’s former campaign chairman, former personal attorney, former deputy campaign chairman and former national security adviser.

After receiving the Mueller report, Barr released a short letter summing up its main points, including that there was insufficient evidence to accuse any Trump associates of conspiring with the Russians. Barr also said Mueller had made no determination about whether Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation, but Barr and his then deputy concluded he had not.

When the full report was released, Democrats protested that Barr had improperly skewed the findings to be more favorable to Trump.

Barr has dismissed such criticism, and charged it is Democrats who are abusing legal procedures and standards in their quest to drive Trump out of the White House.

“In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in shredding norms and undermining the rule of law,” Barr said in a speech last month.

In his first months on the job this year, Barr made clear he had serious concerns about how the FBI had conducted the investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

The attorney general declared in April that the Trump campaign was spied on, though aides later said he used that term not in a pejorative sense but in the more general meaning of surveillance.

“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr told lawmakers. “I think spying did occur, but the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.” He also criticized former leaders of the FBI, saying, “I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there in the upper echelon.”

Current and former law enforcement officials have said that, when presented with information about a possible plot to undermine the U.S. election, they had a duty to investigate, and that it would have been wrong not to have launched an investigation.

In the months since, Barr, through Durham, has pursued information related to a onetime associate of Papadopoulos, a European academic named Joseph Mifsud.

Mifsud was publicly linked to Russian interference efforts in late 2017, when Mueller revealed Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the details of his interactions with Mifsud.

Shortly after his name surfaced publicly, Mifsud told Italian media he did not work for Russia. “I never got any money from the Russians: my conscience is clear,” Mifsud told La Repubblica. “I am not a secret agent.”

Since then, the professor has disappeared from public life, leading to a host of theories about him and his whereabouts. While court papers filed in Mueller’s investigation suggested Mifsud operated in Russia’s interests, Papadopoulos, conservatives and conspiracy theorists have suggested he was working for Western intelligence agencies.

The Monarchists Black-Yellow Alliance (SGA) #wingnut #elitist #crackpot #racist sga.monarchisten.org

Basics of the SGA program
Non-denominational - Pro-European - Monarchist-

Our foundation is the European tradition, which includes the values ​​of Christianity and the Enlightenment.

As responsible citizens from the middle of society, we are unconditionally committed to democracy, the rule of law and the separation of powers. Although we want to change the form of government, we are true to the letter on the basis of the current constitution of Austria and confess that we only strive for a change in the form of government via the path prescribed by the legislature and thus in a democratic way.
<...>
With the reintroduction of the monarchy, the currently applicable Nobility Repeal Act is to be amended so that people whose ancestors were entitled to use a title of nobility until 1918 because of their achievements for the good of the country regain this right for themselves and their descendants. However, this is only on the condition that the person in question has already actively campaigned for the restoration during the republican interregnum or at least has openly demonstrably committed to it. In all other cases, the titles are considered to have expired.

All other rights and privileges, apart from the use of the predicate, have been abolished as they were under the dual monarchy. In addition, we see the nobility as particularly committed to working for the good of society.

We propose that the number of seats that would be allocated to the proportion of non-voters after an election should be filled by non-partisan persons chosen by the monarch from among deserving citizens. This would also represent the non-voters and white voters in parliament.

Padraig Martin #racist identitydixie.com

[From ""Distinguishing Southern Nationalism"]

Over the last week or so, I have received criticism for my attacks on generic White Nationalism, the so-called Alt-Right and Nazi LARPers. Generally, these are attacks from weak keyboard kommandos and obese geriatric geldings, some of whom mistook the original intended target. Regardless, given the reaction, it seems I struck a nerve. Good!

The vast majority of those who threw threats in my direction could not bench press an AR-15. Some of those who took shots at the latest round of strategic posts are intellectually too soft to see past their myopic understanding of our current predicament. Bowl Patrol? If you cannot see that someone like Dylann Roof would have done more strategically for “White People” by not being a psychopath, actually engaging in positive networking and community fellowship, then you lack strategic clarity. You are inferior in every single way – mentally and morally. You are useless. Go back to whatever leader du jure of your movement is taking pictures of himself in his underwear.

If you are serious about doing something for your people, let’s take an honest look at the differences within the movement: Southern Nationalism vs Generic White Nationalism.

Identity Dixie is a Southern Nationalist content producer. That is who we are. Generally speaking, ours is a fraternal group that seeks to build a Nationalist consensus within the South. The goal is to intellectually and emotionally lay the ground work for an independent South. Some members of Identity Dixie are also members of other groups that have aligned goals, but at their core, Identity Dixie contributors work the Southern zeitgeist. We are not the guys on street corners or running around in the woods playing Rambo on the weekends. We are the guys who convince the normie Southerner that he has a better future in a Free South.

What Identity Dixie is not is a generic White Nationalist entity. We obviously do not hate White people, but not all White people are the same. The Whites who call themselves Anti-Fascists are not my White people. Nor for that matter are Boston Brahmins. I went to graduate school with Boston Brahmins, they hate you and me. Generic White is simply not a good enough distinction.

I will root for White people in other areas of the country to do well, but they are not my own. Not all Whites are made equal. The German-American descendants of the 48ers, who comprise the rank and file of both AntiFa and the Alt-Right, have very little in genetic common with me other than skin color. The only ideological difference between the two groups is their brand of genocidal collectivism (one being crusty anarcho-communism, with a simmering hatred for Heritage America, and the other some form of authoritarianism, as long as it’s pro-white). Otherwise, they are almost identical. Their general hatred of Christianity and their support for socialism are entirely foreign concepts to me.

One other key similarity between AntiFa and the Alt-Right is their assumption that they will save the United States. True Southern Nationalists have no interest at all in saving the Empire. The United States is dead. It is a stinking, rotting carcass. The smell of its decomposition is evident in the Affirmative Action company commander, with an 85 IQ, leading your Southern enlisted sons into battle. She graduated with a 4.0 GPA from West Point because her Marxist professors wanted to achieve a social justice objective. White people did that. More specifically, Northern Whites empowered this marginally literate officer. Had she gone to the Virginia Military Institute, her inferior self would have transferred to Richmond Community College before she completed Hell Week. Now, her Communist Chinese counterpart is laughing, confident that he can beat an army led by incompetents in a week. He is right.

You can thank Northern Whites for your modern country.

And before you give me a diatribe about the JQ, just stop. Whites founded America. Prior to its existence, it was a massive forest comprised of wild savages, hunting and enslaving one another. They were conquered by Europeans. Towns and cities were erected by Whites. Institutions were established by Whites. If we assume Whites are superior, how did they let everything get taken by a tribe of Khazar gypsies? Let’s face a cold hard fact: three percent of the population did not weasel their way into power. Heritage Americans got lazy and gave it away – the same as they did when they sent their manufacturing to China. Specifically, Northern Whites gave it away. If I want to be even more specific, a cabal of Boston Yankees and German 48ers from the Midwest and Pennsylvania gave away the country that Anglo-Saxons and Scots-Irish built.

Why in God’s name would I want to align myself with the same Whites who get an occasional generational itch to dismantle the South?

Northern Whites first dismantled the antebellum South, a White dominated society, through a mass invasion. Northern Whites literally raped, pillaged, and starved Southerners, compelling them to remain in a Union against their will. Then they not only freed the slaves, they empowered them in local positions of governance throughout Reconstruction. Suddenly, I am supposed to look past their history and find myself aligned with their descendants because we share the same skin color?

Less than one hundred years later, the grandparents of these same generic White Nationalists lamented segregation. They demanded that the 101st Airborne march into Arkansas and impose integrated schools. It was a Wisconsin White gunman, Arthur Bremer, descendant of a 48er, who shot segregationist, George Wallace. Northerners later fought to reduce his sentence and they succeeded.

If the apple does not fall far from the tree, why would I now suddenly align myself with the grandkids of Midwestern Marxists? No thank you. Rather, I will align myself with my father’s people, many of whom fought and died to protect the Anglo-Celtic society upon which the South is based.

The fact is, the Alt-Right is full of socialists. They were raised praising Sherman, Grant, and Eisenhower – men who destroyed the South. They love themselves some Lincoln. They have nothing in common with Southerners. They cannot be trusted. So what if some guy in Vermont or Pennsylvania flies a Confederate Battle Flag? How edgy, bruh! That may resonate with your fellow militant egalitarians who equate imagery with purpose. It simply tells me the guy has nice taste in flags.

At the end of the day, generic White Nationalism is a fool’s endeavor. It is bound to fail. Southern Nationalists know they will have to go it alone. The socialists who comprise the majority of the rank and file of White Nationalists want to revive an American corpse.

In sum, keep your generic White Nationalism. Keep your bowl patrol. Keep your pagan imagery. This is not about optics for me. This is not about some short term edgy phase in my life. The Southerners with whom I daily interact are the legacy of a multi-generational quest to establish their own country, predicated on hierarchical stratification, Anglo-Saxon norms, and Christian values. We may not be perfect, but at the end of the day, we are not LARPy pseudo-Nazis.

Good luck and enjoy your pool parties.

WeRe Bank #conspiracy #crackpot #mammon werebank.co.uk

As we approach Spring 2017, ReMovement, in association with WeRe Bank, is proud to introduce “The Lazarus Taxon”. Simply put this means the reintroduction of an idea, within a genetic lineage, which was thought to be extinct BUT then “mysteriously” Re-Occurs, is Re-Born or is Re-Instated – seemingly back from the dead, so to say!

“The criminal and unlawful position held by The European Central Bank has been terminated as of immediate effect. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York,The Exchange Stabilization Fund, The Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements have all been stood down too. WeRe Bank has assumed the ReSponsibility for the ReStoration of the peoples Sovereign Money supply back to them, and for freeing world populations from debt slavery and become The Central Banks Central Bank. It has ReTurned the money supply back to the people. It introduces several important steps from January 2017 – QEP – Quantitive Easing for the People, TARP2 – Toxic Asset RePurchase for the People, and the introduction of a fully spendable world/planetary monetary unit called the ReSDR – A RePlacement of the IMF’s intended One World Currency.”

“WeRe Bank is acting under Divine Spiritual Mandate. It is now issuing the PlanetRe Sovereign Unit of Money– (PReSUM) – to prevent you from suffering undue distress, harm and financial trauma throughout the imminent financial, currency market collapse and demonetization saga, engineered for you by the banking cartels and globalist elites, scheduled to take place sometime between 2018/2020, though it could be triggered sooner.”


WeRe Bank offers four injunctions for members to now adopt as we move forward and they are enunciated simply as follows:

– LET’S OUTLAW FINANCIAL SLAVERY-

Under the banner headline of:

“Aren’t you fed up with the constant hassle of never having enough of anything left at the end of every month?”

“Aren’t you “tired of being tired” due to too much work, zero hours contracts, not enough time, constant threats, coercion, duress, bullying  and the use of force, harassment and intimidation to extract money from you by the greedy privateer corporations, police authorities, speed camera and parking agencies, taxation authorities, local councils, bailiffs, debt collection agencies and Court Enforcement Officers and HMRC or IRS?”

“Are you not “fed up to the back-teeth” with the constant lies of politicians and governmental “juiced in” politicians assuring you that there “just isn’t any more money for the public services, the NHS, the roads, schools, students, or you and your family” when there sure as hell seems to be no shortage for “them and theirs” and their HS2 vanity projects?”

Well, if you ARE fed up with all this – we have some very good news for you!

The WeRe Bank “lawful and legal tender” account provides you with

ASSURED DEBT ERADICATION

on all your “falsely attached” “PUBLIC SIDE LEDGER LIABILITIES” including but not limited to:

CAR LOANS

FUEL PAYMENTS

ROAD TAX

BANK LOANS

MORTGAGE REPAYMENTS

BANKRUPTCY SETTLEMENTS

MORTGAGE ARREARS

CREDIT AGREEMENTS

CREDIT CARD RE-PAYMENTS

STUDENT LOANS

CREDIT CARD ARREARS

COUNCIL TAX

TV LICENCE

H.M.R.C – VAT, TVA, MWST, PAYE, SA, FINES

COURT FINES – ANY DEMAND FOR PAYMENT FROM H.M. Courts & Tribunals

SHERIFF OR BAILIFF ORDERS/WARRANTS FOR MONETARY ORDERS

SPEEDING FINES, PARKING TICKETS – ANY POLICE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS

VEHICLE, TRACTOR, MACHINERY CREDIT REPAYMENTS

PROBATE DEBTS – FAMILY ESTATE

UTILITIES – GAS, WATER, ELECTRIC, TELECOMS

WeRe Bank offers not only non-scrip, monetary unit of account or cheque book money but hopefully,as from Summer 2017, scrip as well as a card payment facility. It is, a provider  of finality of settlement under common law on the spot of time for all private, PUBLIC and commercial transactions.

WeRe Bank does NOT recognise as an OBLIGATION the PUBLIC side of any liability created against you since in 1931 in the United Kingdom, 1933 in the United States of America and globally from 22 July 1944 – when all global inhabitants and sovereign beings had the ability to pay in lawful money taken from them by various bankster invasions based on the way that the money supply had been used historically.

From this point on you were FORCED from the private side to THE PUBLIC SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT and made to accept a fiat currency created by criminal banksters using Fractional Reserve Lending, usurious practices, deception, guile and trickery to steal the energy wealth from you.

You were convinced to accept worthless money, the CENTRAL BANKERS PROMISSORY NOTE for the promise/lie of further wealth somewhere, somehow and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.

SECURITY

WeRe Bank has infinite energy supply based on access to the Universal Supply of Energy [USE]

WeRe Bank will accept a promissory note from you to help you begin to understand the simplicity of a system of monetary exchange whereby you can trade energy (your own freely and independently given) for goods and services. In effect all that WeRe bank does is allow you to become your OWN BANKER in return for a membership fee to ReMovement. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT YOU JOIN WITH US TO DO IT, though you may ask: “Well, why don’t I just do it then myself?”

The reason you MUST JOIN through us is that on your own you will be scooped up and destroyed by the forces reigned against you – after all STRENGTH IS UNITY AND UNITY IS STRENGTH.

By exposing the trickery, deceit and lies which have been sold to you – as a star/shetar

So   ZIONIST BANKERS = PHANTOM ENERGY SUPPLY VAMPIRES = GOVERNMENT = CORPORATIONS AND MILITARY = MILITARY – MASONS – MONARCHY – MAYHEM – MONEY – M PEOPLE – MURDER

There is natural law and there is corporate law. There is private law and there is Administrative Law. The trick is here – which jurisdiction do they have you in? For example do you know what the word “ground” means? You talk of buying a piece of “ground” or having “feet on the ground” or entering in Germany, Austria and France your land or property real estate into or onto the “Ground Book” (Grund Buch). Well, ground is “land under water!” as in to “run aground in a ship. So the next time you hear someone talking of “ground rent” etc then you know you are firmly under water and NOT on the Land you thought!

There is the International Law of The Sea and The National Law of The Land. All of us have been tricked into performing under “spurious contractual laws” via The Laws of The Sea, Maritime Law and Admiralty Law – These are war powers acts and are for pirates.

Your natural state of being-ness is of man/woman “on the land under common natural law.” This is a law of sovereignty. It is NOT a law of democracy or majority or mob rule – for if it was and 51% of your community decided they wanted to eat you then they could, could they not! And justify it too!

All corporations – Including for sure The Police, HM Revenue and Customs, HM Courts and Tribunals Services, The Law Society and The Government and The Local Authorities are all culpable of the following offences:

Any name written in CAPITALS CAN BE ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS

A CORPORATION or

JOHN ADAMS R.I.P = A dead man’s (e)state

So – If anyone tries to force you off land and onto the High Seas then this is called inland piracy or “press ganging” and is a criminal offence as is “personage and “barratry!” Press-ganging is slavery and is banned by all signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4 – With the caveat of “beware of referring to yourself as or classing yourself as a “person.”

Article 6 stipulates that: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.

Ergo, which also means that “if you do NOT wish to exercise said right then you can remain a “non-person!” “non-resident alien”. This means that you can opt in or opt out – the only difference is that one requires AWARENESS – the other IGNORANCE! Most people have opted in and not even realized it!”

Have you also been tricked into accepting “services” from “privateer corporations” acting under licence from The Crown (Rome) and The crown (Monarchy) via The Global Trust? If you are accepting any of the services mentioned below AND PAYING FOR THEM then the answer is almost certainly “Yes!”

This GLOBALIST TRUST operates the following services:

Postal Services via Postal Districts and Post Offices – Law of the Sea – Roads all leading from the ports to your door – implied right of access, hence Admiralty Law and Law Merchant. No taxed or non-insured cars on the roads are seized under Admiralty Law

Legal Services of the various Bar Associations  especially Court buildings – Located when possible near to canals, rivers or on streets with such names as Canal Street, Riverside Road.

Banking and Shipping Insurance Services and Standards via Banking & Insurance Associations

Domestic Police Services – In effect corporate security men

Medical and Welfare Services

Insurance Services

Defence and Treaty Alliance Services

The PlanetReServe© Currency of Choice for all free and sovereign beings budded on this planet and payable for work at Re12 per hour – ReTime = Exchangeable for food, goods and services anywhere, anytime and by anyone! The absolute priority now is for all staple food products, utilities and accommodation as well as all additional living expenses be paid for with Re. Since the beginning of 2017 there are now two identifiable monetary units within WeRe Bank – One in the ReSDR payable and receivable in £/$/€/CHF and the second is ReWork earned at Re12.00 the hour. Both are called Re. On your account they are cloured ReSDR in green and ReWork in red

It is now time, following the recent attempts to derail this most needed humanitarian project, to begin the 3rd phase of change. These phases are:

Was the introduction of a chequing facility and DEBT ERADICATION SERVICE PREDICATED UPON THE ABSOLUTE AND UNQUESTIONABLE – (IN ANY COMMERCIAL, LAWFUL OR BANKING ARENA ON THIS PLANET) – OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE TO ZERO DEBT – in order to show people that they WeRe the bankers themselves and it was THEY who created the money supply and not a bank. It was there also to show the nature of the extent of dishonour within the system of money supply, the collusion by the banking cartel as well as the “system of financial apartheid” levelled at anyone or thing expounding “change for the better!”

This prompted the question:

“With so many people in debt, with so many starving and with such inequity in this world – why on earth would the exponents of such as system mouth continually that it was the only system available and the “choice of the people?”

Why would anyone listen to these rogues? Why never enough for us but excess for them? Well, they continued to ReFuse to listen and so we moved onto….

Was the introduction of the LLT – Lawful and Legal Tender in order to show that with the YALTA 1, YALTA 2 and YALTA BITESIZE documents that there was no doubt at all who was paying the planetary bills and who was the “Guarantor and Surety” for all the debt incurred by rogue moneyed interests upon the planet. As expected they continued to ReFuse to listen and so that FUSE has now been lit for…

Is the introduction of The PlanetRePayment©Card as well as WeRe Bank Notes as SCRIP and the full commercial acceptability and announcement of the absolute necessity to now begin to trade in Re and ReSDR. The absolute priority now is for all staple food products, utilities and accommodation as well as all additional living expenses be paid for with Re/ReSDR.

WeRe Bank now trades in Sterling, Dollar and Euro etc on the PUBLIC SIDE of the Trust but in Re on the private sovereign side. This allows for immense flexibility.

The UNIT of MONETARY VALUE is the Re and the ReSDR.
ReSDR 1.00 is equal to 1.00 £/$/€/CHF Fiat for the purposes of the card transactions.


However, you should note that we DO NOT exchange fiat currency for ReSDR – WE TRANSMUTE IT! There is no correspondence between our accepting your fiat currency and the issuing of ReSDR. The issuance of ReSDR is TOTALLY AT OUR DISCRETION AND NOT DEPENDENT UPON OR A FUNCTION OF YOUR SUPPLYING CASH/NOTES/OR VALUE TO WeRe Bank.

As ReSDR is NOT currently recognised as a monetary unit by any of the Central Banks – it is therefore immune from taxation and financial surveillance by the “other side” – the Zionist corporatocracy and banking state cartels.

We would suggest that you place a minimum onto your card of ReSDR120.00. This will currently cost you €/£/$100.00. With 20% shop discount then this will mean at least 40% increase in spending power JUST BY CHOOSING TO SPEND IN ReSDR as opposed to Euro (€) £/$/€/CHF etc
When you ReLoad your card you will informed what the current TRANSMUTATION OFFERED RATE (TOR) is. January/February 2017 it will remain at 1:1


ReWork 12 is paid to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME for 1 hour of work.

Re1 = 5 minutes. It is totally “fungible”, fair, transparent, equitable and equal to and for all people!” – ReGardless.

So whether you are a doctor, dentist, mechanic, vet or engineer Re12 covers it all. Those who protest that this is, “Not enough!” then this argument can be easily countermanded by those in the regions of the world, the majority in fact, where 80% of the people on this planet exist on less than $2 per day. They will provide a very good counter argument against those in the “effluent” West who mouth: “Give us more! Give them less!”

Re has been declared a ReServe Currency Unit of Choice for all freedom seeking men, women in and associated movements worldwide. The nature of fear, control, superstition, ignorance and lack must now be brought to an end.

The Bridge Zone Project provides the PlanetRe payment mechanics of a card loaded with Re to trade planet wide. This allows you to walk the bridge to the other side where freedom awaits..

CARDS AND NOTES

LLT’s AND CHEQUES ARE SERVING THEIR PURPOSE – CONTINUE TO USE THEM CONTINUE TO TRUST IN THEM

These have served us well and accomplished exactly what was intended BUT they are soon to be supplanted with SCRIP IN FULL DENOMINATIONS of Re 3, 6, 12, 24 and 60 notes – as Lawful Tender.

The LLT Notes are already in the hands of many people on a 25 serial notebook. As the banks have refused to clear many of the notes – we now move to CLEARING OUR OWN FUNDS VIA YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THE NECESSARY REFERENCE TO ANY OUTSIDE AGENCY, BANKER OR 3RD PARTY.

From henceforth, all LLT’s, notes and PlanetRePayment© Card transactions will be INSTANTLY CLEARED AND CREDITED following receipt of transaction details.

We encourage you to ensure ALL PAYEES are members to facilitate the ease of clearing.

TERMINALS – ACCESS – LAP TOP – USB

The WeRe Bank App for ReTailers is ready. By early 2017 there will be a customer/member app, also available.

We provide a list of people and businesses prepared to accept the PlanetReServe currency – The Re and ReSDR. WeRe Bank is an energy conduit – it is a method of opening up another kind or fair and transparent energy usage.

FULL TRANSPARENCY

Benefits: You take action where action can be taken

You create a form of suffrage – you vote with your energy

WeRe Bank helps you ReSolve any and every debt crisis you face.

You retain full title to all goods and property which you formerly supposedly DID NOT own!

When you join, you Re-structure the planetary energy supply – you change the junction points on the train tracks of energy theft which has been perpetrated upon you and your ancestors – and the children who will inherit this debacle.

CREATE REAL CHANGE – DO IT NOW

– WeRe BANKING ON YOU –

——————————————————————————–

The WeRe Bank TIME™ Account

from WeRe Bank©

Donny Fuchs #fundie #racist #wingnut #psycho jewishpress.com

<this is about the virulent anti-Arab rabbi Meir Kahane who was assassinated>
<put in some explanations of Hebrew terms>

A close friend and mentor of mine was very close to Rabbi Kahane. He once opined that Rabbi Kahane’s greatest contribution to Am Yisroel was that he was the first to address the real provocative Halachic <collective Torah nd Rabbinical law> issues that the State of Israel faces. Certainly, he was, and remains, the only one who actively campaigned for the transfer of all hostile gentiles from Eretz Yisroel, as per the requirements of Halacha. (Rachavam Zevi’s (may G-d avenge his blood) notion of voluntary transfer was ridiculous and impractical. Hence, it had no teeth and it didn’t raise the ire of the left.)
Yet Rabbi Kahane was not a one-issue personality, as those who know nothing of his authentic teachings are wont to believe. The Arab question was essential and integral, but merely one component of Rabbi Kahane’s comprehensive program for saving Eretz Yisroel and Am Yisroel. His Torah ideology was sophisticated and intellectual which grasped the significance of our miraculous age, and accepted the challenge to turn the State of Israel into a true Torah state, seeking to transform it into a precursor to Moshiach<Messiah>.

The small minded Jewish leaders and lay people (religious and secular) who condemned and smeared him were dishonest when it came to addressing the logical Halachic issues he raised. Worsel, something that the great man always resented, they were afraid to debate him on these very same issues. They naturally feared and insulted employing him ad hominem attacks, because in a debate on Jewish issues, they would have come up short. That is an understatement. He would have dissected them intellectually, as he always did during debates, radio interviews, or question and answer sessions with hostile individuals. The pathetic excuse of not wanting “to dignify his remarks” or “place him in the bounds of intellectual discourse” was aggravating enough when it came from hypocritical secular Jews. But when it came from religious Rabbis who knew that Rabbi Kahane’s message was predicated solely on Torah, the refusal to engage in debate was beyond grotesque.

Israel: Inherent Contradictions When Rabbi Kahane made Aliyah <permanent pilgrimage to Israel>, he addressed the existential Arab threat facing Israel; the problem of demography, and the inherent contradictions between Western Democracy which allows the voting Arab to become a majority one day (even theoretically), and a Jewish State, which by definition must remain Jewish lest it become something else. He was the first to throw the “T” word into public discourse, TRANSFER, which raised the blood pressure of the Left, who only tolerate the word when it is applied to Jews as evidenced during the Gaza expulsion of Jews. Of course, then they use the ridiculous euphemism, “evacuation,” as if they are saving Jews from a typhoon or an earthquake.

If Jews are stoned today from atop Har Habayit, it is because Labor and Likud are committed to appeasing Arab terrorists. While the Arabs set Jerusalem on fire, and run over Jewish babies with their new “car intifada,” Netanyahu grovels before the head dog of Jordan to assure him that he needn’t worry. Jews will not be able to pray on Har Habayit <Temple Mount>. If Arabs are ramming their cars into crowds of Jews, crushing our brothers and sisters, it is because Israel’s leadership fails to grasp the message. If Arab lynch mobs, armed with knives and deadly weapons, are roaming Jerusalem to spill Jewish blood, it is only because our leaders are impotent, fearful, and weak. They silenced Rabbi Kahane, and the Jewish people are bleeding for it.

David G. Brown #fundie returnofkings.com

Would You Rather Live In A Society Controlled By Sharia Law Or Social Justice?

David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there’s something worth tweeting here.

If the flame of the West is snuffed out and the choice is between Islam and “social justice,” I’m choosing the former. Return Of Kings has long pointed out the travesty of open borders migration, which brings in hordes of anti-Western young men from the Middle East. Notwithstanding this, Islamized societies are much more preferable to the many social sicknesses pushed by SJWs.

Should our values be basically exterminated, aside from private contrarian opinions, I am certain that at least superficially going along with Islam will be the right choice for readers of this website as well. The legitimate criticisms we might have of Islam and its applications within countries pale in comparison to the anti-civilization core of so-called social justice. At least we can say that Muslim men are motivated by basic notions of patriarchy and an acknowledgment of gender differences.

The better of two bad situations

Here are just some of the advantages a society based on Sharia Law has over a “society” predicated on social justice principles:

* Unless you fall afoul of a member of the social or political elite, a false rape accusation against a man is extremely unlikely;
* No affirmative action quota is apt to take your job or promotion away from you and give it to a woman;
* The court systems will not buttress the power of activists and others who insist that your child has the “right” to be injected with hormones of the opposite sex and remove the genitals they were born with;
* Crime in your neighborhood will be dealt with, instead of local authorities or the judiciary determining punishments based on gender or race;
* Female hypergamy will be kept in check; and
* When couples divorce, the wife will know that she will almost never be unjustly enriched, like women with little earning power who get multimillion-dollar payouts from husbands for the rest of their lives.

Put simply, the average man will face far less persecution in an Islamized society than one run by SJWs. Without being defeatist, should the West need to die for a time, embracing Islam is the logical choice for someone who wants to make the most of a collapsed political order.

There’s weight in numbers, too

In addition to the rough ideological affinities we share with patriarchal Muslims, demographic realities support the idea of choosing Islam over leftism (if a choice could ever exist). Germany, the United Kingdom, and France are all projected to have Muslim populations of around 20% mid-century. A social laboratory like Sweden will be nearly a third Muslim by that time. Moreover, the political salience of these communities will be even greater than these soon-to-be massive numbers suggest, including the ability to use, like now, aggressive tactics to further Islamic interests.

The mostly pozzed non-Muslim majority will have to kowtow much of the time to the newer arrivals and their descendants. By 2050, expect the incompetence of SJWs to be fully laid to bare, with the authorities powerless to stop the encroachment of strict Muslim values in, say, a “liberal” France or Sweden. Given the option to join with either self-respecting Muslims or obsequious leftists, I know what decision I will be making, potentially long before 2050.

What’s your plan?

Roosh recently spoke about the black pill and the need to accept that all we can sometimes do is enjoy the social decline around us. Likewise, the Age of Trump hasn’t changed many of the deleterious SJW influences within our universities, media outlets, and “popular culture.” The end is not right around the corner, but a lot is still wrong with our societies.

Once the actual fall comes, however, people will have to stop observing and make choices. Inasmuch as we cannot predict everything, the probable successors to Western civilization are already known to us. As of 2017, adopting Islam in the future is the more common sense course of action.

Bryce Laliberte #fundie anarchopapist.wordpress.com

Were there a true wage gap predicated on nothing but the sex of the individual in question, it would benefit virtually every area of society. Naturally, every single one of these goods is contrary to the Progressive soteriology, which is ultimately why it is raked over the coals constantly. Catholics celebrate the Crucifixion at every Mass, after all, so the monthly paean to the wage gap is but an engagement in the same kind of ritual. Don’t you know we’re in a spiritual battle against the invisible forces of sexism and misogyny?

Why would a wage gap exist? The market tends to assign wages on the basis of labor value. Ability is but a component thereof. What an employer is looking at besides mere ability is also how committed the employee will be to work, how convenient he is to employ compared to other employees, how well he will get along with co-workers, and so on. In most professions, women face a natural disadvantage on nearly all of these factors. Women are more likely to quit a job or go part time after working a few years and getting married and/or having children. Women are less likely to actually do their assigned work and more likely to dump it on willing supplicants. Women are less likely to become as skilled at the work over time. Women are more likely to foster divisive politics within the office. It isn’t difficult to understand that given these factors women are frequently employed in unproductive make-work positions so that an employer won’t be subject to an inquisition by the EEOC while simultaneously making sure those engaged in the productive work won’t disrupt its smooth operation. This is without going into the penalties faced by employers who do hire women. Women are more difficult to fire as the threat of a sexual discrimination charge looms. Women pose costs to the office social environment in that sexual harassment charges can occupy an office for weeks, hindering productivity and cohesiveness of the social work environment. Altogether, if a wage gap exists, it is because women tend to be less valuable as employees for all these reasons. If I’m an employer and I’m looking at both a male and female candidate who have demonstrated equal ability, my preference will be for the man for all the reasons pointed out above.

Sans the dogma that women should make as much as men, there would be a wage gap and a lower female participation in the labor force. This is a good thing. There is such a thing as wages which are too high. A gender wage gap which strongly favors men disincentivizes women from pursuing careers, which in turn is their incentive to pursue husbands and a family life. Simultaneously, the lowered labor force participation rate would push wages higher, making it more feasible for a man to be a breadwinner. Instead of the best and brightest women being consigned to the dysgenic infertility of demanding careers, they would be having and raising smart and gifted children, helping to secure the eugenic future of civilization. Likewise, female college attendance would drop, allowing courses to be more rigorous, tuition and loan rates to fall, scarce postgraduate educational resources could be reserved for men more likely to have a higher labor value, rates of promiscuity on campuses would fall, and women’s studies wouldn’t have to exist to prop up the academic attainment of women who can’t cut it in STEM or even rigorous humanities majors. Women would have fewer delusions about their worth as marriage material, making them more attractive to men; men could more easily get a stable, family supporting career, increasing their own attractiveness to women as well. Rates of divorce would fall, which by extension means rates of child abuse would also fall. Equal pay makes everything worse for practically everyone in society.

A true, unregulated gender wage gap is not a cure-all panacea, but it would be a step towards restoring the family and the indispensable benefits it provides to society. Granted, it is only orthodox to prefer that women be independent (lonely), empowered (subsidized by men), and sexually liberated (slutty) rather than be engaged in the timeless and noble service of motherhood, but is that a mark against the gender wage gap or our own society?

the Truth is stranger than fiction... #fundie youtube.com

(Context: This man is a Flat Earth Preacher and has a whole YouTube channel devoted to that ministry. These are two comments in a video in which he responds to a CREATIONIST refuting Flat Earth)


Comment One: You think Lisle has "spend most of his life doing actual research"...???? Your comment here actually highlights one of the main false assumptions that is central to this whole affair, the false assumption I am actually taking aim AT... Did Lisle actually discover or confirm any of the claims of Copernicanism by way of conducting his own experiments? Challenging the status quo? Weighing what was being taught by the mainstream against what the Bible says, and seeing if observation might show the mainstream to be false? No. The only aspect he has had the courage to question is the vast stretches of Evolutionary time. Yet he turns around and regurgitates everything the same cosmic evolutionists teach about vast stretches of space. Lisle did not get his Phd in astronomy by questioning if modern astronomy was as much of a pseudoscientific lie as Darwinian evolution is. I am not judging him "as a person". I am pointing out the glaring bias present in someone who's entire professional existence is predicated upon the assumption that Copernican astronomy is true. But since you mentioned it, I have done my own research. Both Biblical, and empirical, and unfortunately I can simply no longer accept the indefensible claim that the Bible actually teaches the Copernican model. Nor can I accept the assertion that humans have been into "outer space", or walked on the moon. I have made dozens of videos now which chronicle the progression of my research. Where's yours??

Comment Two: You're correct. The original Hebrew cosmology is not a flat pancake floating in space. Coincidentally, this is not what modern FE'ers believe either. There is no such thing as "space" at all. You have not done a shred of actual research, as neither has Lisle, who for the record, was not being "attacked" via ad hominem. It is hardly a "personal attack" to simply point out the ridiculous degree of bias an individual like Lisle has when it comes to questioning Copernican astronomy. The proof for the Flat Earth is extensive. The proof for the globe is assumptive reasoning and circular arguments based on shadows in wells, and fake NASA pictures. Fake as the pictures of Evolutions' celebrated "missing links' in fact. It's all one big Evolutionary fairy tale. All of it.?

A.P. Staff #fundie apologeticspress.org

The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan. But one story that sometimes stands out in the minds of skeptics is the one found in Numbers 31, where God seemingly gives no reason for killing defenseless women and male children. In addition, it has been suggested that the young girls mentioned in the account were spared so that the Israelite men could rape them. Such accusations are baseless, however, as is evident when they are viewed in light of other related passages.

The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”

As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18). When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy.

But how can we explain the destruction of the young boys? Why were they not spared along with the young girls? Skeptics read of events such as the conquest of Canaan, and contend that no God could be so cruel as to call for the destruction of an entire nation. The mere idea of the God of heaven ordering the death of women and innocent children so outraged infidel Thomas Paine that he said such a scenario was sufficient evidence in and of itself to cause him to reject the divine origin of the Bible (1795, p. 90). In fact, he condemned the Bible for its alleged moral atrocities, and even went so far as to blame the Bible for virtually every moral injustice ever committed. He wrote:

Whence arose the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? (p. 185).
However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.

Man hardly can blame God and His Word for the awful consequences of sin; rather, he has only himself to blame (Romans 3:23; 5:12). A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment, and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent by clear-thinking people. Yet, critics ask us to view God as some type of ogre for following the same course of action. The discrepancy is not with the Almighty, but with His cowering critics.

The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25).

The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives. As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites.

God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things—so He may do whatever He wishes, so long as it is not in violation of His character. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added). Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does. As Job 4:17 asked: “ Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added). The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation). Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6). While God is all loving, He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death

Sweep the leg #racist moonbattery.com

Well the truth is that [Nelson] Mandela is a monster, who tortured and murdered. He was propped up by idiots who thought that blacks could ever live side by side with anyone (including themselves), and that Apartheid (which allowed blacks a somewhat peaceful way of life, BTW), was pure evil.

Whites foolishly caved to worldwide pressure, and handed over the country. Result? Easily predicable and disgusting. I’m sure you approve? What? You had no idea?

Instead of acting like an idiot, why not visit some blogs and read some works by people who were actually there? Mandella is a terrorist. Period. Apartheid – and our self protective “Jim Crow”, are the only way you can live in relative peace with blacks. Nothing else has ever worked.

Anonymous Coward #racist godlikeproductions.com

Zika Virus :PROOF that The White Man Is The Devil.

As if you needed more evidence.

I promise you that Whites would look the other way if,

1.)There is no money to be made off of a treatment/vaccine.

2.)If Whites are unaffected.

No matter how "good" you think Whites are you mustr admit the above is true.

NEWSFLASH: They had the cure made before they even released the genetically modified mosquito's. They just want to see if White Countries get hit, if so they will release the Vaccine.

No matter how "cool" your white friends are they know that they are in a race war for the planet and that ALL non Whites must die.

It's very easy to be in denial but watch how they act when their money runs out because the economy collapses, then you will see the Devil himself.

They are already trained to blame all their problems on people who look different than themselves.

They are predicatively programmed and it doesn't matter how "good" they seem.

This thread will be deleted because it's true but I have copies.

Foundation for Moral Law #fundie morallaw.org

"Acknowledgments of God in public are important because this nation was founded and its laws are predicated on a steadfast belief in God. Without that foundation the country will cease to operate as a free and prosperous nation able to serve as an aid and example to the rest of the world. The acknowledgment of God recognizes the source of our inalienable rights, to life, liberty, and property and the only proper source of our morality."

RA Landbeck #fundie jesusandmo.net

It’s no longer necessary to just ridicule sincerely held beliefs of others, including secular/atheist ones, when you can bring them all crashing down! For they may all be in for a serious bashing if material on the web proves itself and there appears to be a concerted effort to authenticate and confirm the efficacy of what may be the most important, new moral teaching ever revealed. This is what I’m TESTING out at this very moment.
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate ods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith.
Thus ‘faith’ becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His ‘Word’ of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.”
So like it or no, and many won’t, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

Chingchongsban4chan #racist reddit.com

[OP of "Don't mind me, just posting scriptures from the Jewish Talmud."]

image

QUOTES FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD:
I. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: iiEven the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to
the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give
only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
8. Hilkkoth Akum XI: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
9. Hilkkoth Akum Xl: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the
Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
11. Choschen Hamm 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For
he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the
transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the
name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable
people. "
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the
Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings
but beasts."
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not
have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to
serve the Jew day and night."
16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he
is NOT responsible."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It
is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation,
which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

freakinasuit #crackpot #psycho incels.co

[JFL] All Prosperity and Happiness Is Predicated On Debt

3 yrs in an economics degree and there was never a lecture about debt and interest. It was all pseudo socialist-marxian-keynesian theory bs.

Took me this long to realise that individual happiness (and normie relationships) are predicated on debt. If male normies don't get their slut wife the latest iphone, or buy a new "family" car, pay for his step-children to go to that "private college" or go on that overseas cruise, it is game over. And to afford this shit, they must go into debt. They literally slave until they drop.

Australians, on average, owe $2200 in credit card debt, and $19000 in car loans, and individual homeowners $350k in home loans. Fall behind on that and you loose everything. NEET life is almost stress free. All we worry about is whether the government will continue giving us our neetbux so that we vote for them at the next election - nobody really votes for what is best for the country, but what is best for them.

I'll laugh when the debt and financial markets crash. All those cucks and their slutty wives will find themselves screwed over. I actively look foward to the next great depression :feelskek:

Tuthmosis Sonofra #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Traits of the Male Feminist


Tuthmosis Sonofra
Tuthmosis is a Columnist-at-Large at Return of Kings. His work has been covered by major media outlets such as The Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Vice Magazine, The Daily Mail, and Yahoo Shine. He's also been profiled by BuzzFeed and The New Statesman. You can follow him on Twitter.

The only reason radical feminism has managed to achieve such an influential and mainstream position in Western society is through the vital reinforcements provided by turn-coat gender traitors who willfully cannibalize other men to please their female overlords. This is the male feminist. These are men whose entire personas are predicated on keeping others from offending their female bosses. They shame natural male behavior and spread the intellectualized delusion that are today’s feminist talking-points. They publicly self-castrate, lying to themselves and others about their own sexual impulses and imperatives.

The great irony—and secret—is that they have the same ends as guys who learn game: to get the women into the sack (loath as they may be to admit it), except they do it by trying to curry their favor through obsequious groveling.


1. Lispy, effete voice.
There’s good science that shows that today’s men are being exposed to greater quantities of female hormones. Among the causes is a contaminated water supply with trace amounts of birth-control compounds from women’s urine. The mass consumption of soy products—a natural source of estrogen—is another likely culprit. Whatever the origins, there is an epidemic of ostensibly heterosexual men with “gay voice,” none more clearly than the male feminist, who deliberately takes the bass and manly tone out of his voice so as to not offend.

2. Condescending, snarky girl-tone and eye-rolling.
Added to the character of his voice is a patronizing, dismissive tone (often with “upspeak” and vocal fry) common with obnoxious teenage girls and a certain cross-section of (actual) gay men. Rather than disagree with an argument on its merits, they sigh through it like Al Gore at a presidential debate. To make matters worse, he artificially laces his speech with profanity, which rather than toughness, comes off like a moody girl cussing at her boyfriend.

3. Slovenly appearance, featuring a vegan-style beard.
The uniform of the male feminist is a non-threatening cocktail of emasculating hipster-wear, with an unkempt beard—the badge of today’s weak guy—and anything else that makes it patently obvious he never hits the gym and poses no danger whatsoever to anything.

4. Parrots word salad of incoherent feminist talking points.
The male feminist repeats all of the made-up jargon of the hysterical feminist (science fiction-sounding utterances like “cis-gender” and “sex-positive”). They also participate in the misappropriation and abuse of once-sound, useful English-language words like “consent,” “patriarchy,” and “privilege.”

5. Rape alarmist.
Like any lock-step feminist, the male feminist drops the Rape Card several times in any discussion, irrespective of subject. Like the word “smurf” in the 80s cartoon, the word “rape” is slowly being eroded of meaning by its catch-all use for anything and everything. The goal of this repeated invocation is to further whip up an exaggerated hysteria around rape, make everyone believe there’s a rapist on every corner, and make it sound like everyone’s whispering “rape jokes” when women aren’t looking. I can count on one hand how many rape jokes I’ve heard in my entire life, and still have enough fingers left over to stimulate the clitoris of a pixie cut-wearing, female-bodied individual.

6. Enabling feminist hysteria by providing excuses for bigoted behavior and by demanding that others also walk on egg shells.

According to this guy—and all feminists—it’s okay to be permanently scared of men if you’ve ever been victimized by them, however real or imagined that victimization may have been. By this rationale, I can permanently remain “apprehensive” and “have fear” of black people “as a category” because I was once robbed, at gun point, by a black guy. Furthermore, he excuses feminist hate-speech as simple “making-fun-of-you” not to be taken seriously, while simultaneously labeling anything said by the opposing side as 100-percent-serious hate-speech.

7. False veneer of intellectualism and academic grounding.
To lend some kind of legitimacy to his specious, problematic logic, he cites oblique academic-sounding references in a poorly constructed straw-man argument about what “men’s rights advocates” use to prove the existence of misandry. He engages in the typically feminist mental acrobatics that—when it’s all said and done—have turned night into day, made up into down, and rendered men into women.

Like any outsider-turned-convert to a religion, the male feminist is always more radical—and dangerous—to the non-believer. If, like many men, you have the misfortune to have to be around them, tread carefully. Always looking to prove his loyalty, the male feminist will do everything in his power to cut down a confident, masculine man—fabricating stories, running to the authorities, and anything else to throw you under bus—all to (hopefully) score a few points with his female overlords.

null59 #wingnut reddit.com

>>The question was “what does a gop utopia look like”

I'll take a stab at this

Healthcare and wealth inequality

Remove the FDA, reclassify the CDC as a military wing and fire / retrain accordingly. Rebuild the IRS from the ground up, consumption tax and a one-flat for every income. No bracket fuckery.

Abolish every single public payor system that exists now (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.. But excluding ones that serve veterans). Implement something similar to Yang's UBI thats opt in and not predicated on a disability or poverty standard, thats weighted for COL in a given state.

Ill clarify that last bit. Lets say you have a family of 4 and live in Orange County. COL for that family size there is roughly $12k monthly, including rent / food / utilities. Youd get a monthly freedom dividend of $4k. A family of the same size in Montana where the COL is around $3k monthly, means you get a dividend of $900. Opting in would exclude you from every single other government benefit program, including unemployment.

Global scale

Close US bases in the EU, bring troops home. End involvement in the UN. Draw a hard line with China, either they pay us for their economic infringement or we go to war and level Beijing.

Abolish the EPA and bar trade with any countries that implement a carbon tax.

Statehood for Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec.

Immigration

Increase the number of CBP and ICE. (At least as many officers in those agencies as we have in City PDs, so millions.) Finish the wall but also patrol it with drones, ramp up CBP presence on our northern borders as well.

Break up "sanctuary cities", prosecute for treason those involved with the shelter of criminal aliens.

Put quotas on EU immigrants, or totally block them from applying to enter entirely. Keep current restrictions on existing hotbed countries like Syria.

Gun rights

Abolish the ATF, repeal the NFA and any regulation that infringes on an American's right to keep and bear arms.

And yes, since it'll come up, private citizens should be allowed to own Abrams tanks if they can afford it.

Social issues

Break up large, crime infested cities like Detroit, Chicago and Seattle.

Retrain existing city PD, supplement gaps with private security operators. These would be armed but unsworn enforcers. They'd maintain peace but not have the license to arrest or detain, only to use scalable force to maintain peace.

Re-normalize the nuclear family. Build more churches and synagogues, reinforce the importance of some kind of higher calling. Classify Atheists as a hate group (which they are). Ratify the courts to oust existing judges that rule unfairly in divorce and custody proceedings.

Education

Abolish the DOE. School choice should be the standard.

Tax credits with no expiry for attending a trade school to completion.

Start slapping heavy fines, in the millions or tens of millions on Universities and Colleges that politicize their curriculum and facilitate sex crimes (spoiler alert its most of them)

Elections

Voter ID as the standard. Term limits for every single elected position.

Criminal Justice

Push for more states to adopt the death penalty. Apply it to more crimes, and speed up the prosecution and appeals for death penalty charges.

Decriminalize minor drug possession and usage.

The high prison population is a problem. Between stemming the influx, and shrinking it via executions, we can decrease those numbers drastically.

Some incels #sexist #kinkshaming reddit.com

Re: Reminder: There is no such thing as a feminist woman

image

(Subhumanmanletcel)

Bitches have no value besides being a fuck hole. And they get annoyed when non chads reminds them of it. Female humor is basically whores trying yo one-up other whores with their whoreness

that dude at the bottom desperately trying to salvage womens dignity.

Can't salvage something that doesnt exist. He's trying to salvave his blue pill illusion

(Plan_o-f_Will)

Shit, I can literally feel his world melting in front of him. I felt the same way when I stopped being a bluepilled retard

Thing is, that's supposed to happen when you're a kid or maybe a teen. This dude will never get over it. He's probably in his 30s. Way too invested in the lie.

(Links_Hacks)

White knight cuck's circuitry is frying lmao. 'But...women are kweenz...how could...but...misogyny...'

(bcat124)

the difference is that the 4th panel is chad, and rest are normies/incels .

Every single woman on this earth LOVES to be called nothing but a fuckhole, if you have the right face and height.

And then people ask me why I hate women JFL ur the weirdo for not hating women imo

(HomoheroBishii)

Like a KKK member who only has sex with black people. Literally nobody would question how silly that is. Yet feminists have convinced society that their contradiction is okay because "it's only in the bedroom," even though my KKK example is also only sex related. Humans don't just suddenly turn off their instincts the moment they step outside the bedroom, so feminists basically prove this comic true: https://i.imgur.com/ZuSM1xM.jpg

(lickmytushyhole)

Radfems exist and this behavior is why they shit on libfems. They hate BDSM and anything similar to it.

Radfems and libfems are both retarded

(shadowPerla)

Feminism is a giant shit test and men keep failing it. You have no idea how many feminists are into self degradation and shit. It's all a facade. Deep inside they're just horny cunts with daddy issues, waiting to get put in their place.

(Zurgoide800)

Lol, doesn't surprise me. The feminist I used to talk to, liked getting fucked raw from behind doggystyle, with the intent of getting knocked up, as a form of roleplay. Too bad she was obese, otherwise I would have tapped that. incredibly enough, she could still find guys willing to do that, despite her obesity.

I totally see why youre hateful. That doesnt mean that whatever you argue under such hatefulness is correct.

feminists have daddy issues. every man with a little brain left, knows it. Of course nobody likes to be called a whore in a normal conversation. Do you really need to poin out the obvious? come the fuck on.

(Carkudo)

"This shit" i.e. feminist women admitting that they're sexist and prefer traditional gender roles.

"I try to empathize with you guys, but then you go and post pictures where members of my ideology admit that my ideology is morally bankrupt"

Yeah, if your empathy is predicated on not calling your ideology out on its hypocrisy, you can stick your empathy up your shapely ass because nobody needs a narcissist's "empathy"

Fair point about empathy. I guess that your situation calls for empathy regardless of your personal stance on other issues.

I dont see a connection between havimg a kink and preferring traditional gender roles.. and my ideology doesnt prohibit traditional gender roles.. it just sees them as one option among many.

The fact that the picture angers you and you wish people wouldn't post it means you do see the connection. Good job on showcasing your ideology's hypocrisy once again.

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

Actually, Dragnet, I think white privilege is very real. I was the beneficiary of it while in China. White Mexicans do very well for themselves. A mediocre white female teacher in DC makes a whole hell of a lot more than most of her neighbors. When I was in Latvia I met some Americans who, although not privileged for their skin color, were definitely privileged by virtue of their nationality. There’s no way some of the mediocrities I met there could have had such high positions here. So perhaps “white” privilege is an inaccurate term, but elite privilege has always been a feature of civilization.

However, this privilege is conditional. And it’s predicated on a particular lifestyle and social system that is better suited to colonial Latin America than the dynamic democracy we have here. In some cases, privileged minorities can exist in a mutually beneficial relationship with their hosts, as in Sephardic Jews in early modern Holland, who invented modern finance with their Dutch colleagues and paved the way for the industrial revolution. However, what we have in the US is a privileged white minority that seeks first and foremost to be a parasite on other, non-privileged whites, and is trying (but failing) to do so through moral appeals.

Instead of trying to find a working solution, they are increasingly turning to divisive, confrontational politics, much as the white elite of the antebellum South forced the issue prior to the US Civil War. As much as it may cause cognitive dissonance to modern readers, I definitely see the white elite in this country as the modern incarnation of the Southern slaver culture. With a good grasp of history, it isn’t much of a stretch, but they’ve succeeded in casting themselves as champions of everyone but themselves even while they are perhaps the most tenacious parasites this nation has seen in ages.

BLESSEDone333 #conspiracy youtube.com

[Explaining why her prophecy that "evil will be revealed" on July 4th failed {she also predicted a stock market crash on July 7th}]

Be grateful the plan of evil did not happen! The benchmark date was not used. One theory is that the good guys destroyed the masses of numbers they were going to use. I do hope they do not use the 7th either.

Something happened to their plan - KEEP PRAYING FOR PROTECTION.

this is a dance of good and evil... the only side that is totally predicable is the good side.

They still want to destroy our constitution and bring the world market crash. They had their plan delayed before

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.


Because clearly, blacks and homosexuals are the same.

The implication is that history will harshly judge opponents of homosexual rights, just as we passionately denounce Jim Crow racism. Such logic is now being applied to transsexual rights; check out this segment from John Oliver – the newest liberal comedic cult figure – where he asserts (skip to 16:15) that history will not be kind to those of us who oppose this newest civil rights movement. In so many words, if we don’t enthusiastically embrace the left’s agenda, then people like us will be reviled for all eternity.

Will we? The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (ie. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

Chief Justice Moore #fundie religioustolerance.org

"...the homosexual conduct of a parent -- conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender -- creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.... Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family....It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected."

choose_erudite #fundie news.messages.yahoo.com

['You keep ranting about how evolutionary theory is predicated on 'random' chemical reactions. If you passed high school chemistry, you would know that atoms do not 'randomly' interact with each other.']

says Wea pon..

I distinctly remember pouring a little bit of this and a little bit of that, randomly, ignorantly, without taking notes, and certainly with intelligent design. You know what I got, don't you? It certainly wasn't a strand of DNA. IT WAS MUD.

Britt Gillette #fundie end-times-bible-prophecy.com

Transhumanism In Bible Prophecy

Transhumanism and the great rebellion

Is transhumanism in bible prophecy?

That's a great question, because this generation is poised to witness the emergence of a radical new social movement known as transhumanism.

Expressing an unshakable faith in the continued and rapid advance of human technology, transhumanists look to the future with what can only be described as a religious fervor.

Many of this movement's adherents point to the singularity (an exponential increase in technological advancement so rapid the unaided human mind is unable to grasp its implications) as the climax of human civilization.

Believing this event will usher in a new era for the human race in which limited mortals transcend their biological bodies and set out to conquer the universe, transhumanist anticipation of the singularity is comparable to Christian anticipation of the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Ironically, the bible points out that in the time just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ the world will be characterized by unparalleled human arrogance. Led by the Antichrist, the human race will not only launch a spiritual rebellion against God, but an actual physical confrontation between themselves and the King of kings, Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul foresaw this conflict almost 2,000 years ago:

"For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed - the one who brings destruction. He will exalt himself and defy every god there is and tear down every object of adoration and worship. He will position himself in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (NLT)

The Tower of Babel

To properly understand the origins of this rebellion, we must first examine the development of human civilization in the aftermath of the flood. It is a time marked by another rebellion first chronicled in Genesis Chapter 11.

It's the story of the Tower of Babel:

"At one time the whole world spoke a single language and used the same words. As the people migrated eastward, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there. They began to talk about construction projects. 'Come,' they said, 'let's make great piles of burnt brick and collect natural asphalt to use as mortar. Let's build a great city with a tower that reaches to the skies - a monument to our greatness! This will bring us together and keep us from scattering all over the world.'

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 'Look!' he said. 'If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them! Come, let's go down and give them different languages. Then they won't be able to understand each other.'

In that way, the Lord scattered them all over the earth; and that ended the building of the city. That is why the city was called Babel, because it was there that the Lord confused the people by giving them many languages, thus scattering them across the earth." Genesis 11:1-9 (NLT)

In this story, God scatters the human race and confuses them with different languages. His reason for doing so is to avoid the inevitable disaster wrought by global government and a common language.

Why are these things a concern?

Are you confident you can weather the current economic storm? Learn how to build an online business that works.

Because if they continue unabated, in due time, "nothing will be impossible" for the human race. This is more than a flippant comment by God. It's a prophecy of things to come.

It's a prophecy of something so bad, God put a stop to it the moment He first saw it. God knew that, left to pursue its technological development, the human race would one day challenge Him. After all, what was the motive for building the Tower of Babel in the first place?

"Let's build a great city with a tower that reaches to the skies - a monument to our greatness!" Genesis 11:4 (NLT)

The human race set out to build a monument to its own greatness, exalting mankind above God and extending its tower far into heaven with the sole intent of usurping God's glory and authority. This innate human desire did not end with the Tower of Babel. It continues to this day, and soon it will result in one final attempt to usurp the authority of God.
The Great Lie

The motive for this great rebellion will be predicated on lies. The bible predicts that deception will be rampant in the end times.

And just as God hardened the heart of Pharaoh for putting faith in his own power, He will do the same to the inhabitants of the earth who will become drunk with their own power:

"So God will send great deception upon them, and they will believe all these lies." 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NLT)

Paul makes it clear that these people will be deluded into believing "the lies."

But what exactly are the "lies" to which he refers?

A cursory examination of the first book of the Bible reveals a quote from the originator of lies. In fact, it's the very first lie referenced in the bible:

"'You won't die!' the serpent hissed. 'God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil.'" Genesis 3:4-5 (NLT)

These lies from the Garden of Eden are the same lies to which Paul refers.

The same lies which brought sin into the world will be the same lies which spark the ultimate rebellion against God Almighty. Humanity will come full circle.

In the last days, the same construction projects envisioned by the Tower of Babel architects will result in mankind achieving a level of technological sophistication so advanced that "nothing will be impossible for them."

The human race will come to believe the great lies of the serpent.

In his arrogance, man will believe he is:

1) Immortal
2) All-Knowing

and

3) Just like God

Mankind will mimic the earth-shattering arrogance of Lucifer by freely joining in his rebellious attempt to usurp the throne of God. Because without Jesus Christ, fallen mankind's ambition is the same as Lucifer's.

Centuries ago, Isaiah described this fallen being and his sinister motives:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world. For you said to yourself, 'I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God's stars. I will preside on the mountain of the gods far away in the north. I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High.'" Isaiah 14:12-14 (NLT)

In the last days, this passage will not only be an accurate depiction of Satan, but of all mankind.
The Transhumanist Movement

The latest incarnation of man's rebellion against God is the transhumanist movement.

Many within the movement believe the singularity will lead to the emergence of "post-biological humans" who are able to shed their biological bodies and "upgrade their hardware." Others believe that by downloading themselves into a network, they will effectively become "immortal."

True believers have modified their diets, exercise routines, and entire lifestyle in an effort to increase the likelihood of living to witness human reversal of the aging process and eventual human "immortality."

Ray Kurzweil - inventor, author, and transhumanist - is considered one of the best in the world at accurately forecasting short-term and intermediate technological trends.

In Chapter 7 of his bestselling book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology," he describes his view of the ultimate outcome of our technological advance:

"The matter and energy in our vicinity will become infused with the intelligence, knowledge, creativity, beauty, and emotional intelligence (the ability to love, for example) of our human-machine civilization. Our civilization will then expand outward, turning all the dumb matter and energy we encounter into sublimely intelligent - transcendent - matter and energy. So in a sense, we can say the Singularity will ultimately infuse the universe with spirit."

According to Kurzweil, the universe will be infused with "spirit" as a result of the natural advance of our human-machine civilization. This infers that the universe is not already infused with "spirit," and that if God exists, His designs are inferior to those that will be created by the predicted human-machine civilization.

In the next paragraph, he describes the advancement of the human-machine civilization as approaching the very conception of God. Ironically, he admits that the accelerating growth of evolution can never achieve the infinite character traits exclusive to God:

"Evolution moves toward greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without any limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably toward this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking."

The concluding sentence of this paragraph should send up red flags for every student of bible prophecy. According to Kurzweil, as the human race moves forward, it will seek to free its thinking "from the severe limitations of its biological form."

The bible reveals that one day mankind will gather its armies in an attempt to "break the chains of God and set themselves free from His bondage." Psalm 2 describes this confrontation:

"Why do the nations rage? Why do the people waste their time with futile plans? The kings of the earth prepare for battle; the rulers plot together against the Lord and against His Anointed One. 'Let us break their chains,' they cry. 'And free ourselves from this slavery.' But the one who rules in heaven laughs. The Lord scoffs at them." Psalm 2:1-4 (NLT)

Could this passage describe an attempt by post-biological humans to overthrow the rule of God?

Could the chains which hold them in bondage be the "severe limitations of their biological form"?

Remember, when this event occurs, Satan and his fallen angels are also inhabitants of the earth:

"Rejoice, O heavens! And you who live in the heavens, rejoice! But terror will come on the earth and the sea. For the Devil has come down to you in great anger, and he knows that he has little time." Revelation 12:12 (NLT)

In his arrogance and desperation, Satan will advance the dark powers of the spiritual realm, aided by a fallen mankind with powers beyond our current limitations, in a last ditch effort to defeat God.

The technological advancements of the near future will provide mankind with unprecedented power, and the ambitious goals of the transhumanist movement are already in direct conflict with God Himself.

The following verse provides additional support for believing transhumanism will play a pivotal role in this final rebellion. In the New Testament, when Jesus describes the signs of His Coming to the disciples, He makes an interesting statement in light of our times:

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." Matthew 24:22 (KJV)

Throughout the centuries, this verse has been interpreted as meaning the Second Coming of Christ will arrive just in time to save the human race from itself, meaning human wars would threaten to cause the extinction of the human race.

However, it might mean that "no flesh will be saved" because a nakedly ambitious human race will transform itself into a race of "post-biological humans" intent on reshaping the universe according to an alternative agenda.

Given the history of human rebellion against God, it would be unwise to discount this possibility.

The Great Rebellion

Just as Paul prophesied, human ambition will ultimately lead to a great rebellion against God. This rebellion will reach its zenith at Armageddon, an actual geographical location in modern day Israel. The gathering of the world's armies at Armageddon will not be (as some believe) a war of humans versus humans, but rather a literal physical confrontation between rebellious mankind and the King of kings, Jesus Christ. In addition to Psalm 2, this battle is referenced multiple times in scripture, and it's clearly referenced twice in the Book of Revelation:

"These miracle-working demons caused all the rulers of the world to gather for battle against the Lord on that great judgment day of God Almighty." Revelation 16:14 (NLT)

"Then I saw the beast gathering the kings of the earth and their armies in order to fight against the one sitting on the horse and his army." Revelation 19:19 (NLT)

The "one sitting on the horse" is identified as Jesus Christ. Literally interpreted, both these passages state that the world will gather for battle against Jesus Christ. The bible is clear about this, yet for countless generations, these passages have been interpreted as a mere spiritual battle and not as a literal physical conflict. It's not difficult to image why. The idea of mankind physically engaging God in battle seems so preposterous that these passages have given way to numerous symbolic interpretations over the years. Yet scripture is clear. Remember what God Himself said about the human race that will ultimately fulfill His Tower of Babel prophecy - "nothing will be impossible for them!"

In fact, the Book of Daniel reveals that the Antichrist will manage to attack "the heavenly armies, throwing some of the heavenly beings and stars to the ground and trampling them":

"From one of the prominent horns came a small horn whose power grew very great. It extended toward the south and east and toward the glorious land of Israel. His power reached to the heavens where it attacked the heavenly armies, throwing some of the heavenly beings and stars to the ground and trampling them. He even challenged the Commander of heaven's armies by canceling the daily sacrifices offered to him and by destroying his Temple." Daniel 8:9-11 (NLT)

The power of the Antichrist and the human beings of his era will far exceed what our generation can currently imagine. As proof, Daniel describes a time when the Antichrist will engage Jesus Christ Himself in battle:

"He will even take on the Prince of princes in battle, but he will be broken, though not by human power." Daniel 8:25 (NLT)

The human race, led by the Antichrist, will take on the Lord Himself in battle. Like the Tower of Babel generation, the arrogance of this final generation will extend all the way into the heavens, where the human race will attempt to usurp the glory and authority of God Himself. But just like the Tower of Babel generation, their efforts will end in utter failure.
Conclusion

The transhumanist agenda serves as a reminder of what the human race is without the blood of Jesus Christ - an enemy of God. A movement which views its ultimate purpose as bringing enlightenment to the universe sets itself up in direct opposition to God's own purpose. This is the very definition of rebellion, and it's the inevitable result of fallen mankind's sinful nature.

Yet despite our sinful nature, God provided us with the free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. All we have to do is accept this gift. Those who accept it will experience peace and everlasting life, but those who reject it will become slaves to sin, and their ambition - like Satan's - will one day lead to an outright physical confrontation with God Himself. It's a battle that God will win.

Mars #fundie forum.myspace.com

<img src="images/yahova.gif" align="center">

The descriptive endomorphism of Yahovah is mapped from the internal point in Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah topologically contains the description of Yahovah which equals the endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah.

Yahovah topologically contains all endomorphic points which predicatively contain Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is the infinite spatiotemporal manifold which possess all power.

The summation of energy equaling kinetic energy plus potential energy is simply a statement of the law of conservation of energy; Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And, all endomorphic points in existence possess energy therefore energy is in union with existence, or in other words it is the substance of existence. Therefore energy itself is an infinite spatiotemporal manifold.

Gradient energy equals incremental power divided by the incremental spacial metric. Therefore, gradient energy is in all power. Therefore, the energy manifold possess all power.

The infinite spatiotemporal manifold Yahovah possess all power and the infinite spatiotemporal manifold energy possess all power. Therefore, energy is a subset of or equal to Yahovah. Therefore, Yahovah is in union with existence, or in other words Yahovah is the substance of existence.

Neo Nationalist #racist neonationalist.tumblr.com

Accept that we are different and let go of your hate.

Nearly all anti-white bigotry and affirmative action/diversity efforts are predicated on white racism causing gaps in racial achievement. The ultimate irony of it all is that progressives are hate filled bigots who blame innocent whites for problems that are largely the result of genetics/minority culture. To accept race realism is to let go of your hate and accept that we are different and that we will achieve differently and build different types of civilizations. Africa has never looked like Europe or Japan and it never will. Just accept that and stop hating whites.

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

It appears, from the general tenor of the internet, that there are only two choices of what to talk about today–Wonder Woman and Terrorism. Neither appeal to me at all, of course, because it’s not my job to stop the second one, and the first one is a movie, and I hate, join with me now, ‘all movies.’
Truly, I don’t get the super hero thing. Never have. Even after enduring two little boys who lived, each of them relentlessly, in various costumes–first Superman then Spider-Man and carrying on from there. I always wondered what they thought was happening as they daily donned cheap nylon and velcro unitards, usually over pjs and all manner of bulky little kid clothes. It looked like the most uncomfortable ensemble imaginable, but would only very rarely be removed.

My girls, of course, did occasionally don the Superman costume. But mostly they devoted themselves to big fat princess dresses. In this way, gender distinctions were rigidly preserved. And this must be my fault, even though I never bought a single one these items myself, and never told which child to wear which one. I never made a speech, ‘you wear the big dress, and you wear the skin tight unitard.’ They just knew…because of the patriarchy, probably.

I, therefore, pray and hope that I don’t have to go see Wonder Woman even though it will probably be one of those movies that I can’t avoid without trying really hard.

This morning I read a Mormon writer explaining how the movie is about Jesus, and then a feminist explaining about how the movie is about feminism. The first one surprised me. The second one not at all.

The second one said this, “She also won’t apologize for being a woman. The movie champions her femininity: Her power isn’t diminished by caring too much or experiencing her emotions. Instead, her love and kindness strengthen her.” That sounds perfect. I’m just curious, though, in how many places where this movie is likely to be shown is a woman having to apologize for being a woman? Will they be showing this movie to women in Mecca? And truly, how brave and courageous in this modern world to see brightly lit on a screen a woman ‘experiencing her emotions.’ What a counter cultural message!

For my part, I have always found the Super Woman meme to be a drag. The idea that a woman can have it all was predicated on the exhausting assumption that she could also do it all. And that has turned out to be a lot of work. Women have to save the world and cook the dinner and do the laundry and feel all the feelings and manage the man and be amazing at work. If you do all these things, you get to have a glass of wine at night and complain about how terrible your life is.

When really, no one person can do any of those things. One or two perhaps, but not all, and certainly not all at once. I dislike more than anything being introduced as someone who has Six Kids (! How is that even possible!) who Homeschools (! I know right!) and has written a book (! Can women even write books?) and blogs every day (! Every Day! That’s Crazy!). The list of my accomplishments goes on and on and as they’re going on, one of two terrible things happens. Either the person who is hearing them becomes overwhelmed and loses interest (this is more usual) or the person rightly begins to look quizzical, and with genuine curiosity says, ‘How do you do it all?’ Because that is a lot of things.

But here’s the thing, you have to be allowed to use the word ‘thing’ as a technical word whenever you want to, and, more importantly, You Don’t Do All The Things At Once. You do not, usually, have six babies in one go. You have one and then another and then another. And you don’t just wake up one day and write a book. You do it gradually. And you don’t do a lifetime worth of laundry in one single afternoon while you’re also getting your college degree and working three other jobs. You do a little bit of laundry every day, and you do one job at a time.

Accomplishments accumulate over the time.

And here’s the other thing, you don’t do them alone. You are not the savior of the world. You don’t have enough peace and light and beautiful world transforming feelings to end all the wars just by virtue of being female. That is not a thing. You are human. (I trust you all understand that when I’m saying ‘you’ I really mean me.) You need a savior and also some help sometimes. No person can do all the work ahead of her in life without any kind of help from other human people who also need help. The human experience is not a super hero one, nor a princess one (thank heaven).

It is a hard work intermingled with many disappointments and sorrows punctuated by bright moments of joy and amazement one.

We’ve had decades of the male superhero motif and we still have ISIS. Men couldn’t save the world. I guess we can try a decade of a female superhero but I’ve got some news for us all. She isn’t going to save the world. Being female is no better than being male. Both, male and female, are human, and fallen, and not able to save the world and themselves. They need God. But, you know, Wonder Woman, give it your best shot. You play Jesus for this year and we’ll see how it turns out.

And now if you’ll excuse me, I will go save my own house, Single Handedly! from disaster! Just kidding. I will make all my children help me. Because I can’t do things like that on my own.

Dr. Jason Lisle #fundie creationstudygroup.org


Does It Matter? Jason Lisle sets the record straight.

Does it really matter what we as Christians believe about the Biblical account of creation? Some Christians are plagued by this question. Others ignore it in hopes it will “just go away.” Regardless of what where you stand on the question, the answer has profound impact.

In a recent article, William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist addressed this question with the following:

“I think that [Young Earth Creationism] YEC as a scientific hypothesis is quite hopeless….But YEC as a hermeneutical hypothesis is quite another matter. I want to approach the text with an open mind, despite the terrifying prospect that YEC might actually be correct as a hermeneutical hypothesis. In that case, we would face some very hard choices. Given YEC’s failure as a scientific hypothesis, we should have to conclude that the Bible teaches scientific error and therefore revise our doctrine of inspiration to accommodate this fact. That is a route one would prefer not to take.” (emphasis added)

Craig reveals the essential struggle with any old-earth view applied to Scripture – it impacts the hermeneutic. What we believe and know from God’s Word and from the creation regarding God’s self-revelation is either negatively or positively impacted by what we believe concerning the creation.

Dr. Jason Lisle offers an exceptional response to William Lane Craig. While giving an exceptional point-by-point refutation of the thinking that elevates human reason over Biblical revelation with regard to knowing what is true, Dr. Lisle points out the necessity that both our scientific and Biblical hermeneutic must agree. What we know from science depends on the fact that the Bible is true.

“But the method of science is itself predicated upon the literal truth of Scripture, starting with an historical Genesis. Namely, our expectation that there are patterns to be found in nature is justified by the biblical revelation that God has imposed order on creation (Genesis 1) and upholds all reality by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), in a consistent way with discoverable cycles (Genesis 8:22). Our expectation that our senses can reliably inform us about nature is founded on the biblical historical fact that God created our senses (Proverbs 20:12). Our presupposition that our own reasoning ability has at least some capacity to distinguish truth from error makes sense only in light of the Genesis historical fact that people are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). Science is only justified if the Bible – including biblical creation – is true.”

Read all of Jason Lisle’s response. You will be blessed and encouraged.

Additionally, you may wish to view the presentation by Dr. Ronald Marks, Does It Matter?

Balls balls balls #announcement fstdt.com

And damnit, got to remember the joys of SQL Server versions. Started poking at full text indexes, what should be the solution to the issues with search taking ages, only to get the reminder from the system that the version I have for testing doesn't support them. Which also means I have to make sure the new host I'm looking at does support them.

So suck is abundant today. Poking at the core Tag based archive queries instead, but while I do that have some references on just what full text indexing can do.

My favorite part:
Comparing LIKE to Full-Text Search

In contrast to full-text search, the LIKE Transact-SQL predicate works on character patterns only. Also, you cannot use the LIKE predicate to query formatted binary data. Furthermore, a LIKE query against a large amount of unstructured text data is much slower than an equivalent full-text query against the same data. A LIKE query against millions of rows of text data can take minutes to return; whereas a full-text query can take only seconds or less against the same data, depending on the number of rows that are returned.

As you might guess I'm using LIKE now, and it's entirely why things take so long to search. But it's also the way to do text matches that's always available and doesn't take up any space. With me not even having enough space on this server to do regular maintenance without SQL acrobatics being involved.

Anyway, working on Tagging instead. Going with the simple 'One Tag Archive' approach instead of something I can fuck with for months. Once I'm done with that it'll be time to start working on some of the outward facing pages, so we'll see how that goes and revisit full text indexing later.

Deren #fundie christianforums.com

['There's a good reason why all civilized nations on this planet have long since ceased to employ torture as a means of punishment. It is an abomination, a horrible crime in itself.']

But, the basis for eternal punishment is not predicated on the so-called "civilized nations." And isn't that a great thing!!

ROBERT JENSEN #fundie feministcurrent.com

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

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

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

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

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

The very act of naming and categorizing imposes limits that constrain the imagination, according to Halberstam, hence the use of the asterisk:

“I have selected the term ‘trans*’ for this book precisely to open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance. As we will see, the asterisk modifies the meaning of transitivity by refusing to situate transition in relation to a destination, a final form, a specific shape, or an established configuration of desire and identity. The asterisk holds off the certainty of diagnosis; it keeps at bay any sense of knowing in advance what the meaning of this or that gender variant form may be, and perhaps most importantly, it makes trans* people the authors of their own categorizations. As this book will show, trans* can be a name for expansive forms of difference, haptic [relating to the sense of touch] relations to knowing, uncertain modes of being, and the disaggregation of identity politics predicated upon the separating out of many kinds of experience that actually blend together, intersect, and mix. This terminology, trans*, stands at odds with the history of gender variance, which has been collapsed into concise definitions, sure medical pronouncements, and fierce exclusions.”

I quote at length to demonstrate that in using shorter excerpts from the book I am not cherry-picking a few particularly abstruse phrases to poke fun at a certain form of postmodern academic writing. My concern is not stylistic but about the arguments being presented. After reading that passage a couple of times, I think I can figure out what Halberstam’s trying to say. The problem is that it doesn’t say anything very helpful.

To be fair, Halberstam is correct in pointing out that the instinct to categorize all the world’s life, human and otherwise — “the mania for the godlike function of naming” — went hand in hand with colonialism, part of the overreach of a certain mix of politics and science in attempting to control the world. But like it or not, humans make sense of the world by naming, which need not go forward with claims of imperial domination or divine insight. We define the terms we use in trying to explain the world so that we can meaningfully communicate about that world; when a term means nothing specific, or means everything, or means nothing and everything at the same time, it is of no value unless one wants to obfuscate.

But, if Halberstam is to be believed, this criticism is irrelevant, because transgenderism “has never been simply a new identity among many others competing for space under the rainbow umbrella. Rather, it constitutes radically new knowledge about the experience of being in a body and can be the basis for very different ways of seeing the world.” So, if I don’t get it, the problem apparently is the limits of my imagination — I don’t grasp the radically new knowledge — not because the explanation is lacking.

After reading the book, I continue to believe that the intellectual project of the transgender movement isn’t so much wrong as it is incoherent, and the political project is not liberatory but regressive. What this book “keeps at bay” is a reasonable, honest request: What does any of this mean?

In other writing — here in 2014 and again in 2016, along with a chapter in my 2017 book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men — I’ve asked how we should understand transgenderism if the movement’s claim is that a male human can actually be female (or vice versa) in biological terms. If transgender signals a dissatisfaction with the culturally constructed gender norms of patriarchy — which are rigid, repressive, and reactionary — I’ve suggested it would be more effective to embrace the longstanding radical feminist critique of patriarchy.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, I want to try another approach, stating simply that I have good reason to believe I’m real, that the human species of which I am a member is real, and that the ecosphere of which we are a part is real. That is, there is a material reality to the world within which I, and all other carbon-based life forms, operate. I cannot know everything there is to know about that material world, of course, but I can trust that it is real.

The cultural/political/economic systems that shape human societies make living in the real world complex and confusing, and the ways those systems distribute wealth and power are often morally unacceptable. But to challenge that injustice, it’s necessary to understand that real world and communicate my understanding to others in clear fashion.

In left/liberal circles, especially on college campuses, “trans*” increasingly is where the action is for those concerned with social justice. It offers — for everyone, whether transgender-identified or not — the appearance of serious intellectual work and progressive politics. Endorsing the transgender project is a way to signal one is on the cutting edge, and work like Halberstam’s is embraced in these circles, where support for the transgender movement is required to be truly intersectional.

My challenge to those whose goal is liberation is simple: How does this help us understand the real world we are trying to change? How does it help us understand patriarchy, the system of institutionalized male dominance out of which so much injustice emerges?

Halberstam likely would put me in the category of “transphobic feminism” for “refusing to seriously engage” with transfeminism, but I am not transphobic (if, by that term, we mean one who is afraid of, or hateful toward, people who identify as transgender). Nor do I refuse to seriously engage other views (unless we describe a critique of another intellectual position as de facto evidence of a lack of serious engagement). I am rooted in radical feminism, one of those “versions of feminism that still insist on the centrality of female-bodied women,” according to Halberstam.

On that point, Halberstam is accurate: radical feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and sexuality. Radical feminists distinguish between sex (male XY and female XX, a matter of biology) and gender (masculinity and femininity, a matter of culture and power), which means that there is no way to understand the rigid gender norms of patriarchy without recognizing the relevance of the category of “female-bodied women.” It’s hard to imagine how the binary of male-female could “run its course” given the reality of sexual reproduction.

This is where an ecological perspective, alongside and consistent with a radical feminist critique, reminds us that the world is real and we are living beings, not machines. In discussing his own top surgery (the removal of breasts), Halberstam speaks of working with the doctor:

“Together we were building something in flesh, changing the architecture of my body forever. The procedure was not about building maleness into my body; it was about editing some part of the femaleness that currently defined me. I did not think I would awake as a new self, only that some of my bodily contours would shift in ways that gave me a different bodily abode.”

We all have a right to understand ourselves as we please, and so here’s my response: My body is not a house that was constructed by an architect but rather — like all other life on the planet — is a product of evolution. I resist the suggestion I can “build” myself and recognize that a sustainable human presence on the planet is more likely if we accept that we are part of a larger living world, which has been profoundly damaged when humans treat it as our property to dominate and control.

This is the irony of Halberstam’s book and the transgender project more generally. After labeling the project of categorizing/defining as imperialist and critiquing the “mania for the godlike function of naming,” he has no problem endorsing the “godlike function” of reshaping bodies as if they were construction materials. There’s a deepening ecological sensibility in progressive politics, an awareness of what happens when humans convince ourselves that we can remake the world and ignore the biophysical limits of the ecosphere. While compassionately recognizing the reasons people who identify as transgender may seek surgery and hormone/drug treatments, we shouldn’t suppress concerns about the movement’s embrace of extreme high-tech intervention into the body, including the surgical destruction of healthy tissue and long-term health issues due to cross-sex hormones and hormone-like drugs.

I have long tried to observe what in rhetoric is sometimes called “the principle of charity,” a commitment in debate to formulating an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible version so that one’s critique is on firm footing. I have tried to do that in this review, though I concede that I’m not always sure what Halberstam is arguing, and so I may not be doing his arguments justice. But that is one of my central points: When I read this book — and many other arguments from transgender people and their allies — I routinely find myself confused, unable to understand just what is being proposed. So, again, I’ll quote at length in the hopes of being fair in my assessment, this time the book’s closing paragraph:

“Trans* bodies, in their fragmented, unfinished, broken-beyond-repair forms, remind all of us that the body is always under construction. Whether trans* bodies are policed in bathrooms or seen as killers and loners, as thwarted, lonely, violent, or tormented, they are also a site for invention, imagination, fabulous projection. Trans* bodies represent the art of becoming, the necessity of imagining, and the fleshy insistence of transitivity.”

Once again, after reading that passage a couple of times, I think I understand, sort of, the point. But, once again, I don’t see how it advances our understanding of sex and gender, of patriarchy and power. I am not alone in this assessment; people I know, including some who are sympathetic to the transgender movement’s political project, have shared similar concerns, though they often mute themselves in public to avoid being labeled transphobic.

I’m not asking of the transgender movement some grand theory to explain all the complexity of sex and gender. I just need a clear and coherent place to start. Asking questions is not transphobic, nor is observing that such clarity and coherence are lacking.

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

Sheeple don't think for themselves; they turn on the TV to form their opinions, which is the big problem in the United States (or should I say, the "Divided States"?). Fox News leads the way in brainwashing people. It's amazing how gullible people are. Within moments of the 911 attacks, people on the streets of New York were already calling for bomb-strikes overseas against the "terrorists" responsible. This is exactly what the Bush Administration and their accomplices wanted, i.e., a pretext to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq to steal their oil.

I am amazed just how predicable the human nature is. The conman politicians operating the federal government have mastered the art of lying propaganda. They are criminals without a conscience. It is a shame that the average American never thinks beyond what they were taught in the public school system—to vote. I'll tell you, only a completely ignorant person would vote either Democrat or Republican. Both parties are corrupt, evil and rotten to the core. Both parties are merely two separate legs walking towards a New World Order, i.e., a Global Totalitarian Godless Communist Police State.

All it would take is for the government to blow up one passenger bus in the U.S. and the American people would sell their souls for protection. Sheeple! This is exactly what happened after the 911 attacks, and the Patriot Acts were formed. Using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse, FEMA has also been completely overhauled (confiscated) by the powers that be.

tatoff #sexist reddit.com

We all share a common value: We hate that the meritocracy is a farce.

It's no secret that people get along when their value systems align. While at the surface level all the posts here are memes about being subhuman they can all be reduced to one common thread: There is no such thing as a real-world meritocracy.

In the dating world it's not about personality; it's about looks. In the work world it's not about what you know; it's about who you know. You get the idea.

Look no further than the 'advice' we're always given: 'just try harder', 'just have a better personality', 'just improve yourself'. These are all predicated on the belief that if you put the effort in, you will reap the appropriate reward. We all know that's not true - that line of thinking even has it's own fallacious cognitive bias: The just-world fallacy.

So why do others fervently preach and defend this flawed line of thinking? I believe it's just a selfish desire to take credit for their own success. Since they lucked into their success they subconsciously need to convince themselves that they deserve it. They will claim they're a 'good person' who has 'worked hard' for what they have.

In order to complete this flawed narrative they need to perform additional mental gymnastics to explain why others have failed:

'They must be shitty people.'

'They must not try.'

'If they tried as hard as I did and was a good as I am they'd be fine it's not even hard.'

The judgmental outsider on this sub is nothing more than a delusional narcissist with a compulsive need to defend their own success by continuously lashing out at us failures.

Why us in particular? Because our directly-competing worldview is that their self-assuring 'meritocracy' is a complete sham. It's a subtext in our memes and our shitposts. It's the essence of the blackpill.

akademosalba #fundie guardian.co.uk

My daughter was told by her high school Biology teacher at the start of this year, 'If any of you don't believe in evolution, you should leave my class now.' She left. Evolution is *not* a scientific theory as it is neither disprovable nor provable. It is a position or viewpoint taken up by those who wish to not believe that 'In the beginning, God made ...'

I am quite content that there are people who wish to believe in evolution over creation. But, they should stop calling it 'science' and be honest: it is a 'credo', an 'I believe in ...' kind of position.

From my viewpoint, as a three-times graduate, the problem is that Biologists push evolutionism beyond what is scientifically reasonable. No-one can prove anything they believe as no-one was there when it happened. A good Historian would warn them of this.

I heard a BBC radio programme last week on the evolution of singing, and its purposes. It was as scientific as a blog from the extreme wing of creationism. It was speculation predicated on evolutionism packaged up as facts.

As a Christian, I believe that I already know why people can sing: in order to praise The LORD God who made heaven and earth. No amount of pseudo-science from the evolutionists can change that.

And, if evolutionists insists on teaching atheist evolutionary ideas, they should not be surprised that the smartest kids (which kids from religious backgrounds often are) opt out of their classes.

Darth_Aurelius #fundie incels.co

Why Nazi Germany was awesome

* It’s highest leadership were all essentially incel type men, though for different reasons – Goering was a morbidly obese morphine addict, Goebbels was a club footed manlet, Himmler looked like the epitome of a lanky jew and even the Fuhrer himself was very probably a life-long virgin and syphilitic through his mother.Despite these impediments, they acquired immense power and prestige through their intellect and rhetorical brilliance.
* Women were subordinated in every facet of society – they had to attend to the menial tasks which their biology and physiology has suited them for, "kinder, kuchen und kirchen" (kids, cooking and going to Church). No woman ever outranked any man in Nazi Germany, either socially (de facto) or in any of the paramilitary organizations (de jure). Thus, even the lowest ranking man was superior to all women, as it rightly should be.
* Aryan men who could not find or attract women for whatever reason were permitted to rape subhuman untermenschen type females with impunity both in order to satisfy the basic human need as well as to propagate more Aryan blood lines.
* Rank and status were not predicated on money nor were they reinforced by ostentatious displays of material wealth, as in the Jewnited States but rather were acquired by honorable and manly service to the state which all self respecting men should strive for.
* Degeneracy in all of its putrid and corrupting forms was cast out and destroyed by the Nazi party which understood that the people needed to be protected from the perverse influence of modern art, jew propaganda, homosexuality and any other cultural contaminants.

If that’s not enough, also bear in mind that his noble honor, Sir. Elliot Rodger admired the efficiency, glory and power of the mighty Third Reich. Sieg Heil.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy lovethetruth.com

Albert Pike (1809-1891) predicted three world wars. He predicated WWI and WWII accurately! This is because the Illuminati (the Luciferian elite behind the New World Order) planned this all out before the founding of America. In 1775, Adam Weishaupt (Illuminati founder) laid out his blueprint for World Government. A year later America was birthed in 1776, with the secret destiny of ushering in a New Order of the Ages. Yes, as difficult as it may be to wrap your brain around the idea, the United States was founded by occult Freemasons with the intent of furthering the ancient mystery religion and global domination by the Devil. This is not hard to grasp if you learn about the tower and city of Babel in Genesis 11:1-11. The Great Pyramid of Gaza in Egypt was deliberately left unfinished (missing the capstone), which signifies the unfinished New World Order that was foiled by God at Babel. Why did it take mankind 5,800 years to achieve the industrial revolutionary of the 18th and 19th centuries? The only reasonable answer is that God's sovereign plan wasn't ready yet. James 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

Albert Pike, an occult leader in the secret society of Freemasonry, foretold in detail how World War III would unfold. He said the Arab nations and Israel would go to war, and the world would be drawn into the conflict. It is happening before our very eyes. Christians ought not take sides between Israel and the Arabs, but love them all with God's unconditional love. We are seeing and hearing much about Muslim terrorists and sleeper cells at work in the United States. This is all part of the Luciferian conspiracy to destroy all existing government and religions. Europe is under Muslim siege. France is gone. England is almost gone! The EU bureaucrats have allied with Islam! We're going to see a lot more terrorist attacks by Muslims in Europe and the United States. Hillary Clinton said (if elected as President) she wants to bring 1,0000,000 Muslim refugees into the U.S. her first year. They're bringing in military aged men. If elected, she'll bring in 5,000,000 Muslims!!! America is being overthrown!

Pervert sodomite sex is being forced on Americans, just like a mob of homosexuals in Genesis 19:1-11 tried to break Lot's down door and rape Heaven's angels! Transgenders and homosexuals are now openly welcomed into the military. It's wickedness! Russia is in full resistance to Globalism. Russians are banning GMO foods! They're paying people to have children! All Hades is breaking loose on the planet. We are seeing a war on western civilization!!! This is all leading into World War III and a New World Order, which will be the Beast system of the coming Antichrist. Yes, friend, we are now living in the Biblical end times. I'd say by 2050 we'll see WWIII (if not much sooner). If you don't believe it, learn about Daniel's prophecy. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad #racist racebaitr.com

We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.

Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.

Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.

But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.

There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”

The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.

There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.

Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.

Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.

The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”1)

Indeed, when we’ve seen white people try to do whiteness well, try to operate their spheres of power and influence well, we’ve also seen the martyrdom of Black women murdered by police to bring white people to reckon with their sins. We’ve seen white men starting campaigns professing the beauty of Black women, only to soon after realize it came hand in hand with the violent claiming of and sense of entitlement to Blackness and Black bodies.

This is all to say, importantly, that whiteness cannot be done well, cannot be done without violence or without being in opposition to Blackness and Black freedom. But the extent of this lies far beyond ashy campaigns and disturbing open letters begging other white people to atone for their sins using the blood of Black women. We must critically engage the possibility that whiteness is only violent to Blackness, is only and can only ever be antithetical to Black liberation.

That we conceptualize whiteness as having a positive operation in the fight for Black liberation is perhaps the single greatest success of the normative functions of a colonialist State. That is to say, we have been successfully hoodwinked to believe that which harms us most vitally might also be able to save us.

“Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, ‘race,’ is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values,” writes Teresa J. Guess in The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, “thus… the concept ‘race’ is based on socially constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions.” What this means is that race is designed as a hierarchal structure, and whiteness is constructed for no other purpose than to occupy the space of racial superiority. Therefore, to exist and act as white is to reinforce the dominance of whiteness.

Indeed, there would be no white race, no “race” as we know it, if whiteness weren’t positioned in violent dominion. That is the only thing it can do. Whiteness cannot operate in any way that does not first perpetuate white supremacy.

This, of course, is not to say that white people have not been the conduits for necessary Black liberation work. White people surely played integral roles in the freedom rides, abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement. But those roles were meticulously crafted by the toils, lives, death and suffering of Black people. The energy forced through those conduits was painstakingly produced by Black folks. To credit it as anything else is to fall prey to the same tempting veil of racism that motivates us to seek the impossible from our white allies. White people playing a role in liberation work are always merely actors, and the work done with them always done entirely in spite of their whiteness, not because of it.

All ways of addressing Black liberation for which white people are praised is always work Black people—Black poor and working class women, trans, non-binary, disabled and queer people especially—have already done and been doing and have made possible for white people to know.

Even John Brown, the white abolitionist who was executed in 1859 after leading an insurrection against pro-slavery forces, furthered the legacy of the likes of Nat Turner and other Black folks who fought and died for their own freedom before him. We must be sure in recognizing that dying for freedom did not begin with Brown, was not his legacy to create. Though perhaps in death, in a significant sacrifice of self, he and those like him have shed light on what it could mean to give up whiteness for good. When whiteness is so seeped into your being, might giving it up necessitate a threat to one’s safety and existence?

And where do white people exist in safety? In settler colonial societies, positions of power are designated and protected for whiteness. Perhaps the only action white folks can take—barring physical disappearance—in the struggle for Black liberation, for them to successfully put an end to their own whiteness, is the absolute absolving of their places and power. Their literal disappearance from the State and its institutions. It is worth exploring what this would mean for the the persistence of capitalism and the State. Is demanding the destruction of whiteness from the State to demand the destruction of the State, which was created by and has only ever known itself in service to (and in tandem with) whiteness? Which, each together, have only ever worked to maintain capitalism, anti-Blackness, and the disappearance of Indigenous people?

As John Stanfield writes in Theoretical and Ideological Barriers to the Study of Race-Making, “Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed” (Stanfield 1985:161-162). This is how capitalism, anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism are intrinsically tied. None can exist in any way that is good for Black people. The presence of each is specifically predicated on Black subjugation.

After whiteness is obliterated, at that point, what the people who now identify as white should do is a giant theoretical exercise: what comes after whiteness? How does someone become not white? That is the legitimate and critical work of many. But our focus is always on Black folks figuring out new and better ways to get free—independent of white people and capitalism and the entirety of western empires. We are confident that our dreamings of freedom can crumble whiteness, capitalism and empire without giving deep consideration to the question of “what do we do with it”. We’re only interested in the work of building past it.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad are Black, queer, non-binary dreamers who, in some reality not yet here, are married, gendered or ungendered without colonial restriction, and free.

Article "Love" #fundie en.kingswiki.com

Love is an emotion of fondness and admiration.

Definitions

Roosh writes, "Philosophers and poets have given many wonderful definitions of love, but to keep it simple, there are only two main components: 1. Mutual attraction 2. Lack of other options".[1] According to Cato's Letter No. 112, fondness for posterity is nothing more than self-love.[2]

Illimitable Men writes, "Women’s love is admiration built upon respect. Women are drawn to men of experience and power. Man’s love is respect built upon desire. Men are drawn to women of innocence and vulnerability. When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love."[3] He continues:[4]

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. It is put crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment. The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment. Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

Pragmatic approach

André du Pôle writes:[5]

In a relationship, whoever loves the other most is dominated whereas who loves less has more room to take action. If a man falls in love, he falls in the sense that he gets dumbed down, pedestalizes the girl, who in turn will get bored and look for a more challenging partner. Thus, seduction must be used to stir love in women: they must love us as well as their children. Both as a mistress and a mother, both as sexual and nurturing, a woman exerts love.

In men, love must be exerted in a more distilled and thoughtful form: when we protect our dear ones, toil for them, care about their interests, these efforts are an expression of love as well—although this form of love must be more distant as to allow ampler room for action. In any case, the feminine element must love the most and more directly.

Chet #fundie christiannews.net

There are no "ghastly biblical teachings". God's Word is 100% pure from cover to cover and it serves as a love letter to lost mankind, and, as well, reveals the Almighty's solitary redemptive plan on behalf of all us sinners via the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary. I subscribe to the Holy Bible, as written in the language I use, English, and preferably, the King James version. Poison, is but one of the tactics of the Devil to blind men's mind to the Truth that can set them free, free from Sin's dominion, free from Sin's penalty and free to lie down at night with the understanding that if, I, as a Christian, do not live to see the light of the next day, I'm assured of Heaven as if I were already there. And that's all predicated upon Christ and His finished work on Calvary's Cross in concert with His empty tomb and my faith in such. Faith, BTW, which the Holy Spirit imparted to me to understand, repent and believe the good news gospel. God is love and His Word is effective to all who will but dare to receive it. Hate is not something I subscribe to, esp since becoming a Christian.

Gary Cass #fundie defendchristians.org

Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014

2014 was another wild and frustrating year for American Christians as the threats to our liberties and values are increasing. Here are the results of our online poll of the Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014. It’s not as predicable as you might think.

Rather than getting lost in the trees and not recognizing the forest, lets look at the larger trends revealed in the poll, and they are disconcerting.

Political correctness about social issues, (sexual deviancy and abortion) has been institutionalized publicly and privately. Biblically faithful Christians and their institutions are being pressured to compromise their values and accept arbitrary, tyrannical, secular ethics or feel the wrath of politicians, the courts, the academy, the media, and business.

Churches are being coerced to subsidize abortions, a pastor is on trial for telling the truth, ministers are bullied by a tyrannical mayor, and Christ is continuing to be blasphemed on network TV.

This is a sobering set of facts, but ones that ought to stir us to action, not resignation. As we pray and act, we do so in faith that God can turn us back to him. The means He uses our bold, counter-cultural voices of Truth. Christ calls us back to reality and to respect for His ordained institution of marriage and the sanctity of life created in His image and freedom to declare the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Share this list with your family and friends. We MUST engage in concerted prayer, evangelism and seek FIRST God’s Kingdom and His righteousness. America is ripe for either God’s justice or a heaven sent revival.

1. Christian colleges are now facing a new threat to their institutions... allow homosexual behavior or be stripped of accreditation. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges is threatening to strip Gordon College, of their accreditation unless the college accepts “homosexual practice” by it’s students.

2. Federal Judge, Michael Posner, ignored Supreme Court precedence and allowed a frivolous lawsuit to move forward against American minster, Scott Lively. Lively is a minister and an attorney and was invited by the Ugandan legislature to help them create laws to protect their society from the homosexual movement. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), hauled Rev. Lively to US Federal Court under international law accusing him of “crimes against humanity.”

3. Annise Parker, the lesbian Houston mayor, ordered city’s churches to turn over sermons, any e-mails, text messages, and other communications that talk about homosexuality, gender identity issues, or Annise Parker herself. The pastors were targeted after organizing descent against a rbill passed by the city council that allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. After news spread throughout the Country, Parker’s attorney’s dropped the subpoenas.

4. HGTV canceled a new program, “Flip It Forward”, because of the stars support of traditional marriage. The series followed the life of two brothers, David and Jason Benham, as they helped struggling families buy fixer-upper homes and transform them into forever homes. Both brothers have been vocal about their support for traditional marriage.

5. The Girl Scouts USA introduced family planning into their curriculum in partnership with Planned Parenthood. The Girls Scouts also tout the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as an “eloquent woman”.

6. California churches are now required to cover the costs of abortions as “basic health care.” The state legislature is trying to exploit a “loop-hole” in the national healthcare law for the pro-abortion agenda.

7. Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced to resign from the huge tech company he founded after it was discovered he donated $1,000 towards legislation to uphold traditional marriage in California. Proposition 8 was a ballet initiative in support of traditional marriage that was approved by a majority of California voters, but was later ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

8. American tax dollars are still being used to pay for abortions. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington, found that at least 1,036 plans use your tax dollars to fund abortion-on-demand.

9. A California male high school teacher returned as a woman from spring break. 56 year-old married father, Gary Sconce, has been a teacher at the rural Yosemite High School for 24 years. But after a letter was sent to the parents, he returned from the break as “Karen Adell Scot.”

10. “I only wish the Virgin would’ve had an abortion,” was belted out in a song by musical guest, Kristeen Young, on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. “The song,” according to Young, “is about the centuries of religious persecution of women.”

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

First, the rise of biology has nothing to do with evolution. (Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?) It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this. The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

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

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

The RNS Article

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

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

...

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

Peterson closes his answer by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

Peterson’s Retraction in the Washington Post

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

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

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

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

Peterson carries on with this:

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

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

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

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

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

Getting to Grips With All of This

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "LATEST PERVERSE DEMAND: Making Pedophilia Respectable By ROD DREHER"

Making Pedophilia Respectable
By ROD DREHER • December 5, 2018, 1:27 PM
Thomas O’Carroll, convicted pedophile, pedophilia advocate
I hope you’re sitting down for this. Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted British pedophile, has published an essay in a peer-reviewed academic quarterly arguing for legalized pedophilia. Justin Lee writes about the situation in his Arc Digital column. Excerpts:
At 73 years old, O’Carroll has long been a bogeyman for both the left and the right?—?not to mention the children he has violated. To the right, he’s the perfect condensed symbol for the Sexual Revolution’s true telos?—?the nihilistic destructuring of human relations. To the left, he’s an albatross, a useful idiot for conservatives intent on establishing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. He’s also a testament to the degraded standards of interdisciplinary scholarship.
His Sexuality & Culture article, which reads like the senior thesis of a bright-enough undergraduate edgelord majoring in philosophy, attempts to make the case that virtue ethics fails to provide a convincing justification for rejecting sex between adults and children. Moreover, he argues that in an ideal world, virtue would be understood in such a way as to include such practices and even celebrate them.
Lee pulls this quote from O’Carroll’s paper. Remember, this is O’Carroll writing, not Lee. Lee has highlighted a part of the passage:
The assertion that children are incapable of reciprocal sexual relations is empirically unfounded. Where is the evidence? A comparison with animals is again suggested. Dogs appear to be perfectly capable of reciprocity in loving relationships with human beings, often to the extent of being every bit as devoted and loyal in their affections towards their owners as their owners are towards them, and perhaps even more so. Again, even the personhood-restricting Scruton has acknowledged this (Scruton 2013, 2014). Dogs may lack a sophisticated appreciation of the other’s “intentionality”, on which Scruton sets so much store as a qualifying criterion of moral agency within sexual relations, but this appears to be no barrier to reciprocity in what many would consider to be its morally essential features. There should be mutual affection and attention to the other’s wishes. What else is needed, really? It may be thought this analogy is insufficiently close because dogs are not sexual partners of their human masters. But they can be. Dogs are not shy about expressing sexual interest in humans, and when their owner reciprocates that interest a sexual (and loving) relationship may develop, as has been attested in Dearest Pet, a book by Dutch controversialist (and children’s writer!) Midas Dekkers, and endorsed in a review by philosopher Peter Singer (Dekkers 2000; Singer 2001). (emphasis mine)
Got that? O’Carroll says that because bestiality is permissible, so too is pedophilia. Lee summarizes:
This question-begging dismissal of intentionality serves a dark purpose: the banishment of “consent” as a relevant category of concern. Consent, after all, is predicated upon intentionality. This is much too reminiscent of Peter Singer’s argument for bestiality, which can be summarized thusly: We eat animals without their consent, so why not screw them? Children, especially young children, consent to little of what we subject them to, so why shouldn’t we let O’Carroll bugger babies?
—————————————————————
IS ANYONE ELSE OUTRAGED??

(irrelevant scripture removed)

I've been saying for years that their goal is to legalize child-rape, but we must resist their perversity.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND. May God bless you and keep you.

facelikethesun #fundie steemit.com

Avengers: Infinity War Twists Biblical Truth!

As people around the world were introduced to the complex character that is Thanos in the latest 'Avengers: Infinity War,' many, especially Christians, may not have noticed the obvious anti-christ message that is throughout the film. This shouldn't come as a surprise as Marvel is not only a secular enterprise, but one of entertainment, meant not only distract, but also indoctrinate the masses into subtle ideologies that point to the earliest myths of the Sumerian pantheon. It is this play on the old Sumerian mythos that allows for the mocking of Yahweh. But moreover, an informed Christian would notice the many Bible passages that may have played a role in conceptualizing the Thanos character, or aid his actions in the film. These are just my opinions after watching the film, let me explain why I feel this way.

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT!

1. The Only Mention of Jesus Christ
The film mentions Jesus' name once. In the scene, Tony Starks (Ironman) is conversing with StarLord (Peter Quill), on how to defeat Thanos. In response to Ironman talking trash to StarLord about what "Lord" he serves, a quick witted Quill retorted to the effect of, "Who do you think I answer to, Jesus?" (Might not have been the exact quote as I am writing this from memory). This implied that Jesus Christ is a myth in the Marvel universe, worthy of mockery, while the "real" superheroes are planning to defend against the psychotic alien trying to kill off half the population of the universe by taking it over.

2. Thanos Declares "I AM"
This particular phrase is known to be one used by God in the Old and New Testaments. The phrase was also played upon a lot in a previous Avengers film, 'Age of Ultron' where both Ultron and Vision (Mind stone) quote the phrase, as if they are declaring they are God! But ironically similar to how polemic literature is found throughout the Bible, and other ANE writings, Thanos declaring himself as the "I AM" in "Infinity War" in particular, is not only a mocking of God in the Bible, but also portrays the fulfillment of the man of sin, who sits on the temple of God, declaring himself to BE GOD (2 Thess. 2:4).

Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, “ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”"

John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

3. Those Killed by Thanos are "SAVED"?
This one in particular was quite grotesque to the discerning Christian. Thanos' logic was based around the concept of finding balance with nature at all cost. The idea is one eerily familiar to conspiracy analysts, who have pointed out the strange markings on the Georgia Guidestone's that reads, "Maintain Humanity Under 500,000,000 in Perpetual Balance with Nature." It is suspected that the Guidestone's were built by a wealthy Rosicrucian whose ideas seemed to be familiar to that of the "globalist elite." Nevertheless, this philosophy of "balance with nature," was one that Thanos defaulted on frequently.

To put this philosophy into practice, Thanos spent much of his time going around conquering worlds, killing half of their respective population, while the other half is allowed to live and "thrive." In one flashback scene to the planet Zen-Whoberi, where Thanos adopts a young girl, Gamora, it shows the Thanos army taking over the otherwise peaceful civilization, forcing people to choose between allegiance to Thanos, or death (Reflection of Mark of the Beast prophecy in Revelation 13 & foreshadowed in Daniel 2 with Nebudchanezzar and the image.) But the language used during the conquest was that of "salvation," honoring Thanos and thanking him for bringing this alleged new freedom. What is implied is that genocide at the hands of Thanos is actually a good thing for that civilization, similar to how Yahweh desired conquest of Canaan which lead Israel into salvation. This theme will reoccur as we look at other angles to why Thanos is the false depiction of Yahweh.

4. Twisting Biblical Theology
Christians might be familiar with the phrase, "God is good, all the time...and all the time, God is good!" This theology-in-a-phrase represents the concept that God is good, no matter what circumstances of the moment dictates. The analogy of the ant on a painting is often used; the ant, thinking he is walking across the most rigorous terrain of mountain's and valley's with changing colors and textures, doesn't realize that he is actually walking on the most beautiful conceivable painting, which is only possible to see if one steps far away from the painting. If we are to abuse the analogy, Thanos' painting is basically one of those really ugly nonsensical modern scribbles. That is to say, his idea of "ultimate good" is flawed, especially since it's predicated on the concept of "balance with nature."

5. The Infinity Stones Themselves
In the film, the Infinity Stones each have a particular characteristic. They are as follows, Space, Reality, Power, Soul, Mind, and Time. It has been my opinion since the first they introduced the Thanos character on screen, that the infinity stones were modeled after the Sumerian Me (meh). In Sumerian mythos like "Enki and the World Order" and "Inanna and Enki: The Transfer of the Arts of Civilization from Eridu to Uruk" the Me are mentioned as powerful objects of power. There are several more than 6 categories of power that can be obtained with each Me. Here are some example: Godship, Truth, Descent into the nether world, Ascent from the nether world, Power, Enmity, The destruction of cities, Terror, Victory, Judgment, and many more.

The idea of Thanos obtaining the 6 stones to gain power might have parallels to reality, especially concerning future events foretold in the Bible. For example, the second half of Revelation 13:2 says, "...And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority." The "it" here is the final conglomerate beast headed by the Antichrist or man of sin. Notice that he is given power, throne, and authority. Power is clearly one of the Me's on the list, as is The throne of kingship. While there is not an identical "authority" Me on the list, it could be argued that "Law," "Judgment," and "Decision" would fall under the heading. It's unclear if this connection to the Biblical antichrist was intentional, or unintentional depictions of biblically eschatological events. But, given the Sumerian cosmological framework, it would reduce Yahweh (or the Antichrist...however you interpret it) into a mere mortal, proclaiming to be a lower case g-god, seeking power in this finite world. Such an idea is diametrically opposed to the one true God, who is the Creator of all.

6. Cursed with Knowledge
In one scene, when Thanos is giving a pretty heavy beating on Ironman, Thanos stops and admires him. Something about the character of Tony Starks intrigued Thanos, as he mentioned the both of them were "cursed with knowledge." This is another line rich with biblical reference. Of course there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden to be eaten in the garden of Eden. But it's not likely that his mention of being "cursed with knowledge" was an acknowledgment of being in a fallen state (especially since he's not technically human). But more likely, this is the depiction of "ye shall be as gods" as promised by the shinning one, the ancient serpent; a lie that would lead one to seek infinite power over the universe.

Genesis 4 recounts of the descendants of Cain, who built the first city named Enoch. Within the city were many developments in technology necessary for civilization. The knowledge gained happens to overlap with some of Me discussed earlier (ex. metal workings). The book of Enoch fills in the colors of this event by suggesting that this was forbidden knowledge being passed down from the Watchers to humanity. This get's into divine council theology that I don't have room for here. But rest assured, it's all over the Bible. The judgment of these Watchers is outlined in Psalm 82, which again is quoted by Jesus in John 10:34 to prove His deity (this passage does not teach that humans are gods as some suggest.)

The bottom line is that we do live in a world where forbidden knowledge was passed to humanity. But the track record for humanity isn't good, since destruction seems to follow every major technological development. But getting back to the ideals of Thanos, in this particular instance, the burden of having so much knowledge somehow gives him the right to act in a different set of morals, one that happens to be quite destructive for everyone else.

7. The Sacrifice of a Child
When half of the people of the planet Zen-Whoberi were being slaughtered by Thanos' army, the number two guy announced that all the people killed would become "children of Thanos." The irony was in the that Thanos himself actually found favor in a little girl named Gamora, who later rebelled against her adopted father (she is one of the Guardians of the Galaxy and love interest with StarLord, Peter Quill). In fact, the concept of Gamora rebelling against her father is similar to the account of the satan, the adversary, whose pride turned him away from the Father. In this context, Thanos is depicted as the unjust "Father" with the righteous rebellious Gamora as the "Lucifer" good character.

In a dramatic scene to acquire the soul stone, Thanos sacrifices his own adopted daughter Gamora. Of course, the theme of the father sacrificing the child as a ransom to acquire something is obvious. But the prize of that sacrifice is what is being used to manipulate the unwitting Christian. In the biblical account, the sacrifice of Jesus, His one and only begotten Son, was to pay for the sins of all mankind for all eternity. In the case of Thanos, the sacrifice was for the single purpose of achieving more power, in order to become more godlike in the Marvel universe. To the subconscious mind of the Christian, the message being implanted was one of equating the lack of morals in Thanos with the alleged lack of morals in Yahweh. But it's clear when spelled out in this way, that the object of that sacrifice is what differentiates between the Gospel message, and Thanos the villain.

As a side note, the sacrifice takes place between two pillars, a motief that represents Boaz-Jachin and the pillars at the entrance of Solomons temple. The idea being that it represented the gates to heaven. Perhaps in the case of Thanos, it was actually his own gate to hell.

8. The day of rest
When Thanos was asked what he would do if he accomplished his mission, he simply replied, "rest." As a spoiler, he achieves his objective and half of the population dies (more on that next). Thanos is then depicted on a peaceful mountainous garden, where he sat and looked way too content. In other words....rest. Of course, a mocking of God's 7th day of rest after creation is in reference here.

9. The Rapture Event
The film ends with half of the population of the universe fading away into dust (Gen. 3:19, Ps. 104:29). Not only is the "dust to dust" at play here, but the event is depicted similarly to how the rapture event has been interpreted. While there is an in house debate about the timing of the rapture, some have argued that a rapture doesn't exist at all in the bible. Let me refute that quickly by stating that in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the word for "caught up" in the Greek is Harpazo, which translated into Latin, became Rapturo, which became the English, Rapture. So yes, there is a rapture in the Bible. But the harvest is one where God saves and protects. In the case of Thanos, the saving and protecting are for the ones left behind, not the ones taken. In other words, as he stated himself, an equilibrium had to be forced upon all of creation to "balance nature."

He even stated that he was the only one who had the fortitude and guts to actually pull it off. So salvation was for the ones who lived, not the ones killed. So while Christians may have been triggered with thoughts of the biblical rapture, in reality, the messaging was one that twists the reality of the Scriptures, and turns what is meant to be a glorious event that God carries out, and depict it as the most epic act of evil in comic book history.

CONCLUSION
It's clear that Thanos was inspired by Yahweh in one way or another. But the manifestation of the character seemed to have occurred through the filter of ancient Sumerian mythology, and thus, minimizing the one true God of the Bible. While most folks would argue that films like these are merely meant for entertainment, it's impossible to ignore the correlations here.

Max Macro #racist ropeculture.org

[From the article "Violence" - Formatting from the original]

Within the broad circle of White Nationalism, the subject of violence is a contentious topic due to the prevalence of System informants and the unrealistic expectations that we can win by staying entirely within our own risk free comfort zones. The idea that violence is inherently a big no no misses a crucial point: simply having semitically incorrect views is inherently predicated on the threat of violence.

The Jewish System will not voluntarily relinquish power if we somehow “win” by playing by its own rules. The System has proven time and time again that its rules are devised to keep other players out of the game, and will break its own rules whenever it can to eliminate rivals it cannot control. Simply put, the law isn’t some magic force of impartiality and objective judgement that majestically swoops down and rewards people for coloring inside its lines while punishing bad guys. It’s an expression of institutionalized power, also predicated on the threat of violence. The law will break its own rules whenever it can, contradicting itself at every turn to further its own end of protecting the multinational Jewish conglomerate it serves.

If you think you’re safe because you follow the rules, you’re wrong. If you think a semitically incorrect political cause will be allowed to take power because it perfectly followed the law that somehow magically binds the Jews and their servants , you’re retarded. And if you’re one of those paranoid movement burnouts looking for informants under your bed so you can still feel relevant despite contributing jackshit, your retirement home is over here. Wow, I can hear the burnouts already! I’s gots maaah magnifyin glass! I’s founds anotha clue! Is that Matlock over there? Gramma’s eyes can’t see too good!

Of course, we’re not advocating any unlawful or criminal acts nor should any statement be taken as incitement, threat, or conspiracy to commit any illegal acts. The operative phrase here is “credible threat” after all, which doesn’t necessarily imply instigation of violent or illegal actions, nor does it condemn them should the necessary circumstances arise. Furthermore, anyone advocating any specific action against a specific place or specific person, or who is offering to procure illegal items is probably up to no good and someone who should be avoided. The case of federal operative Hal Turner, with his repeated calls to specifically murder specific individuals serves as an obvious example of the sort of individuals to avoid. The purpose of this piece will be to analyze the role violence plays both as political propaganda in radicalizing a target audience and as a deterrent to illegal state aggression.

Violence as Propaganda

The Breivik shooting was probably the most infamous example of nationalist violence in recent times, and spawned endless debates over his motives, ideology, and so forth. None of it matters, aside from the fact that the false flag camp are retards who need to be driven from our ranks. I don’t care why he did it or what his beliefs were at the time – which is a matter of debate. And no, I don’t care about your shitty youtube videos. The fact that he blew away the next generation of anti white MPs, community organizers, and street level agitators is reason enough to celebrate. And contrary to the Jew media’s lies that many White Nationalist swallowed in hopes of futilely gaining their approval, these weren’t kids, they were established activists, the majority in their 20’s.

This was really just fucking great. Breivik showed the amount of damage one man can do, the amount of power one man can have to set the stage for the whole world, even if for a day, paving the way to inspire future attacks. The shooting happened to be one of the most effective counter-terrorism operations undertaken in Europe, radicalizing more nationalists, forcing anti immigration talking points into the political mainstream where they were previously suppressed by state action up to and including incarceration, and framed the enemy/target as being internal, as being the System itself, while striking fear into the hearts of the enemy and showing them that their actions actually do have consequences.

At the end of the day, they bleed just the same.

[...]

No matter what, we apologize for absolutely nothing. We don’t answer to them, they answer to us, we retain leverage and act as out own center of gravity under all circumstances. They seek our total annihilation and will stop at nothing to attain it, they need to be met on the ground they’ve staked. That cunt was part of a larger system working for the goal of white genocide, working for the global organization Oxfam that employs people such as Guido Van Hecken, who was involved in anti-white bombing attacks that killed several innocent people in South Africa.

That shitty pig slut deserved every gunshot, every knife plunged into her now desiccated useless corpse. Her death is a reason to celebrate. As a result of her policies, who knows how many people she’s impoverished, how many children were raped as the result of pro-refugee activism and the atmosphere she contributed to preventing investigation of the arab-perpetrated organized mass rape in Rotherham. Her death was a positive achievement for our cause. To top it off, The Brexit referendum passed the popular vote (although it may very well be struck down by state action) and proved the point – violence doesn’t damage our cause. Jo Cox’s only memorable achievement is being eaten by the worms as her fellow MPs use her as prop for their own egos and careers. All the namby pamby whiners finger wagging about how violence damages our cause are proven wrong, again. Will they learn? Probably not.

[...]

The right response, the only response our camp should have to the death of an enemy is celebration and hammering home why that piece of shit deserved to die.

Even in the case of Dylann Roof, which predictably, most White Nationalists fumbled the ball on, again.

The Roof shooting sent a message to the niggers that people are tired of their shit and will start hitting them back. Nigger mob goes on rampage in Charleston, Roof shoots their enablers dead and they stop chimpin’ in that area. Niggers are basically big dumb animals (though probably more deadly). They only respond to pain and fear. Yeah, sure, there’s the element out there advocating for allying with black nationalists against the Jew and theoretically some like Tom Metzger may have a point. But for the bulk of the niggers, go ahead, just try to explain to the charging bull nigger how he’ll be better off amongst his own people without getting free shit from you, like the dumb fucking thing can even understand what you’re saying or cares.

“waah u mean go back to Africa I cnt git Jay-z on muh phon dere WHUUR MUH FRIES AT BIOTCH WHURR STARR WHURR STARR”

Niggers are actively engaging in a race war against whites enabled by the state and financed by Jewish oligarchs. Any negotiations at this point are unrealistic until they’re knocked down a few pegs and/or thrown under the bus by their Jewish masters. Even then, it’s a long shot. A race war may theoretically not be the best course of action on account of Jew-wise nationalists of different races being baited into killing each other, but ultimately, that’s the direction we’re heading and needs to be taken into account. Once that shit breaks out, it won’t stop. If it comes to that, kill ’em all.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

God knows that I have a big heart of love and forgiveness. I let things go quickly. Kindly, I pray and wish Harvest Baptist Church on Guam wasn't so puffed-up, dense and proud, holding a grudge. I am nothing more than a lowly, lonely, heart-broken, tender-hearted, man, who needs to love and be loved, but today's churches are carnal. My many writings about Harvest Baptist Church are nothing more than the heart of a broken man crying out to be embraced and loved by my Christian brethren. I have sadly been divorced for 13 years (her choice alone) since 2006, and haven't adjusted well to single life. I so much want to remarry. I need a companion in life. I am stuck in life, and have been for the past 10 years, feeling like I'm Lost In Space. I am able to live, support and take care of myself, but the loneliness is more than I can bear sometimes.

Any idiot who says God is all you need is a fool. It was the Lord Himself who said that it was “NOT GOOD” for Adam to be alone. We know that is exactly what God meant, because the solution to the problem was to find Adam a wife! Genesis 2:18, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” I want to be a servant to my wife (when I find her), because the Bible says “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11b). A happy married couple serve each other, making a life for each other! Selfishness brings unhappiness! Serving others brings joy, especially one's spouse. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find a wife at church. Where else would I find her? But I can't find a wife if the Baptist churches ban me from returning, ostracize me, shun me away, despise me and want nothing to do with me, because I faithfully tell THE TRUTH that the modern Bible versions are of the Devil, and Lordship Salvation is also of the Devil (a counterfeit plan of salvation). It is a daily burden and frustration for me. I just wish Christians nowadays cared about each other. Carnal religious people are so selfish, childish and mean! That is not the blessed FRUIT of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25).

pinnoko #conspiracy jameythehedgehog.deviantart.com

Psychiatrists Are the New Federal Gun Control Agents and Political Thought Police.
The Obama administration has a new partner in crime and it is the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The APA created the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th Edition) which was recently adopted. DSM 5 is highly controversial and has sparked outrage from the mental health practitioners. As many of these practitioners point out, the new DSM-V makes a pathology out simple and normal behaviors such as grieving for the loss of a loved one.

This constitutes a new subjective approach in diagnosing of mental illness that promises to end free speech and any form of political dissent. The federal government has already declared anyone who oppose its unconstitutional policies as having “political paranoia,” which is now diagnosed as a type of mental illness.

Psychiatry Targets Internet Conspiracy Theorists

Particularly disturbing is that the new manual targets internet users and conspiracy theorists. If someone is judged, by some vague set of criteria, to spend too much time on the internet, they could be judged to be mentally ill and ineligible to own a gun. How are you receiving this information? The chances are that you are, at least according to Obama and Biden, giving in to your internet addiction and reading this article. Under the new Obama guidelines this would be grounds for gun confiscation. The alternative media is predicated on internet readership and listenership. These groups would be among the first groups to oppose a martial law crackdown, and now they are the first to be targeted.

Subsequently, this is just another backdoor method to disarm citizens who would oppose the abject tyranny being imposed upon America. And these facts sum up what is truly behind the Obama administration’s latest attack upon gun ownership because they want to prey upon a defenseless nation by disarming as many of us as possible before the purges can begin in earnest.

Under Obama’s new proposed gun regulations, anyone who has a diagnosable, or is potentially diagnosable (i.e. pre-crime) for being mentally ill, can have their gun confiscated. Vice President Biden even feels that they can violate HIPPA privacy regulations in requiring the states to report who has been treated for a mental illness. Therefore, in the name of confiscating your gun, this administration thinks it is acceptable to violate federal privacy laws.

What is interesting to me is that the Obama administration is not even trying to distinguish between mental illnesses in terms of who should, or should not own a gun. In the eyes of the Obama administration, all mental illnesses are created equal. A person with a phobia is just as dangerous as a sociopath. One in six Americans have a “diagnosable anxiety disorder”. This is completely understandable given the economic and political times that we live in. However, under the new proposed guidelines, all of these people would be ineligible to have a gun in their possession even though there is not a shred of research which indicates this population would be inclined towards gun violence any more than any other population.

I once predicted that any form of political protest would be demonized and used as the basis for the administration of assignment a mentally ill label upon anyone who disagrees with the government.

Political Schizophrenia

This is the new Soviet style political schizophrenia. We will see confinements among the alternative media and the veterans for things like ADHD, grieving, normal anxiety, bad eating habits, etc. All of these behaviors and more have been categorized as pathologies under the Obama administration and a supportive American Psychiatric Association.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Is the Newest Weapon Against Political Dissent

When I went through my clinical training, the Bible of mental illness, The Statistical and Diagnostic Manual (DSM-4r) defined Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as a highly controversial mentally illness used to describe children and teens as mentally ill they exhibited disobedience and defiance. When I was first nationally credentialed, most practitioners did not take this diagnosis seriously and we mistakenly believed that it would fade away. We uniformly believed this to be true because defiance and oppositional behaviors are hallmark traits of healthy rebellion exhibited by children and teens as they seek independence. Rather than ODD fading away, the diagnosis has become the tool of the ruling elite.

The new DSM (5) has expanded the definition of ODD to include adults who exemplify “paranoid ideation” about the government and frequently express these delusional ideations on the internet.

In its analysis of the political abuse of psychiatry in both the Soviet Union and China, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law stated that “Psychiatric incarceration of mentally healthy people is uniformly understood to be a particularly pernicious form of repression, because it uses the powerful modalities of medicine as tools of punishment, and it compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud…”

Conclusion

The Obama people are trying to take this country down a very slippery slope. They are seeking to disarm as many Americans as possible with all available means such what has been described in this article.

The historical precedent, and subsequent danger of seizing guns under such a false pretense, has been well-established. Therefore, I will not belabor a well-established point, that all 19 genocides in the 20th century were preceded by gun confiscation. Why should we consider Obama’s recent actions to be any less threatening of deadly?

What is even more frightening, is the new ODD diagnosis will not just seize guns. It will commandeer a person’s mind through incarceration, for their own good of course, and forced drugging which will chemically castrate the brains of all arrested political dissidents.

We already know that Obamacare forces doctors to ask the gun ownership status of their patients. It is not a leap of logic that anyone owning a gun will soon be diagnosed with yet another manufactured mental illness tied to gun ownership.

I would like to hear from psychiatrists. Are you going to support this tyranny? Or, are you going to be an Oathkeeper to your profession and “do no harm” to your patients? Or, will you capitulate and goose-step your way through the new political prisons in America and do your part to suppress liberty?

MagusAlbertus #fundie christianforums.com

you're so intellectually dishonest it's sad... Want proof of the evil of your stance [theistic evolution]? You’ve got Boshido [another poster] thinking homosexual sex isn’t sinful! What’s next, the infallibility of man.. oh yea, that’s what your faith in science knowing more than the bible is predicated on. Your views are spiritually devoid, Romans 1 applies directly to you.. but rebuke from the bible isn't something you have to worry about, is it?

Michael Hill #racist leagueofthesouth.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

(..)

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

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

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

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

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

(..)

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

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

A CNN anchor asked earlier this week whether or not Jesus would occupy Wall Street.

That question can be answered with a categorical “No.”

First, Jesus has no truck with rank, blatant hypocrites. The OWS crowd has now fallen to squabbling over who gets a slice of the $500,000 which has been donated to them, and which, by the way, they put in one of the evil, greedy banks they are out to destroy.

…

Secondly, Jesus has no truck with those whose entire agenda is to flagrantly disobey two of the Ten Commandments of God.

God said, “Thou shalt not steal,” a commandment Jesus affirmed on numerous occasions. Stealing is wrong, and it doesn’t make it right when government does it under color of law.

…

And the OWS crowd is animated by a thoroughly ugly disregard for the 10th Commandment as well. God says, “Thou shalt not covet...any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” And yet the Occupiers are driven by a dark, bitter, resentful, angry and acquisitive greed for stuff that belongs to other people.

I submit that no political program that is predicated on a violation of twenty percent of God’s moral law can possibly be right, can possibly work, or can possibly be good for America.

Jesus took a whip to the thieves and the covetous in his day. If he were to come back and do the same thing today, he just might start in Zuccotti Park.

In other words, he might occupy Wall Street after all.