Similar posts

realtsuke #psycho reddit.com

[Comment under "With the new reports and information regarding Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, w hay are your thoughts on Trump's pardon?"]

im still for the pardon though my views are different from most. I disagree with the concept of war crimes entirely. I believe War should be where the ugliest side of mankind is shown. So ugly that people would refrain from ever engaging in it except as a last resort. When we sanitize war with all sorts of pretty rules we make it easier for countries to engage in it. As a result the default became a state of war and only periods of peace was the exception whereas in the past the default was peace with short brutal wars the exception.

edit: in order to preemptively answer questions yes genocides and everything else should be part of war. Both sides should know that they risk everything in war so they will peace out as fast as possible

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

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

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

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

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

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

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

Here beings the tenets:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no moral vacuums.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

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

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

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

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

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To conclude:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Borowitz #fundie legis.state.pa.us

[From a resolution introduced in the Pennsylvania state legislature]

Designating March 30, 2020, as “A State Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” in Pennsylvania.

WHEREAS, On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed April 30, 1863, as a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer; and

WHEREAS, Since March 11, 2020, the United States has been in a time of crisis; and

WHEREAS, During the pandemic of 2020 and the ensuing uncertainty and anxiety of this time, Pennsylvanians may be comforted by turning to a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer as well as the wise words of our great President Abraham Lincoln; and

WHEREAS, The House of Representatives devoutly recognizes the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations;…

Tyronehster #fundie news24.com

Harris not only forgets that his argument cuts both ways, but also fails to see how logic clearly dictates that the correct solution to the Extinction Equation would be to put an end to science rather than religion. The five major religions, Hinduism, Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have collectively been around 33 times longer than modern science without ever once threatening the species, whereas in a mere 350 years, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence.

So the collected religions have been around for a combined 11 600 years and have not managed to even threaten the eradication of mankind, whereas science, as we know it, has been around for a mere 350 years, and since the 6th and 7th August, 1945, the world has been under the constant threat of annihilation.

David #fundie premier.org.uk

Gayism is the promotion of gay politics and lifestyle, whether its at home or in the office.

No, there is no straightism, because there is no "straight". There is only a normal sexual default, whereas Gayism is the promotion of gay politics and lifestyle as popularly promoted on the internet as a social movement.

Hamas #fundie yale.edu

[From Article 28 of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, aka Hamas]

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

Insecurity is the natural state of woman. How could it be anything else? Given their lack of physical strength, a woman on her own should be frightened as hell without men to protect her. If society were to collapse, all the Strong, Independent Women™ who read Jezebel and xoJane would last about five minutes before they either found a man to cling onto or got raped and killed. In the bellum omnium contra omnes that is mankind’s default existence, a woman who is alone is a woman who is already dead.

One of the most commonly repeated tropes of feminists and manboobs goes something like this:

“You should be happy that women nowadays are independent, because it means that they’re with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they’re dependent on you.”

This is a fundamental violation of the relationship between men and women. Part of our identity as men based in women needing us, if not necessarily in a material sense, then in an emotional one, though material and emotional vulnerability often go hand in hand. That female insecurity is a crucial ingredient for unlocking our inner masculine instincts. If a girl needs me, feels that her life would end if she were to lose me, I’m doubly inspired to be there for her, to shield her from the cruelty of the world. Frankly, it’s pretty hot. If she just wants me, could take me or leave me, my gut response is one of apathy. “Yeah, whatever babe.”

Confidence doesn’t give men erections; vulnerability does.

In order to love someone else, you need to be emotionally vulnerable, more so women than men (as girls are attracted to confident men). You need to be willing to open yourself up, to give yourself over to their judgment, to risk being hurt and rejected. Without this emotional openness, any relationship you have will never go beyond the infatuation stage. But girls today are told to erect gigantic walls around their hearts, cutting them off from an crucial part of their humanity. The emotional dissonance from this feminist social engineering is why antidepressant usage and mental illness are skyrocketing among young women. Ordinarily a depressed or insecure girl would seek solace in the loving embrace of a man, but daily hits from her good friend Saint Xanax short-circuit her feminine instincts.

In squelching her inborn insecurity with you-go-grrlisms and drugs, the modern woman has become an emotional cripple. Like a fat slob eating Big Macs instead of a juicy steak from the supermarket, she substitutes having a dominant and confident man in her life with lotsa cocka and dating where she considers herself an “equal.” She views men as a life support system for a penis, an accoutrement, no different than her Manolo Blahniks or snazzy new iPhone. When she gets bored of her boy-toy, she tosses him in the trash and moves on to a newer, shinier model, and if she can get cash and prizes for trading in her old clunker, that’s just the icing on the cake.

Essentially, “confident” women are incapable of viewing men as human beings.

When manboobs and feminists say you should be happy that women today are “independent,” this is what they’re arguing for; a world in which romantic relationships are impossible. Where men are nothing more than fashion items to help women show how cool or sophisticated they are. Sorry, but homie don’t play that game. If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

...

Real life fails the Bechdel test.

Feminists can claim that women don’t need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.

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

Homosexuals seldom openly admit that they want to sexually assault children, but their literature and their actions tell another story. In the January 1-8, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard, author Mary Eberstadt exposed the clear link between homosexual activism and the growing North-American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) movement. Writing in “’Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered: The taboo against sex with children continues to erode,” Eberstadt notes:

The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this ‘question,’ settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the more this ‘question’ has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm in the public square.

Eberstadt notes that the book, Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma is currently available in the “gay/lesbian” sections of bookstores like Borders. This book, which openly promotes pedophilia, was first published in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1990. The Journal is edited by John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is a board member of the Dutch pedophile journal, Paidika.

The homosexual magazine Guide published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to pedophiles as “prophets” of sexual freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”

Parents are correct to be concerned about homosexuals sexually assaulting their children. The Boy Scouts of America, for example, is right to prohibit homosexuals from membership or leadership positions. It is evident from the statistical evidence and news reports of child molestation cases, that homosexuals pose a clear and present danger to children. Our laws and social policies should protect children, not cater to the whims and sexual desires of sexual predators. We must oppose homosexual activism “for the children’s sake.”

Huskar #fundie cracked.com

Lieberals are essentially Muslims. They have fully adopted the Muslim way of thinking, acting, communicating, lifestyle, and dealing with those who disagree with their lies. Lieberals are supportive of every fundamental feature of the Muslime way of life, only they switched some of them around for teh lulz(burkas and subservience for men instead of women). Every post critical of Islam gathers dozens of downvotes on libtard vipers nests, whereas identical posts that substitute "islam" for "christianity" gather dozens of upvotes. They are hell-bent on destroying monogamy and promoting pederasty in the family unit, cornerstones of any Muslim society. Their perception of the truth is any statement that is supported with the loudest yelling and poop-throwing from their side, whereas the slightest disagreement from the other side is deserving of utmost repressive measures - the typical Muslim debating tactic.

Be aware that when arguing with lieberals, you're actually talking to proto-Muslims. Accepting the veracity of koran and the pedoprophet will be a pure formality for them, and you won't even notice the moment when millions of your "ultra-progressive" compatriots convert to the "religion of peace" and begin stoning you for wearing a cross.

P.S. After I wrote my comment, Canadian shitlib PM (Frenchfag to boot) read my comment and decided to prove me wrong.

Lieberal = Muslim

brutus #racist vnnforum.com

Religion - the jew's tool of domination

For years on these forums we've discussed, ad nauseam, the topic of religion and specifically how it's been used by the jew to mentally subjugate our race. And rightfully so, many have shed light on this reality.
This leads us to ask the question....why do we try to disregard or ignore using the most powerful and effective weapon used upon us? Why are we not picking up that weapon and using it against the jew?
Here's the jew's trickery.... On one hand the jew seems to be in accordance with us by defaming religion, as a belief system for the weak-minded. And then on the other hand the jew creates another weapon under the guise of a religion, and the masses flock to it. Why do so many flock to this new religion? Even those who believe religion is for morons? They join this new religion, unwittingly, simply because the jew doesn't call it a religion! In spite of the fact it fits the very definition of a religion with its own codified system of morality, its own dogma, sacred cows, saints, and demons. It has all the trappings of any of the mainstream religions. And all of its adherents 'believe' without question. They have blind faith and they are willing to get out in the streets at a moment's notice to attack anyone or any group that questions or challenges their belief. They will resort to violence, risk going to jail and even put their lives on the line to defend their belief.
The new religion, of course, is diversity. But the jew, the inventor of the religion called diversity, doesn't refer to it as a religion. The jew is smart enough to understand human nature. And that nature is to create and believe in something supposedly on a higher plane. We are all predisposed to aspire to higher ideals. The jew knows this all too well. The jew invented Christianity as a control device. A device used to control White people. Now the jew has invented diversity. A religion whose aim is to utterly destroy and obliterate the White race from the face of the earth. Will we go quietly? Or will we fight? Or will we be smart enough to create a religion of our own that'll give our race the fortitude, resolve and balls needed to put us back on top once again? Oops! Did I just make a mistake by calling it a religion? I sure fuckin' did, Clancy!

Chimpmaster #racist chimpmania.com

Entry: rapper

A nigger who has suffered massive brain damage through a combination of gunshot wounds to the head and usage of crack-cocaine. Rarely do they speak English, or speak in a way that normal human beings can understand. They have invented their own, un-official language, referred to as "Ebonics", or Gibberish. Also related to language is the term "nigga" that is often used by rappers to refer to their friends, or people they don't like, without any change in context. They commonly refer to white people as "crackers", and this is fully accepted. If a non-nigger was to say "nigga", he would be tried in court for a hate crime (probably killed in a drive-by before he reached the court house though.)

They resort to talking really fast about how hard being a pimp is and what bitches they have slapped and caps they have popped, always over stolen songs from real musical artists. They usually die from being shot in drive-by shootings, or trying to image while wearing 127 lbs. of gold and platinum plated jewelry, including, but not limited to:

-Marijuana leaves
-Full sized clocks
-Olde English font letters representing their fake names

Most rappers exaggerate how "gangsta" they are, by repeating their names 300 to 400 times during the length of a "song". They also leave out the fact that they are so gangsta, yet are owned by a bunch of old rich white guys, probably with English accents.

The subject matter for rap "songs" contains at least 3 of the following topics:

-Money
-the rappers name
-what crimes the rappers thinks he's committed
-the "niggas" he has supposedly killed (popped, capped, etc...)
-how many "bitches" the rappers has slapped
-how famous the rapper is
-how famous the rapper thinks he is
-his gun
-the fact that he can "spit mad rhymes" over stolen music
-how hard being a pimp/gangsta/thug/nigger/wigger is

These are only some of the borderline-retarded ideas these niggers come up with.

For more information on the hemmorhage-causing phenomenon we know as "Rap", simply look outside, on TV, on the radio, or on News One.

Lastly, a tip from nigger Chris Rock. If you want to kill a nigger and get away with it, just stick a demo tape in their pocket. When they're dead, the police will find the body and the tape and write it off as a rap killing. The body will probably then be incinerated and the police will look into it no more than that.

Some "famous" rappers include 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, Ying Yang Twins, Kanye West, etc...

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

Lesbians Adopt Boy, Chemically Transform Him Into Pseudo-Girl

The sexual molestation that inevitably results...is hardly the only reason that the liberal push for more homosexual adoption is morally abhorrent. How can it be called decent to put children into situations like this?

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl … defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.

Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.

[Adoptive guardians] Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.

Whereas if they are freakified through grotesque medical practices best left on the Island of Doctor Moreau, they live happily ever after. Just ask Nancy Verhelst. No wait, you can’t; she had herself put out of her misery like deformed dog.

Thomas’s transition into a make-pretend girl began at age eight. His guardians are inflicting hormone suppressants to prevent him from developing a male voice, broad shoulders, and facial hair. If this doesn’t qualify as child abuse, the statutes need to be rewritten.

Whatever the motivations involved in this particular situation, given the pathological fear and hatred of males that often characterize women who base their identities on being lesbians, situations like this are an inevitable consequence of homosexual adoption and the bizarre moonbat notion that a person’s sex can be altered. The progressive ruling class is dragging the rest of society down a path that cannot lead to anything healthy.

Roko #fundie #crackpot #psycho rationalwiki.org

("Roko's Basilisk", an infamous post on LessWrong. It resulted in extreme distress in many of the readers. After four hours, cybercult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky purged the thread and all discussions of it, and would continue to delete any discussions of it for many years afterwards.)

Solutions to the Altruist's burden: the Quantum Billionaire Trick

Prerequisite concepts: Non-technical Introduction to the AI Deterrence Problem, And the winner is: Many-Worlds!

Followup to: The Altruist's Burden

One way to overcome the Altruist's burden problem is to stop being an altruist, to re-frame your impulses to help distant others as a bias rather than a preference. In the case of existential risks, there are additional reasons for doing this: firstly that the people who are helping you are the same as the people who are punishing you. (This is not the case for aid to the developing world). This is not an option that I personally like.

Another perfectly valid reaction is to just take the hit and accept that you will be taken advantage of as an altruist, but that it is worth it. This is also not an option that I personally like.

In this vein, there is the ominous possibility that if a positive singularity does occur, the resultant singleton may have precommitted to punish all potential donors who knew about existential risks but who didn't give 100% of their disposable incomes to x-risk motivation. This would act as an incentive to get people to donate more to reducing existential risk, and thereby increase the chances of a positive singularity. This seems to be what CEV (coherent extrapolated volition of humanity) might do if it were an acausal decision-maker.[1] So a post-singularity world may be a world of fun and plenty for the people who are currently ignoring the problem, whilst being a living hell for a significant fraction of current existential risk reducers (say, the least generous half). You could take this possibility into account and give even more to x-risk in an effort to avoid being punished. But of course, if you're thinking like that, then the CEV-singleton is even more likely to want to punish you... nasty. Of course this would be unjust, but is the kind of unjust thing that is oh-so-very utilitarian. It is a concrete example of how falling for the just world fallacy might backfire on a person with respect to existential risk, especially against people who were implicitly or explicitly expecting some reward for their efforts in the future. And even if you only think that the probability of this happening is 1%, note that the probability of a CEV doing this to a random person who would casually brush off talk of existential risks as "nonsense" is essentially zero.

A more exciting (and to my mind more preferable) way to overcome the problem is to quickly become so rich that you can turn charity into business by single-handedly changing the faces of high-impact industries. Elon Musk is probably the best example of this. I swear that man will single-handedly colonize mars, as well as bringing cheap, reliable electric vehicles to the consumer. And he'll do it at the same time as making even more money. The key to this tactic is scale. You can't contribute 0.00002% of the effort to colonize space or mitigate existential risks and reap 0.00001% of the reward: you get 0 or even negative reward if your contribution is below some threshold.

The quantum billionaire trick

But how can an individual do an Elon Musk job on existential risk? Not everyone is a good enough entrepreneur to drop out of grad school and come out with a $300 million startup before their classmates even have PhDs. Well, there is another way to make $300,000,000. Start with $30,000, and using a quantum random number generator, gamble it on the forex markets at a 10,000:1 ratio. Then in the branches where your gamble pays off, start an AGI company, hire the best people and build an FAI yourself. You could hire existing existential risk charities as consultants when you required their services. You can increase your chance of success in at least some branches by tossing a quantum coin to make key decisions. You could take, say, 50% of the universe for yourself and donate the other 50% to humanity. In your half, you can then create many independent rescue simulations of yourself up to August 2010 (or some other date), who then get rescued and sent to an optimized utopia.

You can also use your resources to acausally trade with a CEV-like singleton that might otherwise punish you for being a partial x-risk reducer, as mentioned before.

You can also use resources to acausally trade [2] with all possible unfriendly AIs [3] that might be built, exchanging resources in branches where you succeed for the uFAI sparing your life and "pensioning you off" with a tiny proportion of the universe in branches where it is built. Given that unfriendly AI is said by many experts to be the most likely outcome of humanity's experiment with AI this century, having such a lifeboat is no small benefit. Even if you are not an acausal decision-maker and therefore place no value on rescue simulations, many uFAIs would be acausal decision-makers. Though it seems to me that most people one-box on Newcomb's Problem, and rescue simulations seems decision-theoretically equivalent to Newcomb.

A win-win solution

What I like most about this option is that it is a win-win interaction between you and the rest of humanity, rather than a lose-win interaction. Humanity benefits by having a much higher chance of survival in 1 in 10,000 of the branches of the wavefunction, and you benefit by getting the lifeboat, removing the possibility of punishment and getting the rescue simulations. It also avoids the bitterness inherent in the first option, and the sucker-ness inherent in the second. That nobody thought of win-win solutions to existential risk before may be a testament to zero-sum bias.

1: One might think that the possibility of CEV punishing people couldn't possibly be taken seriously enough by anyone to actually motivate them. But in fact one person at SIAI was severely worried by this, to the point of having terrible nightmares, though ve wishes to remain anonymous. The fact that it worked on at least one person means that it would be a tempting policy to adopt. One might also think that CEV would give existential risk reducers apositive rather than negative incentive to reduce existential risks. But if a post-positive singularity world is already optimal, then the only way you can make it better for existential risk-reducers is to make it worse for everyone else. This would be very costly from the point of view of CEV, whereas punishing partial x-risk reducers might be very cheap.

2: Acausal trade is somewhat speculative: it is the idea that you can influence causally disconnected parts of the multiverse by doing simulations of them. A simpler explanation of how you can affect a uFAI in this way is to think about Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument from the point of view of the uFAI. If you historically played a quantum lottery that definitely paid off in some branches of the wavefunction, then the uFAI will assign some probability to being in a simulation run by you, if that is what you pre-committed to doing (and if you actually follow through on your precommitment: the uFAI can test this by simulating you).

3: This idea is in part due to Rolf Nelson's idea of using the simulation hypothesis to acausally trade with uFAIs.Read his blog to find out more.

John McClain #fundie hbr.org

Men and women are valuable in different ways. For the most part men have historically been the innovators, leaders, and geniuses of society because of their sexual drive and the fact that unlike women sex is not given to them but it is something that must be earned. Men's drive for sexual relations with women pushes them to succeed, innovate, and create. If women stop feeding the sexual fantasy that men desire or if men are able to get some form of sex without a relationship, men tune out, turn off, and drop out and civilization goes into decline. For the most part women don't need to work as hard to get sex by becoming well known for something you contributed for to get people to respect you. When men reach the height of their careers or elevate in social status and power more opportunities for relationships with women become available and this is an ego boost for men. Same with comedy, notice how female comedians are not as funny as male comedians. They don't need to be because they don't need to be admired or respected to get sex. It's evolution in action. If you are a guy and can do something amazing you have a greater likelihood of attracting females and siring more off spring. Women don't really need to prove themselves in this way to get sex because men just want to know if you're healthy, fit, and can bear offspring. In this day and age more jobs can be done by women, so many have decided to find a sperm donor and raise children on their own but their is no innate need or drive to go above and beyond because reproductively they're more conservative whereas men it's high risk and high reward because a man if very successful can sire far more children than a woman who is limited by her reproductive years whereas a man can potentially sire hundreds of children.

iceicle999 #fundie reddit.com

It is so ridiculous that people are still in denial about all this. If women like you, you have a foundation of social approval to launch off of. That means that by default, you will have an easier time existing and getting what you want. If women don't like you, then it becomes an enormous uphill battle. Most guys will never have to face that battle, but let me tell you, it's really not worth it.

Corporationstoobig #conspiracy teleread.com

This just like the fucked up changes on YouTube/Google are all part of the battle between big corporations vs big brother. Both sides want global control which is why Edwards Snowden took a big risk to revel information about the NSA spying and how facebook/Google/Microsoft.etc all have back door deals to send user information without you’re consent.

Fanfiction.net is likely being harassed by the NSA to give in to *The System* or being taken over by communist agents as all these rules are very communist not at all reflecting the will of the people.

It seems harmless now doing a few things here and a few things there but down the road it can and will be used to blackmail you even though “I’ve got nothing to hide” which is the popular excuse to give up privacy. We’ll see how well that turns out.

I hope more people like him speak out. I HATE globalism. with a capital H. I bet this post will be deleted because I am too close to the truth..

Beren Erchamion #fundie twcenter.net

As a Christian, I believe that humans are like no other species. We have immortal souls, and we are created in the image of God. That is why human life is infinitely more valuable than any other life form, and should never be destroyed except at the direst need.[..]

Actually 50 million people have been killed by abortion--and that's just in the USA alone. So I would estimate that far more babies have been aborted in the 20th and early 21st centuries than all the people killed in war throughout recorded history.

Now I don't believe in Evolution; I think it has drastic scientific flaws. But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's true. If Evolution is true, how does capital punishment hold us back as a species? Wouldn't we want to eliminate murderers, rapists, and traitors, who are polluting our species and preventing us from advancing up the Evolutionary ladder? And if Evolution is true, war is the best thing that can happen to mankind. It eliminates the weak by default, and leaves the strongest, smartest, and most well-developed people on top, giving them the opportunity to reproduce and gradually replace "lesser" humans. Abortion, on the other hand, kills indiscriminately. It stifles the reproductive rate of our species. It kills the potentially weak as well as the potentially strong, the potentially stupid as well as the potentially ingenious. So if we really want to advance up the Evolutionary ladder, we need more wars, more executions, and no abortion.

OnlyTheGhosts #conspiracy #ableism deviantart.com

No, it's actually brain damage. The 30% brain inflammation that's common is due to toxins in the brain. These toxins - especially mercury and aluminium - result in very fragile synapses. The synaptic pathways collapse, and the brain compensates by trying to create more pathways faster than they can collapse.

The 70% of Autistics with IQs in the 70s or below shows it's brain damage as well. 70s and below is called MENTALLY RETARDED RANGE.

Chart of mental redartation according to IQ

<table>

Level of RetardationIQ Range
MildLow 50s – 70s
ModerateMid 30s – low 50s
SevereLow 20s – mid 30s
ProfoundBelow 20 or 25

“…aluminium exposure is associated with the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines and with the development of chronic oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and glial activation or dysfunction; these changes in turn are associated with ASD.”

(Aluminium in vaccines causes BRAIN-DAMAGE linked to Autism!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596046/

“The preponderance of the evidence indicates that mercury exposure is causal and/or contributory in ASD” (in other words, mercury – as in vaccines containing the organomercury compound Thimerosal, is linked to Autism)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X16300931

“…the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone.”

(NDD = refer to neurological damage, in other words *BRAIN-DAMAGE* )

http://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

Geier et al. 2014 J Biochem Pharmacol Res “The risk of neurodevelopmental disorders following a Thimerosal-preserved DTaP formulation in comparison to its Thimerosal-reduced formulation in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)” 2:64.

“This study supports a significant relationship between increased organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-preserved childhood vaccines and the child’s subsequent risk of a ND diagnosis.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261474301_The_risk_of_neurodevelopmental_disorders_following_a_Thimerosal-preserved_DTaP_formulation_in_comparison_to_its_Thimerosal-reduced_formulation_in_the_vaccine_adverse_event_reporting_system_VAERS

I can easily cite hundreds more.

Your crap calling what I'm saying "ableism" is just you using insults instead of dealing with the science.

I don't give a fuck about your better, kinder term. The scientists say RETARDED, that's NOT a slur. That's the term. I will not abide with politically-correct nutcases to dictate what "science" should say, any more than I would go along with the Soviet Union's propaganda or China's propaganda or North Korea's propaganda when they made anti-scientific claims.

iraqis #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Because Evolutionism has become our official state religion, which is a violation of the First Amendment.

You are correct, Evolutionism is a religion. It's supporters promote it as science, but if it were in fact science, nobody would be complaining about it. It is an alternate religious belief about our origins.

Science can only reflect on what can be observed. When a speculation becomes an object of faith (like evolution), and when it is dogmatically defended, it becomes a religion.

Science does not create its own evidence. Over the last hundred years, many "proofs" of evolution have been introduced. One by one, they have been shown to be frauds. Science doesn't resort to this because science is the search for truth.

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

Churches are filled today with imposters, who profess to be Christian; but they are only playing a game of church. They have never been saved.

I met a man in Hawaii, a Hawaiian, who talked about God and love. He appeared to be a Christian from the way he was talking and smiling; but when I gave him a Gospel tract which read... "You Need HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS," he became offended by the contents. Whereas the Bible states that God created mankind in His own image; many people today have recreated god in their own sinful human image. The man whom I had spoken with in Hawaii had "a form of godliness" as 2nd Timothy 3:5 mentions; but He was offended by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tragically, Christianity is nothing more than a cult to many people, because the preaching of the Gospel to them is nothing more than a religious philosophy. I am not saying that Christianity is a cult. Not at all. I am saying that many people make Christianity a cult in their own mind. This is why we hear people saying, "I used to be a Christian." That is impossible. The second birth (i.e., the spiritual birth) is as irreversible as is the first birth (i.e., the physical birth). Many people join a church and adhere superficially to a few Biblical principles; but they never actually become a born-again Christian.

No one refers to the Bible more than the unsaved heathens. In nearly every debate with lost sinners they say, "But didn't Jesus say..." It is ironic that unsaved people, who are hellbound, seem to know so much about the Bible. The truth is that they are only vaguely familiar with the Bible, and cannot understand it's Truths because they have not the Holy Spirit of God (1st Corinthians 2:14-17).

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

There is a witch hunt on the internet, an angry obsessed mob of ungodly critics, bottom-feeders and trolls, who hate Pastor Jack Hyles and his entire family. It has become a feeding frenzy of bizarre claims, blatant lies and lunatics! An ungodly person focuses on any negative aspect of a person's life to destroy them, while deliberately overlooking the thousands of positive things and admirable accomplishments of the same individual. Thankfully, when God judges each Christian, He is going to look at the whole life, the big picture, and not just the few sins or mistakes that the person made. Praise God for His fairness. 1st Peter 4:17, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” Far too many people place them self in the position of judge, jury and executioner, which is NO ONE'S right to do concerning sin, except God alone (James 4:12).

I refuse to live without love, I must have it! I cannot live without loving everyone. It matters not if people love me back, and most don't, but I have a need to express God's love for every creature! The apostle Paul said that the more he loved others, the less he was loved in return. 2nd Corinthians 12:15, “And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.” I became a lonely man long ago, loving others beyond their capacity to reciprocate that love. I wouldn't have it any other way! I would 10,000 times rather love people, than not love others with God's unconditional love. Who am I that a King should bleed and die for? People can be difficult to love, but at the end of the day, as a redeemed child of God, my conscience as a Christian will not allow for anything else than forgiveness and love. I choose to let things go, and forgive, and love, and let every day be a new day, looking ahead in the Lord. I sometimes have to block people out, because they are too negative in their e-mails, attacking me with their hateful words, but I love them anyway in the Lord. If God can love a woeful sinner like me, then I can love others as God commands me to do (Matthew 22:39).

This doesn't mean that I don't contend for the faith, which is a necessity, but I love those whom I refute, sincerely. ...

Ephesians 4:15, “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.”

Galatians 4:16, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

Anytime you tell THE TRUTH, you will make enemies. Telling the truth sometimes splits a church! For that very reason, and this is tragic, many churches and pastors in today's apostate generation refrain from telling the truth, lest they risk a church split. Ladies and gentlemen, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself warned that NO MAN can serve God and mammon (Luke 16:13). The Bible tells us that many of the chief rulers believed on the Lord (meaning they got saved), but they did not confess Him, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

There has never been a man greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11), because John prepared the way for the coming of THE GREATEST of all, the blessed Lamb of God (John 1:29). John lived out in the wilderness, not dependant upon people for his food, clothing and necessities. Therefore, John could preach the truth without worry over how he would survive. God only knows how many preachers have been starved out by an angry pulpit committee in a church. In his youth, Pastor Jack Hyles didn't receive a salary for eight week, because the bigshots in the church were trying to starve him out. ...

In 1945, Brother Hyles became the pastor at the Grange Hall Baptist Church in Marshall, Texas. They didn't pay him for the first 8-weeks, and when he did get paid, his salary was $20 a week. In his sermon titled “Good Ol' God,” Dr. Hyles says that during those 8-weeks that the church deacons refused to pay him, he bought a push-lawnmower and cut the grass of church members for $1 to $2 to keep food on the table. He faithfully pastored that church and walked with God. Oh, how we need to get back to old-time Christianity in our churches today.

I also decided as a young preacher that I would tell the truth, even if it offends people and costs me fake friends. As Dr. Hyles says, there's no such thing as losing a “friend.” It is not the preacher's duty to make friends and influence people, but to speak THE TRUTH!

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: FTM blackpill

(balkancel)
I'm a mentalcel so I do sympathize with her. Or him.

Imagine having this realization, that you just lost all your privilege and your life is going to become irreversible hell as an ugly manlet. Her fault and her choice fully. Yet I can't not feel bad.

The most ironic/saddest thing is, if the blackpill wasn't so controversial with brainlet normies and she was familiar with it, this could've been prevented.

Basically picture being a Chad since birth and one day waking up as yourself, your present incel self. Fucking brutal.

(Coldheartedincel)
This is why there are way more MTF trannies than FTM ones. Most foids would never want to experience the hardships of a man while many men want to experience the much easier life of a woman.

(moneysubber)
Exactly. Assuming all humans have the capacity to tolerate a certain level of hardship why do people think the vast majority transitions are male to female?

It's because many men cannot tolerate the natural level of hardship thrust upon them whereas women can. Why? Because they are by default on easy mode

(kaisercel)

wtf is fun about larping as a man? Took t shots too, dry bagina here we come

FtM trannies genuinely think that men are extremely privileged, so they transition thinking that they'll 'become privileged', but in reality, all they become is depressed.

They're too stupid to realise that they have it easy, not us

Oh absolutely, they're the aristocracy complaining that the peasants have too much grain.

(Mgtow_troaway)
FTM rates are the actual trans rates in the population, that's roughly how many MTF there should be. The reason there's so many more MTF is because a bunch of non-dysphoric incels are tryna see if they can switch life to tutorial mode

If tech ever advances to make gendermorphing flawless, there'll be like 8 guys left, each with their own harem nation

(JFLmaxx)
Last sentence is supreme unintentional blackpill truth.

How many nanoseconds before a woman manipulated the truth to benefit women and trannies and continue to gaslight men with blame?

(texanapocalypse33)
I knew an ftm a few years ago. 6 months after surgery and successfully passing, s/he got their first false rape accusation. If he wasn't rich, he'd be the only vagina in a male prison right now and you can guess how that would've turned out. Last I heard he went back to being adrogynous female appearing so as to avoid being treated like a man by strangers

(Concerned-father2)
My sister in law transitioned to a top lesbian (as opposed to bottom). One year later, she was blackpilled as F. Made a meme about how women were all the same on tinder, posted a couple of tweets about how basic women were and basically came off as a redpilled/blackpilled misogynist bastard. Got severely depressed and told me she felt like killing herself from time to time, that life as a man is hell compared to a woman.

(UnjustLiving)
ROPE OR COPE BRAH, i swear more of these degenerates who call us scum and such should go through test. therapy and see how living as a man is like playing the game on hardmode, not only do we have to provide for ourselves but we have to be sustainable, we have to persevere through any fucking object, and while being hated by society, being sub 5 male is truly one of the hardest things in life with the exception of living in a 3rd world country but as far as 1st world goes it's being a male.

(jonarbuckleup)
No wonder so many guys want to become girls in hope of being treated like human beings for once.

Trump National Doral Miami Resort #wingnut dailykos.com

Donald Trump, who regularly incites violence against the media—the “enemy of the people”—and his political foes, must be so proud:

A video depicting a macabre scene of a fake President Trump shooting, stabbing and brutally assaulting members of the news media and his political opponents was shown at a conference for his supporters at his Miami resort last week, according to footage obtained by The New York Times.

A couple of notable figures attending this fun-filled conference? Donald Trump Jr. and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Both denied having seen the video, with Huckabee Sanders claiming that she was just there to lead a prayer and talk about “unity and bringing the country together.” Uh huh.

In the video, Trump is shown shooting down media critics in the “Church of Fake News,” not to mention assaulting the late Sen. John McCain, President Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and, of course, Hillary Clinton.

The clip ends with Mr. Trump putting a stake into the head of a person with a CNN logo for a face. Mr. Trump then stands on the altar, admiring his rampage, and smiles.

The Trump campaign and the organizers of the event both claim they had nothing to do with the video production of Donald Trump’s favorite wet dream.

Harun Yahya #fundie for-children.com

God created all humans with eyes with which they can see. God has given humans this very important asset.
Our eyes serve very important functions. They perform critical processes of which we are completely unaware, and only after which we can see around.

Let us briefly examine how we see:

Every object in the world reflects and emits light on to its surroundings. For instance, while you are looking at the computer screen, the light reflected and emitted from the screen is going to the back of your eye through your pupil.

This light, after going through a series of processes at the back of your eye, turns into an electrical signal. This electrical signal goes to your brain. At the back of your brain is the centre of vision that makes it possible for you to see. The centre of vision is a small area. This is the tiny area where the electrical signals form the image of the screen and that is when you see this site.

Even trying to explain these processes as briefly as possible takes such a long time, whereas the process is instantaneous. These processes happen so fast that when you look at the computer screen, at that instant you are able to see it.

Isn't it such a perfect system? If you remember, we had mentioned evolutionists earlier in the site. We also mentioned that these people believe that earth, the universe, the stars and all living things are a result of chance. Those who say this say the same about our eyes. They say, "The eyes occurred by themselves and through coincidence." Can such a complex and wonderful system form by itself? Let us give an example to clarify how ridiculous this opinion is:

Engineers have manufactured the photographic and video cameras by copying the human eye. However, none of this equipment gives as clear a view as your eyes do. Now lift your head from the computer screen and look around you. Isn't your vision clear? There is no blur, snowy dots or missing lines in your vision. Now look at your television set. Quite often, you see snowy dots or skipped lines in the image. Even when these don't happen and even with all the new technology, televisions still do not produce the perfect images that your eyes do.

Now, let's think for a moment. This means that our eyes are a lot more advanced and are of better quality than any video or photographic camera or television. What would you do if someone came up to you and said something like the following?


"There was a storm that caused some electrical cables, screws, hammers, screwdrivers to fly out the door and windows, to fly out of the house, and then all of them got together in the backyard. Then there was some rain and thunder and these things were mixed with the soil. Some time passed and I saw a television set emerge. I picked it up and brought it home."

You would probably think that that person is either insane or lying, because as we all know, television sets are made in huge factories where there are hundreds of engineers, designers and specialised personnel. It is impossible for a television set to form on its own.

Could it be that our eyes, which are of much better quality than television, have occurred by themselves? Of course not! Just as a television doesn't come about on its own, but someone does manufacture it, our eyes are also not a result of coincidence. God is the One Who created our eyes in such a way that they see in three-dimensions and with coloured images so clearly. This is why we have to thank God for everything beautiful that we are able to see.


OUR EARS THAT HEAR WITHOUT ANY CRACKLE
God has created our ears perfectly just like our eyes. Imagine a stereo, for instance. Even if you turn on the best of stereos, you hear some crackling and hissing sounds. Radio channels often become mixed up. Right now, don't talk but just listen! Do you hear any hissing? Your ears never produce any. You hear the sounds marvellously clearly. Well don't you think that your ears could also have produced crackling just like stereos? God has created our ears perfectly and we are able to hear the sounds around us without experiencing any distortion.

God has created our ears in such a way that we are unable to hear certain sounds that would disturb us. The blood in our body, for instance, flows very fast and it makes a lot of noise during its circulation. However, our ears do not hear the noise that it makes. Our planet also produces quite a strong noise while it spins. Nevertheless, God has created our ears so ideally that we don't hear this noise. God is very caring towards us. This is the reason why, throughout our lives, He doesn't let us hear noises that will disturb us.

This is why we have to thank God for His benevolence. God has stated the following in a verse in the Qur'an:

"God brought you out of your mothers' wombs knowing nothing at all, and gave you hearing, sight and hearts so that perhaps you would show thanks." (Surat an-Nahl, 78)


OUR HEART THAT NEVER TIRES
For us, our heart is an essential organ. It beats about seventy-two times per minute and about forty million times per year. To understand what a tiring activity this is, just make a fist with your hand and then relax it, and continue making a fist and relaxing it. How many minutes do you think you will be able to keep this up? Your heart, which is about the size of your fist, continues this action throughout your life without becoming tired or even stopping once. Our hearts don't stop even while we are asleep. If we become excited, our heart beats faster, and it beats slower while we rest. Our heart makes all these adjustments automatically while we are totally unaware.

Every time our heart beats, it pumps blood around our bodies. What we need to survive is in this blood. Every one of our cells receives the necessary oxygen and food they need from the blood. Our heart pumps about 43,000 litres (approx. 11,000 gallons) of blood per day. Do you know just how much blood this means? This is about enough to fill 150 bathtubs. Wouldn't you become tired if you tried to empty a single bathtub full of water with just a cup? Now imagine having to empty 150 bathtubs of water with just a single cup. Probably you wouldn't have been able to accomplish such a difficult task. However, our heart does such a task and has done so since the day we were born and will continue to do so until the day we die. Moreover, it never takes a break. You, for example, would take a break while doing a difficult chore. You would probably need to lie down, or take a rest, but our hearts don't become tired, because they are essential for our survival. It is small but its task is enormous. This is why God has created it in such a way that it never tires.


It is unimaginable for a country to be without a network of roads, railways or seaways. A unique network in your body allows it to function faultlessly. These are the blood vessels of our circulatory system. Inside these vessels, the blood flows that the heart continuously pumps. The blood carries countless materials from one part of the body to another. It distributes food continuously to each part of the body and collects waste materials.

DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ARMY IN THE BODY THAT PROTECTS US AGAINST GERMS?

The places where we sit, the air we breathe, the things we hold are full of germs and viruses, but we are unable to see them. Germs and viruses are small organisms that cause diseases in human beings. We cannot see them with our eyes but they can cause us to become sick and to lose strength.

There are other organisms we are unable to see. These make up the army that lives inside us and protects us against our germ and virus enemies. This army is called the "Immune System".

Our immune system exists within our blood. The cells that make up our immune system are called the white blood cells.

When an enemy enters our body, our blood works just like a laboratory. It immediately produces very special substances to fight the enemy and reproduces more cells matching the enemy's strength. A ferocious battle begins. Sometimes the army in our body wins the battle without us feeling it and the germs and viruses die.

The importance and benefits of vaccination: Dangerous germs are given to the body after being made ineffective. In this way, the immune cells recognise them and take measures to protect you against them.

[...]


ometimes we do feel this battle. You say how? When we have a fever! Of course, you must have had a fever at least a couple of times by now. That was when your enemy was fighting the army inside your body. During the battle, your body uses up all its energy and needs some more. If you go out to run, while your body is engaged in a battle, you would be using up all the energy that your body needs to fight. In this case, your army would lose the battle and you would fall sick. However, when you get a fever, you naturally lie down to rest, and your army uses all your available energy. In doing so, the army could be victorious. When our temperature rises, our body gives us the message "rest!"
Do you know what would have happened, if we did not have an immune system? Shortly after we were born, the first germ that entered our body would have killed us. Because God is very merciful and caring towards all humans, He has created each human being with an immune system. As we have realised from the beginning of this site, we owe God each minute of our lives for our being able to see beautiful things and being able to eat delicious food. That is why we have to think about God in everything we see and say "O God, I am grateful to You for giving me all these blessings".

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The illegal marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer!!

The Spencers were one of the 3 most Papal families in Great Britain. That is an undeniable fact. Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, that marriage was illegal.

Frances Shand Kydd was the mother of Princess Diana and she named her daughter after the first Diana.

Papal Frances was determined to marry her daughter to the Prince of Wales and change the Act of Settlement.

Princess Diana actually believed that she was the reincarnated Lady Diana, because they looked like twins.

History does repeat itself in uncanny ways but reincarnation is just a lie of the devil because you only go around once in life. The Princess consulted several fortunetellers or clairvoyants but they never warned her about her impending death (perhaps they were all working for MI6).

The illegal wedding of Charles and Diana took place in St. Paul's Cathedral on July 29, 1981.

When the officiating priest asked if anybody had any objections to the marriage, barrister or lawyer Margaret Thatcher should have raised her hand high!!

In monarchies, marriages are never affairs of the heart but are done for dynastic or religious purposes. The fairy tale marriage began to unravel very quickly after Diana produced an heir and a spare to continue the Windsor dynasty.

The Way Ahead Group (WAG) gave the green light for the assassination!!

The Way Ahead Group (WAG), chaired by the Queen, was created in November 1992. The purpose of that committee was to discuss critical issues facing the very existence of the monarchy:

The Way Ahead Group (WAG), which was created five months later to deal with major issues facing the royals, held meetings twice a year–generally in January and September. Those meetings were attended by all senior royals, except Diana. The Queen was chairman, with Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward all taking part.
It is no coincidence that the separation of Charles and Diana took place in the month following the very first WAG meeting. (Morgan, Paris-London Connection. p. 28).

The meeting of the Way Ahead Group was moved up to July 20, 1997, and the committee gave the green light for the assassination of Princess Diana:

Just three days after the St Tropez holiday concluded, the full Way Ahead Group meeting–referred to in the Mirror article–chaired by the Queen, was held at Balmoral. Diana was discussed and it is around this time–either at the meeting or soon after–the decision was made that the single most dangerous threat to the Monarchy had to go. And the nod was given to MI6. (Morgan, Paris-London Connection. p. 47).

So secretive is the British Secret Service that It is debatable whether anybody on the committee knew that Mohamed Al Fayed was actually an MI6 operative.

International arms dealer and British Secret Service agent Mohamed Al Fayed spent about 7 months in Haiti as a guest of President Duvalier.

It was part of his training as an MI6 agent.

Mohamed used the vast profits from the arms business to buy Harrods Department Store in London and the Ritz Hotel in Paris.

When Princess Diana began her campaign to ban land mines, that threatened the vast profits of the British and Pentagon military-industrial complex, and Mohamed Al Fayed.

Just before her assassination, Princess Diana was seeking a universal ban on deadly land mines.

Her "boyfriend's" father Mohamed stood to lose millions if the ban was enforced.

It was at that time that Mohamed ordered his son to begin dating Princess Diana. Diana was swept off her feet by the vast wealth of Dodi's father.

Princess Diana and Dodi had absolutely nothing in common and marrying a Muslim would have created grave complications for her.

Dodi swept her off her feet with his father's vast wealth, plus his father had voodoo love dolls with the likeness of Diana and Dodi together.

Vast wealth and voodoo led the lovers to their deaths.

Princess Diana was irresistibly drawn to Dodi by the attraction of his father's vast wealth and his voodoo love portions.

The assassination required the cooperation of the highest officials in the U.K. and French governments.

Diana was not killed in the car crash but the French medical personnel took over an hour to get her to the hospital.

MI6 Dr. Frédéric Mailliez "treated" her at the crash site.

There was a hospital within 5 minutes driving time of the crash site but the ambulance took over an hour to reach the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital located 4 miles away:

There was a hospital where VIPs and political leaders were always sent to, which did have all the specialists on duty 24 hours for emergencies. That was the Val de Grâce. It was just 4.6 km from the crash scene, whereas La Pitié was 5.7 km. In the early edition of The People published on the day of the crash, it said that Diana was "believed to be in the French VIP Val de Grâce hospital in central Paris." (Morgan, The Paris-London Connection. p. 104).

As in the Kennedy assassination there was a fall guy or patsy. His name was Henry Paul and he was stone cold sober the night of the assassination.

Henri Paul was the fall guy or patsy for the assassination.

He was accused of being drunk when in reality he was cold stone sober.

Trevor Rees-Jones was Diana's bodyguard and he was in the front seat of the Mercedes.

He survived the crash, but decided he could not remember what happened on that fateful night in Paris.

Diana and Dodi were wearing seatbelts in the back of the limo but they were tampered with when the Mercedes was stolen in April. Furthermore, there was a man who just committed suicide in the same hospital and his blood was swapped for Henri Paul's.

[...]

The Act of Settlement was repealed in 2015 by the Perth Agreement!!

Incredibly, the 1701 Act of Settlement was repealed during a meeting of the British Empire countries in far away Western Australia:

The Perth Agreement is an agreement made by the prime ministers of the 16 Commonwealth realms during the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October 2011 in Perth, Western Australia, concerning amendments to the royal succession laws, namely, replacing male-preference primogeniture, under which male descendants take precedence over females in the line of succession, with absolute primogeniture; ending the disqualification of those married to Roman Catholics; and limiting the number of individuals in line to the throne requiring permission from the sovereign to marry. However, the ban on Catholics and other non-Protestants becoming sovereign and the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England remained. (Wikipedia article, Perth Agreement).

After the assassination of President Lincoln, most of the top people in the government were compromised. Likewise, following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson took the nation into the quagmire of Vietnam.

That is the main reason for a public assassination: compromise and control the leaders of the government. If the royal family cooperates with the Papal agenda, all is well, but should they prove recalcitrant, one phone call to the newspapers could destroy the Windsor dynasty forever.

Prime Minister David Cameron was the driving force behind the repeal of the Act.

If the queen cooperates with the Papal agenda, the government will move heaven and earth to hide her involvement in the assassination of Princess Diana.

If followers of Roman Emperor Jesus Constantine were unfit to rule Great Britain in 1701, what makes them any fitter now? Absolutely nothing. Contrary to Charles "Kissin' Cousins" Darwin, the Holy Bible teaches that mankind becomes physically and spiritually more and more corrupt as time passes. St. Paul said:

But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (II Timothy 3:13).

British subjects should DEMAND that their government let them read books exposing the assassination and especially the award winning movie Unlawful Killing.

Rep. Mack Butler #fundie rawstory.com

A resolution in the Alabama House of Representatives to recognize May 5 as the National Day of Prayer provides an apocalyptic view of the current world.

The symbolic legislation, introduced Wednesday by Republican state Rep. Mack Butler, starts off with the typical Day of Prayer language, but quickly descends into gloom and doom.

The resolution warns that America has “turned from her values” and no longer protects the “unborn.” It claims the United States is sitting by idly while the world falls into chaos and Christians face genocide overseas. The resolution alleges that Americans now mock God and that “traditional values” have been abandoned.

The resolution concludes that the people of Alabama must “turn from their wicked ways” to prevent God’s wrath.

Congress established the National Day of Prayer in 1952 and the yearly celebration occurs on the first Thursday of May.

This morning, Butler wrote on Facebook: “We are being told that all kinds of perversion for our children is perfectly fine and at the same time we are being told that if you believe in wholesome family Christian values you are evil. We must take back America! Living life upside down.”

“Looking forward to the next civil war,” one of his constituents commented.

The full text of the resolution, HJR 316, is below:

WHEREAS, God has blessed America, where freedom exists for all, regardless of belief or creed; and
WHEREAS, America’s heritage is a beacon to the world, a shining city on a hill; and
WHEREAS, America’s exceptionalism was not only on a thoroughfare for freedom beat, but a leader and protector of values and safety around the world; and
WHEREAS, though American’s sovereignty did not and would not rule the world, rather than a colonial power, she shared her bounty; and
WHEREAS, America has turned from her values, she is engaged in practices antithetical to her heritage by not protecting the poor, defenseless, and unborn, and has permitted the law to discriminate pitting one’s rights against the rights of others; and
WHEREAS, America now sits in her sanctuary while the rest of the world is falling into turmoil with genocide against Christians and radical Islamic terrorists wreaking havoc; and
WHEREAS, America’s Judeo-Christian tradition recognized a freedom of religion, the first freedom, that let all religions coexist; and
WHEREAS, traditional values have been removed from the public square where all values were once spoken; and
WHEREAS, religious freedom is threatened and God is mocked; and
WHEREAS, just as Jesus observed when he drew close to Jerusalem before His crucifixion and wept over the city that thought it knew of the things made for peace, it was now hidden from their eyes and just as high government officials often invoke the name of God, yet they tempt God by abandoning His truths; and
WHEREAS, America must reaffirm her freedom and her faith; and
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, BOTH HOUSES THEREOF CONCURRING, That we urge America to reaffirm and protect its freedoms.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the fifth day of May 24 2016 be set aside as a day of reflection by the citizens of the State of Alabama who will humble themselves and pray and seek God’s face and turn from their wicked ways so that God will hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.

Dr. Miriam Adahan #fundie jewishpress.com

[Dr. Miriam Adahan claims she cured her bipolar disorder through natural healing methods. This is after she was evaluated and prescribed medication during a psychotic episode.]

Thankfully, this relative [who had brought her to the psychiatrist] took me to a n alternative healer who had helped her in the past. He gave me a shot of vitamins, as well as various supplements to help me calm down. [...] Since then, I have never relapsed, although I still take natural supplements, avoid junk foods and gluten, and make sure to get adequate sleep. I share this in a public forum because Big Pharma and its advertisers have teamed up to convince people that they cannot be sane without psychiatric meds. They minimize the fact that, in addition to the "minor" side-effects, such as dry mouth, stomach upset and loss of libido, these drugs accelerate Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, internal bleeding and osteoporosis. True, some people want to be put out of their misery quickly with drugs, but they must be informed of the consequences. If this article gives people hope to heal without drugs, then it is worth facing the ridicule and censure which is bound to come from people who are threatened by the concept of self-healing techniques.

[...]

I realize that many people will be outraged by these suggestions, especially those whose livelihood is threatened by self-healing methods. I have gotten hostile calls from conventional doctors who accuse me of being irresponsible and ignorant, and putting lives at risk by providing alternatives to psych meds. They repeat the refrain, "There are no side effects to psychiatric meds! Medication is the only way to deal with emotional problems." However, I have fifty years of experience which has shown me that people who were functional before a psychotic episode can heal by adopting a disciplined lifestyle, learning to think securely and eat correctly. Teens, in particular, need to learn these skills so that they do not feel like passive victims of their moods, but develop the confidence to help them ride out the emotional storms with positive thoughts and actions.

Ricardo Duchesne #racist eurocanadian.ca

On 27 May 2014 the Vancouver City Council voted unanimously to take steps toward yet another official apology for "historical discrimination against people of Chinese descent". The approved motion, which was initiated by Chinese Councillor Raymond Louie, contains a sweeping mandate directing staff to investigate thoroughly, "as long as it takes", every act of discrimination committed against the Chinese from 1886 to 1947.

It also calls for staff to report back to council with recommended actions for compensation and inclusive redress. According to Councillor Kerry Jang, the Chinese who lived in Canada before 1947 "weren't allowed to do very much...to live in certain areas...to go to school or do anything."

What Kerry Jang is saying is a historical fabrication.

The Chinese in BC prospered substantially despite the head tax and not having the right to vote until 1947. In an MA Thesis conducted by Chinese Canadian Paul Richard Yee for the University of British Columbia, 1983, under the title Chinese Business in Vancouver, 1886-1914, it is concluded that the Chinese were able to enjoy "economic opportunities arising inside and outside Chinatown".

Chinese Millionaire Migrants

Daniel Hierbert, a social geographer at UBC, has thus projected that Chinese migration will result in the creation of "a social geography entirely new to Canada". The Chinese, which currently make up about 410,000 of the population in a city of 2.2 million, are set to double to 800,000 by 2031. Hiebert also notes that the city will be increasingly divided into racial enclaves, with white residents becoming a minority group, or only 2 out of 5 residents by 2031.

This massive wave of Chinese colonizers has driven the price of homes way above what middle class Whites can afford, making Vancouver the second least affordable city in the world - behind only Hong Kong.

In Richmond, a city of 200,000 in greater Vancouver, mainland Chinese migration has already helped create the first majority-Chinese city outside Asia, with White citizens cornered into small enclaves and many being forced to sell their homes and move out as "millionaire migrants" take over (read here). It has been estimated that 74 percent of the houses sold for more than $3 million in Vancouver's core Westside neighbourhood in 2010 were sold to Chinese buyers.

Institutional Racism in China

But what is perhaps even more astonishing is that these "millionaire migrants" enjoying apologies from working and middle class Whites come from a culture that, by the standards of British Columbia between 1886 and 1947, are not merely illiberal but vulgarly racist. This has been thoroughly documented in the works of Frank Dikötter. Starting with his book, The Discourse of Race in Modern China (1992), Dikötter examines how traditional Chinese authorities commonly described as "ugly" the "ash white" skin and "indelicate hairiness" of Europeans, and the blacks as "animals, devil-like and horrifying".

More revealing is Dikötter's thesis on how these traditional Chinese notions about inferior "barbarians" intermingled with Nazi forms of "scientific" racism to form a distinctively Chinese racial consciousness in the 20th century and today. The concept of race came to be widely accepted as scientifically proven. Racial theories were disseminated through textbooks, anthropology exhibitions and travel literature, reaching the primary levels of education.

The dominant Han are described as the core of a "yellow race", which includes in its margins all the minority populations. In another book, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China (1998), Dikötter references government publications claiming that eugenics is a vital tool in the enhancement of the "biological fitness" of the nation, heralding the twenty-first century as an era which will be dominated by "biological competition" between the "white race" and the "yellow race". A research team was indeed set up in November 1993 to isolate the quintessentially "Chinese genes" of the genetic code of human DNA.

The visit by Condaleeza Rice to Beijing in 2008 led to a flurry of racist postings on China's websites, with Rice stigmatized as "the ugliest in the world"... "I really can't understand how mankind gave birth to a woman like Rice"... Some directly called Rice a "black ghost", a "black pig"... "a witch"... "rubbish of Humans"... Some lamented: "Americans" IQ is low — how can they make a black bitch Secretary of State"... Others did not forget to stigmatize Rice with animal names: "chimpanzee", "crocodile", "a piece of rotten meat, mouse shit", "[something] dogs will find hard to eat".

Chinese elites have always been very cunning at using their quietness and cautiousness as a rhetorical device to delude Westerners with the quaint notion of Chinese innocence and purity. China is currently building an empire in Africa, based on the exploitation of cheap African labor, poor if any safety standards for workers, construction projects based on the cheapest and shoddiest Chinese materials — all in exchange for vital resources to feed the insatiable desires of 1.4 billion Chinese. That's the strategy: use dirt cheap construction materials to build up good will, then sweep in and take the natural resources. According to Peter Hitchens, Chinese companies have lax safety procedures and "employ African people in slave conditions."

Extermination of Ethnic Minorities in China

China's ethnic composition is almost exclusively Han, 91.9 percent of the population. The ethnic minorities (Mongols, Zhuang, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, and Uighurs) are treated as second class citizens. Tibetans are routinely described as superstitious, lazy, ignorant, and dirty. Tibet is an independent country occupied by Chinese imperialists; Han migration is destroying their heritage; Han companies dominate the main industries; the Chinese get all the best jobs.

The Tibetans are irritated that Chinese migrants eat their dogs (animals believed to be the last reincarnation before humans in Tibetan Buddhism); that the Chinese don't walk clockwise around temples and monasteries, and that they toss away their cigarettes at wooden temples and holy trees. The New York Times described an incidence of one man whose house was burned down for no evident reason as follows: when he tried to seek help, the authorities said, "What race are you? Tibetan? Go ask the Dalai Lama for help."

In 1949, Han Chinese amounted to only 5 percent of Xinjiang's population; today they are up to 41 percent. Urumqi, the capital city, consists of 75 percent Han Chinese, of the 2.5 million inhabitants. The average Chinese views the natives from Xinjiang as backward and as ungrateful for not appreciating the modern infrastructure bestowed upon them by the Han. In the summer of 2009, this region saw violent riots by 2,000 to 3,000 thousand Uighur workers and Xinjiang separatists, in which approximately 150 Han Chinese were killed. The Communist reprisals were swift; up to 50,000 police and security personnel were sent to restore order, more than 2000 Uighurs were detained, and a few dozen were executed. The policy of Sinicization was intensified; in May 2010 Beijing announced a new development strategy to pour $1.5 billion into the region, encourage the migration of more Han Chinese businessmen, together with a 'love the great motherland, build a beautiful homeland' patriotic education campaign that aimed to indoctrinate the Uighurs that "ethnic minorities are inseparable from the Han."

Clearly, it is superbly absurd and cowardly for leaders of European ethnicity in Vancouver to have endorsed a motion calling for more apologies in the context of a reality characterized by mass immigration from a country and an ethnic group that is currently complicit with vulgar and oppressive acts of racism.

Na7Soc #conspiracy reddit.com

[Comment under "Fact"]

Hitler was right and just.

Jewish commissars like Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda (Him and his Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system) and Yezhov had an active Jewish wife making all of their spawn racial Jews. Just Yagoda was responsible for killing at least 10,000,000 people. Their Cheka in total killed upwards of 80+ million people.

Yet FDR recognized the USSR his first year in office and immediately established aid programs to develop the troubled agrarian state into an industrial power which in turn supported Mao in the Chinese Civil War which the League of Nations said "Originated in Moscow" and cabled Roosevelt to ask him to "use his new ally Stalin to stop (the civil war in China).

Franklin Roosevelt actually demanded that Chiang Kai Shek allow Communists in government or lose all US economic and military aid. Chiang had an emergency meeting with his generals who said to commit an all out attack on Mao's forces and sent them on their 1000 mile march into Soviet territory thinking if they were no longer in China that would negate his demand but it just made FDR even more angry. FDR says "There is no threat here in Communism, some of my best friends are Communists" while Dean Acheson at Harvard literally says "There is no inherent obstacle to implementing (Marxist) Socialism in America through a series of New Deals".

The United States had it's first Communist President under Franklin Roosevelt. All of the damn near a hundred new bureaucracies he created were hotbeds of Communist recruitment, infiltration, and assignment. The 67th Congressional Investigation discovered that the Institute of Pacific Relations was a hotbed for communist infiltration, sending Communist Jews like Solomon Adler to back up Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau with their plan to crush Chiang's economy by illegally fixing the price of gold and silver which they later had to legalize. Solomon Adler used US Embassies to pass out propaganda to the Chinese calling Chiang a "Dictator for not allowing ALL Chinese representation in government" (Denying Communists) and the only way to fix it is to side with Mao against Chiang and secure US Economic/Military aid again.

The media also didn't report it when Mao's bandits attacked Japanese controlled Manchuria (which was a big deal because without their mainland assets Japan would have to go back to being third world again unable to industrialize, so they had an emergency military meeting and decided that Chiang was not capable of dealing with the Communists and since he was refusing Japanese help since he saw that as the first step to China becoming a vassal of Japan they would deal with the Communists themselves.

Western media portrayed it as Japanese Imperialism/Expansionism and totally neglected to mention the Soviet troop/tank presence in China supporting Mao.

And so this is why they had to invent the holocaust in order to create the false argument that we had to ally with Stalin since he is the "lesser of evils. It was clear that we were not fighting a just war and Britain had to invent what their Ministry of Intelligence called "Atrocity propaganda. Here is their letter to the Church and BBC demanding that they act convincing and passionate pushing these lies

Sir, I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter: It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us. But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for. We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia and Bessarabia only recently. We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country. We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them — and ourselves — from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject. Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the “Corpse Factory,” and the “Mutilated Belgian Babies,” and the “Crucified Canadians.” Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry. Your expression of belief in such may convince others. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, (signed) H. HEWET, ASSISTANT SECRETARY The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.

This letter is reproduced in a 1958 book entitled Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland by Edward J. Rozek, the image above is captured from the first edition (pages 209-210).

You can learn more about this greasy British action and the history behind it here

Anonymous Gossiper #conspiracy givemegossip.com

Depopulation test-run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized

"14 children are in serious condition, 22 are stable and one is in critical condition"
Quoting: [link to latino.foxnews.com]

What's especially alarming is that only 52 children were vaccinated in all, meaning that 75% of those receiving the vaccines are now either dead or hospitalized.

The vaccines were administered by the Mexican Social Security Institute, known as IMSS. The IMSS confirmed the deadly reactions occurred after children received injections of vaccines for tuberculosis, rotavirus and hepatitis B -- the same viral strains targeted by vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States.

As globalists now fully realize, vaccines are by far the best way to cull the human population because most people can be tricked into lining up and asking for them. Thus, there's no need to resort to all the difficulties used by the Nazis to commit genocide in World War II, involving complex logistics of railroad cars, gas chambers, construction of mass graves, prisoner tracking via IBM computing technology, and so on.

Learn more: [link to www.naturalnews.com]

Rev. Ralph Drollinger #fundie capmin.org

[From "Is God Judging America Today?"]

Some leading evangelicals believe and teach that America is now experiencing God’s judgment.

If that is the case, as a public servant who is sacrificing so much in your attempt to turn our nation around, it would stand to reason—if those Evangelical leaders are correct—that you are wasting your time. Are you laboring against a foregone conclusion? I think not. But let me qualify that: I do not believe America is experiencing the forsaking wrath of God, but yes, American is experiencing the consequential wrath of God.

I will explain what I mean by those terms—theological terms that you should have a working familiarity with—in this study.

Read on, my friend.

[...]

In Romans 1:18– 32 notice the following five identifying characteristics that surface when God pulls back and allows a person or group of people to go in the way of their wicked desires. I.e., God no longer restrains the fallen nature of man as He usually does.

[...]

Further down in this section of the passage suppressors became futile in their speculations (dialogismo). Speculations is perhaps better translated into the English understanding of “argumentation or reasoning.”3The Greek sentence structure here carries the idea of the vanity that results from godless reasoning. Accordingly, professing to be wise they became fools (moraine). It is not difficult to figure out the meaning of moraino given its English transliteration: moron.
[...]
Man is created in the image of God whereas the remainder of the created order is not (Genesis 1:26). Therefore mankind is separate, special and superior as it relates to all God has made. It explicitly follows from Genesis 1:26 that mankind is not equal or subservient to all that God has created; conversely he has preeminence over creation and the environment. Properly understood, God has appointed man to be His steward over the earth.

Clearly indicative of God’s forsaking wrath is when the abandoned serve the creature rather than the creator.
[...]
Indicative of forsaking wrath is a proclivity toward lesbianism and homosexuality.

In this next portion of the passage Scripture indicates the direct result—what is secured—is a depraved mind.
[...]
Men and women inherently know what are the right and wrong things to do. A good understanding of the flow of this passage, and what depravity means is summarized by this thought: the mind that finds God worthless becomes worthless itself. It is debauched, deceived, and deserving only of God’s wrath.
[...]
Consequential wrath is best understood through the parallel idea we commonly refer to as sowing and reaping. Galatians 6:7 states, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.To illustrate in one of many ways: If a person or a nation sows debt, it will reap in due time the results of financial crisis. Whenever an individual or corporate group of individuals violate the inviolate precepts of God’s Word, he, she, they or the institution will suffer the respective consequences. Most assuredly America is facing this form of God’s judgment.

Let us backtrack now and answer the question whether America is experiencing the forsaking wrath of God. Unlike the ease of answering the question of the existence of consequential wrath, ascertaining the possible existence of forsaking wrath requires a much more complex biblical analysis. What follows are six reasons why I personally do not believe America as a national entity, is presently subject to the forsaking wrath of God.
[...]
America is not similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, in the sense that there were not any faithful to be found (cf. Genesis 18:22–33). In fact to the contrary, America today is populated by tens of millions of faithful followers of Christ!

Many are those who have glibly postured, “If God does not judge America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!” But such thinking fails to take into account what went on between Abraham and God in Genesis 18:22–33 before He judged Sodom and Gomorrah!
[...]
In fact, today’s America is not by in large characterized by people who are unfaithful to God’s precepts. Conversely, there is only a small minority of individuals who are grossly disobedient to God, individuals to whom the five indicators of Romans 1 apply. Unfortunately for the vast majority of faithful individuals in America, too many of the unfaithful have been allowed by the faithful to gain high positions of influence in our culture: high positions in our government, our educational system, our media and our entertainment industry. This is tragic, unfortunate, and costly.

Those individuals who are rebuked by God’s forsaking wrath are largely responsible for God’s consequential wrath on our nation.

Reem Allouche and Atika Latifi #fundie dailymail.co.uk

Muslim men are allowed to hit their wives if they disobey them and domestic violence is a 'beautiful blessing', according to the women's branch of a radical Islamic group.

Sydney primary school teacher Reem Allouche told the women's arm of hardline political group Hizb ut-Tahrir that men are permitted to hit women with sticks.

During the 30-minute discussion at a meeting in Sydney's west, Ms Allouche and fellow panellist Atika Latifi - who are both wearing headscarves - describe how beating women is a 'symbolic act'.

At one point they even demonstrated how to use a small stick called a 'sivaak' to hit 'disobedient' women.

In a video of the debate, which has been posted on Facebook, Ms Allouche says men should use the sivaak to punish their wives.

She then uses one of the sticks to hit Ms Latifi while the pair laugh.

Other permissible methods to punish women involve using a twisted scarf or piece of fabric, the women say.

Ms Allouche says the act is 'symbolic', while Ms Latifi claims it's 'a beautiful blessing'.

The women agree that they should only be beaten if they are caught 'committing sin' - pointing out that this means seriously disrespecting Allah or their husbands.

'Disobedience to the husband. Immoral acts or cheating. Admitting anyone to the home that the husband doesn't like,' Ms Latifi explains.

Ms Allouche smiles as she adds that does not mean a man can beat his wife simply for not cooking dinner, with the women agreeing that violence should only be used to 'promote tranquility'.

The pair agree that men have the right to beat their wives because husbands take a 'leadership' position within the family.

'It goes hand in hand that he would have the right to undertake disciplinary ­measures,' Ms Allouche says.

Ms Latifi adds: 'He is permitted - not obliged, not encouraged - but permitted, to hit her. That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.'

During the debate, Ms Allouche says wives who disobey Muslim teachings could face a beating from their husband, but only because 'he loves his wife, he fears for his wife'.

'It's almost a natural consequence,' she adds.

'He's not responding through anger or frustration or rage. He's responding in obedience to Allah's commands, in a measured and staged way, because we know when people talk about violence against women, often it happens in the heat of the moment, in anger, in frustration and what-not, whereas here, it's managed.'

Ms Latifi claims violence should be a last resort for husbands, saying they should admonish them first.

If that does not work, he should 'refuse to share the bed with her, not being intimate with her'.

Finally, if that does not work, he 'is permitted to hit her'.

'And what a beautiful blessing, that he said not to take the steps at the one time, but one after the other,' she continues.

'And what is the third option all about? What kind of hitting? It should not cause pain.'

The all-women meeting was held in Lakemba in Sydney's inner west, The Australian reported.

The government considered banning Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2007 but eventually deemed it to be a political group.

Islamic leader Keysar Trad apologised at the weekend for saying hitting women was a 'last resort', admitting to Sky News presenter Andrew Bolt that he had made a 'slip up'.

Liptusg #sexist reddit.com

Many incels are neurally incompatible with the female personality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiterallyASoyboy #sexist incels.co

(Note: He is reacting to a video of a woman with only one eye.)

RE: [Brutal] Femcels can exist bro if she's deformed

her looksmatch isn't even here, he was thrown into the dumpster when he was a baby

Yet she would never date a deformed man, and a normal looking woman would probably rather die than do so. The most ridiculous part of it all is that her face doesn't put me off, but somehow ITcels and journalists will say that our standards are too high, when I'm literally willing to date a deformed woman.

I fucking hate the west, everyone is so BLATANTLY disingenuous, I sometimes have trouble telling whether or not it's all a parody of itself. Then we get women and simps mystifying their own shallow instincts to select based upon physical attributes as love, the very same instincts which have caused men to brutally kill and exploit each other for as long as humans have existed. But they don't care, they don't care about facing the truth of the world, they care about deluding themselves into believing that this shit is magical and meaningful. I wish it would all just fucking burn, we would all be better off if this planet were home to nothing but dust and rock.

It seemed like there were pictures of different guys with the one eyed girl in that video but after viewing it again I think it was just all pictures of her with her bf Conner.

There's always one guy that's willing sometimes as a way of validating their existence and showing others what good understanding people they are
@LiterallyASoyboy have you thought this too?

Shouldn't surprise anyone. There will always be at least a few guys lining up for any foid. Idk where all these guys are coming from.
Some people suspect it's because good looking normies and chadlites are orbiting multiple women.

Well it's just ironic how men don't tend to have particularly high standards for looks, despite the bluepilled narrative suggesting that we do. When I say that her face doesn't bother me, it's not virtue signalling, I mean it. If I enjoyed being around her (jfl) and it felt good to have sex and physical intimacy with her, then what does it matter? Part of this is probably due to me being disgusted by my own urges and innate lookism, so yeah, it's not entirely due to being naturally this way. Tbh if I could make my sex drive just vanish, then that's what I'd do. I hate almost everything about this world, and physical attraction is no exception.

What people miss is that a lot of chadlites and chads that date down aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to seem like better less shallow people than they actually are. A lot of it is virtue signaling.
You can't say this kind of thing anywhere without getting shouted down, threatened and branded a bigot by women and those sympathetic to them.
In this way women have worked together to ensure these mismatched SMV relationships where the guy is more NT and attractive come under no criticism and it is accepted as the new normal.
It is a subtle racket they have going on.

Yeah for most people their whole lives are about image, so it wouldn't surprise me.I guess that's the difference, my feelings are mostly due to my own emotions, whereas the chads you're describing are probably just being dishonest. Of course it's easier to not care so much if you're unattractive yourself, at least as a male anyway. Clearly it must be different for females.

Femcels are as real as santa

tbh

#1980253 #fundie fstdt.com

I'm just wondering if the pro-gay marriage side has really any idea of the implications legal marriage has, not just in the US but in the other 200 something countries as well.

Marriage comes with various benefits that the governments provides the couple. So in order to justify gay marriage you would need to:

a. prove that the union of two men or two women provides any tangible benefit for society (I don't believe there is any, as the judge correctly pointed out, it's just entertainment between two people. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't wanna either discourage or encourage that decision.)

b. make it merely a formal recognition solely for the purposes of maybe having an easier time to notify next-of-kin in case one of them dies... or default inheritance

Why on Earth should they have housing benefits, health benefits, tax benefits or whatever else is beyond me. Stand on your own ground. What's next? Are we gonna give 2 non-romantic friends special rights as well? Just because they're friends? That's their business, but they're not entitled to other poeple's taxes.

And no two gays parenting is not equal to natural reproduction between a man a woman. It's better than being an orphan or being raised by a single person, but it's idiotic to pretend that a natural mother and father are completely interchangeable with any set of 2 (or more) strangers. There are so many extra issues involved when one or none of the parents is actually the biological parent, they're less likely to bond well for example step fathers are far more likely to abuse children than natural fathers. They rarely have the same investment as deep down they know it's not really their child. Not having a male or female role model can also pose problems for the child's identity development. Young men with no father figures are disproportionately more criminal and badly adjusted than those with one.

The most idiotic and dangerous aspect of all of this is that now one man and one woman marrying and having children is seen as no better in any way than a surrogate impregnating herself and then deliberately giving her own son away to two men, getting some money and having no further involvement in that child's life. Normally we would call that a bad deadbeat mother. It's bad to abandon your kids... unless you're giving them away to two men.

I'm not anti-gay, I don't find anal sex between two men immoral (doubt I'd have to be lying to you if I told you that it's not a super high risk behavior that can get you a lot of infections if you're not careful) but I'm also not anti-traditional family and the LGBT movement has proven that it doesn't respect it.

Churches should not have to be forced to marry them either if it goes against their theology. Bakeries should be free to refuse service if they oppose gay marriage on moral or religious or whatever grounds.

HenryVIIIyes #conspiracy en.wikipedia.org

There must be some discussion of the possibility that Hamlet is based on the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I realize the orthodox scholars hold on Wikipedia, and any discussion of the authorship question is brutally suppressed.

But many prominent people now believe the traditional story is wrong. A consensus for Edward de Vere as the true author seems to have arisen among the anti-Stratfordians. So it seems reasonable to give some discussion of Hamlet in light of Edward de Vere. To do so would be folly. The Oxfordian point of view is not a fringe theory.

Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai #sexist reliablefatwas.com

Among the sweeping allegations of baatil made by a Dr. Hargey is his claim:

“Men and women have identical fundamental rights, with the Qur’an emphasising equality in the spiritual,intellectual, economic and legal areas.”

For this personal view of his, Dr. Hagey is unable to adduce any substantiation from the Qur’aan or Hadith. This view is at variance with the Shariah. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and proofs of the Shariah will establish the fallacy of this claim and make manifest that Dr. Hagey’s opinion is devoid of any Islamic credibility.

In the aforementioned statement, Dr. Hagey has made a sweeping claim without tendering the basis and proof for the claim which is couched in ambiguity. He speaks of “identical fundamental rights” without defining these. He should elaborate and expound his conception of “fundamental rights” so that the fallacy of his arguments in relation to the Shariah will become more vivid to Muslims. Ambiguity is always a cover behind which refuge is sought for unsubstantiated opinions and views.

It is quite a simple matter to launch an attack on the established institutions of Islam by means of high-sounding and ambiguous phrases. But, it is entirely a different matter to define, elaborate and substantiate such claims of baatil as are being traded under the name of islam. To enable us to comment further and in greater detail on this particular opinion of Dr. Hargey, it is necessary that he defines his understanding of “identical fundamental rights”.

In the second part of his claim (cited above), Dr. Hargey attempts to show that according to the Qur’aan men and women enjoy total equality in spiritual, intellectual, economic and legal areas. But, on the contrary the Qur’aan and the Sunnah refute this contention of equality of the sexes, an obsession with the modernists of our time. The following differences or Islamic differences between the sexes will conclusively assert the fallacy of Dr.Hargey’s view.

* According to the Shariah a woman can never be the Imaam in a congregation in which males are present. On the other hand, a man is always the Imaam in any type of congregation.

* If women happen to be performing Salaat in a jamaat in which men are, their position is right at the back–right behind the rows of children.

* When the Imaam in jamaat Salaat makes an error, his attention is drawn to the error my the muqtadis calling out “Subhaanallaah! But, it is not permissible for a woman who happens to be in the congregation to call out Subhaanallaah! to draw the attention of the Imaam. Her voice has to remain concealed.

* Nafl Salaat and Nafl Saum (Fasting) are acts of Ibaadat of very high merit. But, a woman is not permitted to resort to these acts of Ibaadat without the consent of her husband. On the contrary, her husband does not require her permission.

* A woman was never ever appointed a Nabi by Allah Ta’alla. This was the office exclusively of males.

* Juma’ Salaat is compulsory on men, but not on women.

* Eid Salaat is obligatory on men, but not on women.

* Taraaweeh Salaat is Sunnatul Muakkadah in Jamaat for men, but not for women. They are exhorted to perform individually at home.

* According to the Qur’aan Shareef the share of inheritance of a female is half that of the male.

* According to the Qur’aan the testimony (shahaadat) of two women is equivalent to that of one man.

* According to the Qur’aan men possess the right to discipline and punish women, even beating them when necessary while women have no reciprocal rights even if their husbands are in error.

* Men possess the right to administer divorce, not women. Women have no such right. Even khulah (the procedure whereby a woman buys her separation from her husband) is dependent on the acceptance of the husband.

* The husband is entitled to recall his wife after having given one or two talaaq even if the wife does not desire to be reconciled. It is his right to act unilaterily and retake her within the iddat period.

* The testimony of women is not admissable in crimes of the hudood category, e.g. theft, adultery. Even if a thousand pious, honourable and knowledgeable females bear testimony in such crimes, their evidence is not admissable.

These Islamic differences between man and woman are sufficient to highlight the fact that the Shariah distinguishes between the sexes, does not provide for identical rights for men and women and decrees the superiority of man over woman. These differences enumerated here will serve to indicate that the Shariah rejects the views and opinions of Dr.Hargey as blatantly baatil.

Dr. Hargey and other modernists of the same opinions should understand that to force equality between inequals is in fact reprehensible inequality, morally wrong and unjust. The Islamic inequality between man and woman is no insult to womankind. The glowing statements of the Shariah speaking highly of women negate any such charge which the enemies of Islam level.

In simple terms the lesser role lesser resporisibility and lesser rank to woman — a rank in subservience to men – all stem from the natural and inherent spiritual, physical and intellectual quality and condition of women. In these areas Allah Ta’ala has created in man dominance and in women subservience.

This state of affairs has been decreed by the Wisdom of Allah Ta’ala and the opinions of Dr. Hargey will not be able to alter the immutable realities created by Allah Ta’ala. Nor does the Ummah require or desire the personal opinions and views of doctors of philosophies, for the path and direction of the Ummah of Islam have already been fixed fourteen centuries ago. And that Path is the Path propagated by the Ulama-e-Haqq – the Path in which great emphasis is and will always be placed on “ritual and externals”, on dress codes” and codes of Islam which Hargey has branded as “empty observances”. May Allah Ta’ ala protect the Imaan of all Believers.

Some incels #sexist #conspiracy #kinkshaming reddit.com

Re: It's already beginning

image

[Transcript: The Daily Signal: The American Psychological Association says monogamy is the new bigotry.]

(OnlyTrueCels)

Mental health professions are full of subversive cucks, wanting the collapse of Western civilization.

I wonder who could be behind such a thing? Who could have such motives.....

(Charlie_truth2)

Just go see a therapist bro ! Meanwhile this is what they do

This is what female health "professionals" think of men patients

(GayAlienSkull)

seriously, therapy is such a fucking joke. i can't believe how much money I wasted on it. if therapy actually helped you, you never had an real problems to begin with.

(PhilMcCracken760)

At least the pic isn’t a cuck and his wife’s bull

Of course it isn't. They need to sell this to all kinds of men, remember? The one who thinks he could totally pull a threesome with that secretary at work if only his wife would get on board with the idea. The one who thinks that he'll be more romantically successful if his dating pool included married women. The one who has had thoughts of cheating for years. The simp who thinks that women having more sex will result in pussy trickling down to him.

We know goddamn well that the reality is closer to your vision than the one shown to us because it's a buyer's market for even the homeliest of women whereas only exemplary men are similarly desired. But the powers that be need to hide that if Billy Beta is going to get on board with the latest and greatest assault on the nuclear family.

(Concerned-father2)

The picture shows a man with two women but we all know that 99% of these relationships will be one woman and two (or more) men. Same trick propaganda they tried to pull on us in the early 2000’s, promising trickle down effect after sexual liberalisation. Not falling for that bullshit again. And she will be holding hands with chad, while the main hubby will be tagging along behind like a dog.

Missouri House of Represenatives #fundie house.mo.gov

[Here is a resolution recently up in the House of the Missouri State Government. No, it's not a law, just a resolution.]

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

boojies #conspiracy #crackpot #fundie incels.co

Emergency! Idolator attack against U.S. government, administer ketamine or NMDAR antagonists

don't administer NMDAR PAMs, administer ketamine immediately. NMDAR PAMs just make it worse because they are associating them to their idols. I suggested techniques that make it worse because they use the opposite type of a God. I order you to immediately administer NMDAR antagonists, to the fullest extent of my ability to order such. Idolators are taking control of the USA, protect with NMDAR antagonist administration immediately to all governmental officials.
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern

Finally, we have demonstrated that attention to engaging social stimuli not only activates the DMN but also deactivates the TPN. In a subsequent study[30] it was shown that this pattern of DMN activation and TPN deactivation was present for humanizing depictions of individuals, whereas dehumanizing depictions, which are associated with decreased moral concern, either involved decreased activity in the DMN or increased activity in the TPN. Taken together, these findings suggest that we are neurologically constrained from simultaneously exercising moral concern and analytic thinking.

Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern

We suggest that this structural feature of the brain underlies the long noted anecdotal tension between materialistic and spiritual worldviews. This linkage is supported by three observations. First, brain areas implicated in analytic thinking (TPN) support cognitive process essential for maintaining a naturalistic world view (e.g. thinking about objects, mechanisms and causes; [29, 49, 71, 73–77]), whereas the brain areas implicated in moral concern (DMN) are associated with thinking about phenomena which have traditionally been thought of as non-physical, namely minds and emotions [78–83]. Second, brain areas associated with materialism (TPN) tend to be suppressed when brain areas associated with moral concern (DMN) are activated [29, 71, 72]. This might explain the tendency to link mind with spirit, i.e. the view that minds and emotions are associated with the extra- or super- natural. Third, brain areas associated with analytic thinking are associated with religious disbelief [73, 74, 84], and brain areas associated with moral concern are associated with religious belief [73] and prayer [84, 85].

Dissociate them from the unconstitutional religious idol immediately with NMDAR antagonists such as ketamine, nitrous oxide, PCP, and trust high ranking by scientometric medical officials, and tell them to close their eyes.
CLose your eyes, shield yourselves from the Idols, make marital law or something if you need to.

Christian Answers #fundie christiananswers.net

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said…

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.”6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17).

But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising, God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.”1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity.”6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41).11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

[See: What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer]

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

based_meme #fundie reddit.com

It's so disgusting to see so many Americans adopt this black urban/gangsta flava. I'm honestly of the opinion that these speech patterns affect the way they think and behave. Utterly disgusting.

They do. See: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

The hypothesis says (roughly) that language affects your reality and your perception of it, and the evidence is in brain activation patterns shown by fmri scans. Some languages, for example, have more words for one color and its many shades, whereas another will have just one word.

When they did fmri scans of people coming from a culture where their language described the many shades and were shown different shades, different parts of their brains lit up to allow them to perceive the different shades of a color. The same test on a different group with just one word for the color showed little (or none, can't recall the details) activation in the brain. This means that because they didn't have a word for it, they literally were unable to perceive it.

The implications of this hypothesis are incredible and, quite frankly, amazing in the truest sense of the word. The elites probably knew of this already and helped push for all of this gender identity language bullshit with all of the made up words in cultural Marxism, which explains why the SJW types are the way they are (toxic and utterly stupid, completely void of logical reasoning, and this easily controllable). The language they've made up has warped their perception of reality.

As an aside, I'm beginning to understand why someone like Chris Langan made up a ton of neologisms to help explain his ontological theories.

Father Dan Reehil and the St Edward Catholic school #fundie theguardian.com

A private Catholic school in Nashville has removed the Harry Potter books from its library, saying they include “actual curses and spells, which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits”.

Local paper the Tennessean reported that the pastor at St Edward Catholic school, which teaches children of pre-kindergarten age through to 8th grade, had emailed parents about JK Rowling’s series to tell them that he had been in contact with “several” exorcists who had recommended removing the books from the library.

“These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception,” Rev Dan Reehil wrote. “The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.”

Curses and spells included in the bestselling books, which were published between 1997 and 2007, include “avada kedavra”, the “killing” curse; “crucio”, the torture curse; and “imperio”, which allows the wizards to control others’ actions.

Rebecca Hammel, superintendent of schools for the Catholic diocese of Nashville, told the Tennessean that Reehil had sent the email after an inquiry from a parent. She added that “he’s well within his authority to act in that manner”, because “each pastor has canonical authority to make such decisions for his parish school”.

account1234isback1 #racist reddit.com

I've seen another theory, suggesting that although Asians have all the essentials for intelligence, they're effectively oversocialized. They're low in psychopathy, which is requires to produce geniuses. They're too conscientious and agreeable.

Contrast this with Africans, who score low in IQ, but also score low in conscientiousness, or Jews, who score high in IQ but do not suffer the oversocialization that keeps Asians from producing Nobel prize winners. Jews as individuals are willing to enrage the entire world against them, even the Jewish community.

Marxism and Anarchism are effectively a revolt against the values of 19th century Bourgeois liberal Jewish culture. When white nationalists accuse Jews of hating white culture, they don't realize that the tendency of high IQ, low conscientiousness people is to revolt against the culture they grow up, whatever that culture may be, it's not a personal hatred of white people.

As someone very low in conscientious myself, I find myself challenging everything that I see as having authority, it's my natural tendency. It's typically Jewish too. My old friend in the US used to go shoplifiting for fun in Wallmart with Jewish anarchists, typical low conscientiousness high IQ behavior. How many people go shoplifting with Chinese anarchists? When thinking back of the Jewish girl I fell in love with compared with Chinese girls and Dutch girls I met, I found that she appreciated my eccentric behavior and ideas that I tried to hide from her, the ones that high conscientiousness Dutch and Chinese girls would find repulsive.*

Asian culture seems to place a strong emphasis on maintaining social harmony, whereas Jewish culture (and upper class white male culture in a broader sense) revel in continual strife and disagreement, as long as it stays verbal. In Singapore, when a college professor disagrees with some government policy, he doesn't write to the newspaper or organize a protest as it would disturb the social harmony, instead, he privately tries to contact the government official with his suggestion. I think that's where the great divergence comes from.

André du Pôle #sexist returnofkings.com

Considered from a long memory point of view, feminism is quite recent, owing its exponential development to a very specific modern historical context. The matriarchal tribes Leftist anthropologists have been crazy about are but a historical aberration. All civilizations and peoples who were able to go beyond the small tribe stage and erect kingdoms or empires were patriarchal.

The irony of modernity lies in men having invented most of what exist out there, toiled in steaming factories, dug up dark mine drifts, fought in bloody wars, and managed to produce an incredible wealth—for the result of work to be taken away by entitled, ungraceful womyn.

If you look closely, the suffragettes and their ilk did not revolt because “oppression of women”, but to the contrary, in a context where men were already weak and womanly ways were already dominant. Nineteenth century American prostitutes had many things wives did not—like money, glamour, the ability to travel and fuck many wealthy guys, and even men’s attention—and they have set a precedent.

Likewise, if you look at the Belle Époque (roughly 1870-1914) art, it overflows with sensual, bewitching beautiful women, accompanied by high-status or wealthy men orbiting around. Men of these times had already turned into weaklings, proud to be mesmerized by some lipstick-wearing bitch. Far from being “oppressive”, these men were dependent, and spoiled women could easily gauge money and power from them.

This trend of female takeover, be it through seduction, subtle social power-grabbing or direct threats against men, has shaped many of last century changes. Our masculine potentialities were buried in taboo and oblivion by the blue pill, and now that we are developing ourselves again, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to roll back the degeneracy and illegitimate powers we were taught to take for granted. With this is mind, we need a traditional, extra-modern perspective from which to stand and strike hard at the Libtard Church.

The Law Code of Manu, an ancient Hindu legal code, is exactly the kind of content that can feed a “neo-traditional” perspective. Its rich contents led me to write on it twice on ROK, and now is a third and last Law of Manu piece specifically about relations between the sexes. What did an allegedly supra-human lawmaker say on women—and that allowed for a civilization standing the test of time?

...

To regulate the market and prevent an unholy alliance between party girls and notches-racking assholes, the Code states that a man must be older than the girl he woos: “a 30 year old man should marry a charming girl of 12 years, or an 18 year old, a girl of 8 years or sooner” (9.94). In other words, instead of giving way to the temptation and throwing themselves in a cutting-throat competition for notches, young men have to master their own desires while getting a betrothal with younger girls. Then, as a well-deserved reward, they get a good spouse, each of them peaks at the same time, each can naturally enjoy the other—the 30 year old enjoys the young female who enjoys an older, dominant male—and build a home.

...

3. Women ought to be made dependent for their own good

The Code states:

" Even in her own home, a female—whether she is a child, a young woman, or an old lady—should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control; as a young woman, under her husband’s; and when her husband is dead, under her sons’. She must never seek to live independently. (5.147-8)"

If women depend from their families and ought to be traded or cared of by men, this makes pairing easier and more straightforward. Being traded, women can focus on their own value and avoid being damaged by their own foolish choices. Also, as they are hypergamic, women ought to be made socially inferior for their own satisfaction: if they get equal to men, they will despise men of equal value and want for a higher value one at the expense of whom they should pair with.

Women belonging to their families are limited in their ability to lure any male into their traps: if they do, they will likely get the wrath of their responsible relatives.

" Day and night men should keep their women from acting independently; for, attached as they are to sensual pleasures, men should keep them under their control. (9.2)

Drinking, associating with bad people, living away from the husband; travelling, sleeping, and staying in the houses of others—these are the six things that corrupt women… Lechery, fickleness of mind, and hard-heartedness are innate in them… Recognizing this, a man should make the utmost effort at guarding them. (9.13-6)"

...

5. Husband and wife do not have to be “equal”

Some things ought to be checked as relatively equal between a husband and a wife, such as the caste, social value, or being in one’s prime, for the marriage to work well, with the exception of “times of adversity” when higher caste men can marry down. Everything, though, does not have to be the same.

A woman realizes herself and flourishes through her place in the family. She ought to be dutiful to have her proper center and dignity. Therefore,

" Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god. For women, there is no independent sacrifice, vow, or fast; a woman will be exalted in heaven by the mere fact that she obediently served her husband. (5.154-6)"

On the other hand, a husband can go away for years on which his wife ought to maintain the home, provided he secures some resource for her to live on (9.74-6). He is also free to repudiate his wife if she loathes him without a proper reason. Specific reasons are specified by the Code, such as if he turns into an unrepentant alcoholic, or becomes “foul-mouthed” (9.81).

Men and women’s respective roles and different, complementary, and unequal. Modernists should get over it instead of wrecking social life in the name of an equality between non-existent abstract individuals.

A man’s striving expresses mostly on the public scene, outside from the house, while the man’s quest finds its center in himself and larger projects. A man ought to be able to thrive outside, whereas his wife, by being supportive, realizes herself at the same time that she helps him. Also note that risks are properly shared here, as the woman may seem in a more risky situation at home, when the husband meets with the risks outside.

...

Conclusion

That the modern trends of “emancipation” of women would actually unravel into a catastrophe for most men, not to mention our civilization as a whole, could have been predicted by the wise men living millennia ago. Particular vocations, social equilibrium, good chances and fair trade were ensured by the wisdom and fidelity of traditional men.

As we toil for taking back our institutions, countries and civilization, it is also necessary to glean discernment from (almost) timeless Scriptures. Odds are, the most familiar we become with antique wisdom, the more specifically modern trends will look like blind or monstrous deviations. This may be unsettling. I could bet my last penny, though, that in the long run it will be understood as a necessary step for getting outside the rotten world we were born in and avoid falling for the same mistakes again and again.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Until recently, everyone in power everywhere in the world was culturally aligned with the Blue Empire, or at least reluctant to be openly unaligned. Every government, every head of government, every government school, every university everywhere, every television station (including Fox), every newspaper (including the Murdoch newspapers). The Cathedral would from time to time go into high dudgeon because not everyone was as enthusiastic as they would like, but anyone who outright opposed them was low status and powerless.

Universities and their endowments are still converged, and all the mass media and internet giants are converged. Trump has few loyalists among his political appointees in government. But it is a start. A start that denies the inevitability of Blue Empire power, a start that tells us that surrender is not the only option. That Trump had the last laugh over Gay Mulatto gives every man a shot of testosterone. That Melanie is hot, while Michelle belongs in a zoo, makes every progressive everywhere look and feel bad.

When we successfully do the Dissolution of the Monasteries on the universities, confiscating their endowments, and ending their power as gatekeepers to high status high pay jobs, when we are no longer ruled by the clergy, that will be victory, and the rest will be mopping up operations. It is a long way from here to there, some very bad things will happen on the way, and there may well be a red terror and a civil war along the route, but in the far distance, we can see hope for victory. If Trump fails, he will nonetheless have pointed the way for one that will follow.

The best outcome would be that Democrats launch a coup prematurely, leading to civil war prematurely, and lose it, leaving Trump as King, as happened in the Social War of the Roman Republic, when the Populares played their hand too soon and too recklessly. Worst outcome would be that they launch their coup, get away with it, leading to a rapid succession of coups by ever more extreme factions, as in the coups against Czar Nicolas and King Louis XVI, and, as in those coups, we launch the civil war too late, and lose it. But we have something that they did not have. We can see the pattern, making it possible to step off that path early rather than late, getting an outcome more like that of Social War of Rome, than the French and Russian Revolutions. That would buy us time enough for technological progress in gene editing technologies to save the day, assuming we can fix the fertility problem. The failure of the Roman elite to reproduce led to endless waves of elite replacement, resulting in chaos and instability, so Sulla’s restoration failed to last. To fix the fertility problem, we have to restrict sexual female choice. We have to force women to get married, to stay with their husbands, to refrain from sex with anyone other than their husbands, and to obey their husband. Even if we have gene editing, still takes two to raise a child. A high IQ species necessarily has a long childhood, which requires cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between husbands and wives, which equilibrium requires substantial external enforcement. Peoples that allow female sexual choice disappear. Rome got in trouble despite Sulla’s restoration because its elite kept disappearing, resulting a dangerous degree of social mobility at the top.

Vox Day #sexist voxday.blogspot.com

[A gunman who shot dead eight people in an upmarket beauty salon in California is said to have gone on the rampage after losing a custody battle over his son. Scott Dekraai, who is the former husband of one of the stylists, is said to have shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.

His ex-wife, Michelle, is also reportedly among those who were killed. The 42-year-old, who used to work in the military, had allegedly threatened violence after losing a court case against Michelle - who was using the name Huff - over the custody of their seven-year-old son, Dominic.]

The problem is twofold. First, the family court system is totally unjust. Second, there is simply no other recourse for the man who has been forcibly robbed of his children by the unholy alliance of ex-wife and family court. I have zero sympathy for any woman who would utilize the force of the law to deprive a man of his children, no matter how unhappy the marriage. In fact, one can quite reasonably argue that it is in the interest of women to demand a more equitable family court system; this should become more apparent when "winning" a child custody case amounts to a potential death lottery.

The ironic thing is that society tends to applaud a man who do anything and pay any price to get back his child. There are movies entirely based on this premise. So, why should it surprise anyone that increasing numbers of men are willing to resort to breaking the very law that took their children away from them? Throughout the West, the Muslims have shown the way: threaten sufficient violence in a credible manner and the law will be modified according to your will.

Anonymous Coward #racist godlikeproductions.com

The White Race Is The Only Race To Never Have Created Anything Independently.

Every other race has had empires and kingdoms spanning millennia.

In the case of the Africans and the Chinese several.

The real point however is that every non White Race had empires that they built entirely independent of any other races involvement.

Only the White race has had to exploit and steal the inventions and labor of people who they had conquered who were already waning from old age anyway.

Every invention you list has non white finger prints on it in some way whether at the design stage or the implementation stage not to mention the improvement stage.

White peoples "Grand" Civilization is only less than 500 years old and is borne out of theft,falsifying history and genocide.


Before they ranged from Noble Savages in the North the Nords down to primitive savages called Celts and brutal nomadic savages called Huns and Vandals.

The Romans despised them and actually NAMED them Barbarians and the Greeks knew not of them as their gaze was focused on Africa exclusively which was where the Greeks were Civilized.

Persians,Babylonians,Egyptians and Indians all raised up and perfected Civilization before a White Man learned to walk on two legs instead of four.

The Whole point of a New World Order is because whites cannot lay a legitimate claim to the old one.

Finally, every race on earth has gone through the stages of Evolving from primitive to Civilized EXCEPT the White Man.

Why?

Because the White Man is so new that he was raised up by already evolved non White races who TAUGHT him civilization.

So he never had to go through the stages everyone else had.

NOW you know why the White Man seeks out Alien beings to explain his development and origin because his Luciferian Ego MK Ultra programming cannot bear the truth.
:face_yes:

So when you see white people posting to EACH OTHER how great they are and how wonderful civilization is that "They created" what you are actually seeing is a people who are not convinced.

The reason they are not convinced is because they can feel the absence of history in their story.

They are too new and are trying to convince themselves and anyone they THINK they influence.

The jig is up. In the end the White Man ALWAYS has to resort to violence to maintain control because he is counterfeit meaning not the real deal.

this is why he will Always,always,always break any and every Contract. He cannot relax lest someone catch on.

nooo3949, TheBlackpillMafia & MentalAnon #sexist reddit.com

Re: Instead of making fun of him for his opinions, something that he can change, they rather make fun of him for something that he cannot control.

image

(nooo3949)
There's this hole I work closely with who drops blackpills constantly. She is a bit older post-wall hole with a few kids. We're developers so you would think that even female developers would have some iota of common sense - nope. In fact she got her job literally through a 'women out of work' program. JFL at getting a job just for having a hole, while men fight over the scraps.

Getting back on topic - any time she gets frustrated/angry in a code review or talks shit about someone else, she inevitably brings up their dating status. I'm sure she shits on me all the time when im not around. It's her go-to insult.

"No wonder he's single"
"No woman would ever want to live with him"

It doesn't even matter that the disagreement is in no way personal and has nothing to do with dating - insulting a mans sexual status is the default argument for holes. They constantly think about your SMV in their heads, regardless of the circumstance and it is the basis for which they treat you.

She even talks about hot guys at our workplace to me, no doubt she has cheated on her husband or tried to. If we lived in a better country with morality police, i'd report her for adultery.

(TheBlackpillMafia)

I like Ben. He advocates for virginity until marriage so I like him

Fuck him. Hes a typical tradcon who shits on incels, talks about how wonen should have rights, and sucks off megacorps and israel

(MentalAnon)

Low IQ. We’re not gonna get anywhere by trying eliminating women’s rights. No one’s going to support that. You have to think realistically. Ben Shapiro is an ass, but a monogamous society is better than a hypergamous one at least. Bashing on him is only going to make SJW IT cucks more prominent.

I disagree. The time has never been more ripe for taking away women's rights. People are starting to wake up to how miserable they are trying to be men. Hating feminism is the new hip thing. There's also the amount of tension in general making people crave stronger leaders and more defined roles. We can do it.

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

There’s been a major shift in the public attitude concerning what is proper sex since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. When I was a kid in the 1980s, it was already taken for granted that sexual mores from earlier times were outdated, and only backwards dinosaurs adhered to them. For example, the idea that there’s anything wrong with extramarital sex has been laughed at for decades now. Additionally, old taboos concerning other sexual activities, despite clear evidence of their danger in the form of AIDS, divorce, etc., were portrayed as out of date and oppressive. Pornography was deemed legitimate political speech and therefore a right, and obscenity laws repealed.

To listen to the supporters of the sexual revolution, you’d think this would have led us to some sexual utopia where everyone’s sexual needs are met with no problem, but the human impulse to control sexuality returned in fairly short order, only in a different form. The result is that today, we still face a great – perhaps even greater – amount of control where sex is concerned, and a lot more people are locked up for sex crimes than in the bad old days of “oppression.” What compounds this problem is that it’s possible that even more men are sexually repressed now than a hundred years ago.

Today, there are essentially two kinds of bad sex: “nonconsensual” sex and sex with underage people. The bad actors in this regime are overwhelmingly male for a couple reasons. First, forcible rape is far more likely to be committed by males than females, for obvious reasons. Secondly, men generally prefer younger partners and women older. One could argue that prostitution remains in the “bad sex” category, but prostitution is increasingly held to be an example of male sexual exploitation. Examples from Superbowl sex hysteria and the Secret Service scandal highlight this. Essentially, prostitution has begun to fall under the nonconsensual or rape category. Pioneering Swedish legislation that only punishes johns for prostitution transactions will probably be introduced in the US soon, and then the process will be complete.

While only a few fringe characters have ever argued that rape or pedophilia is justifiable, what’s wrong with all this is that practically no female sexual behavior is currently seen as negative, whereas men are responsible for almost all of what’s deemed bad sex. Not all that long ago, this was far from the case. While rape has always been seen as the most serious sex crime, neither fornication nor adultery were held to be innocent activities, and women were seen as equal participants in these acts. In fact, in the majority of cases, a woman was just as responsible for “bad sex” as a man. Where prostitution was concerned, females were held to be more responsible than their clients, just as drug dealers are held to higher level of accountability than drug buyers, because they profit from the transaction.

However, lest we try to draw parallels, it should be recognized that most of what society considered bad sex was not criminalized until relatively recently. Fornication, sodomy, prostitution and adultery were definitely frowned upon, but they were not typically formally punished until the Victorian era. In the US, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these laws were widespread and regularly enforced. Nevertheless, people were a lot more careful about engaging in these activities, because social consequences could be severe.

Since then, aside from a brief period from the late 60s to early 70s when there was a sort of sexual free-for-all in the West, we’ve seen a steady crackdown on male sexuality combined with a loosening of restrictions on female sexuality. What has happened is that the entire burden of sexual control has been increasingly foist upon men, while women’s load has been lightened.

Probably the most important and liberating change for women has been the relaxation of the social prohibition on fornication. In the old days, fornication was definitely seen as bad sex. A loose woman was considered socially irresponsible and wicked for a number of reasons. She could lure a husband from his wife, seduce a young, naive man and capture him in a marriage against his interests, and have illegitimate children who became a burden on the community. Such a woman was not seen as marriage material. In general, men preferred virgin brides. Today, of course, the virgin bride is as rare as the horse and buggy.

A lot of men might say we have it a lot better than in those times, because “sex is easy and available” now whereas it used to be more difficult to obtain. I’m not sure I agree. Fornication is as much a risk for men as ever, and probably more so, because now only men are held responsible for the consequences. Get a woman pregnant and it’s on you. Sleep with a couple women, make one angry and jealous, and you risk a rape accusation. Sleeping with a married woman is another good way to get accused of rape if she changes her mind and decides to stay with her husband. Sleep with a woman who said she was 19, she turns out to be 17, and you’re in trouble. Visit a prostitute and you could be arrested or, if she tells the press, lose your career. There isn’t much of a difference from the old days, and you’re more likely to face jail time for slipping up. For men, fornication is clearly still bad sex. Possibly even more so than it was when it was generally recognized as such.

For women, on the other hand, the benefits are clear. Fornication has virtually no social consequences and the most minimal of risks. Pregnancies can be easily avoided, and if wanted the man will be forced to pay child support whether he committed or not. Male lovers can be easily controlled and kept in line, and as many taken as any woman pleases. Women even go so far as to proudly march in slutwalks to further demand rights to behave sexually in any manner they please. The slutwalk was actually very clear in demanding more of the status quo, i.e. less control of female sexuality and more control of male. For women, particularly young and attractive ones, this has been a real bonanza. But what has it done for society?

Let’s see…

Marriage rates dropping precipitously, men taking path of least resistance and dropping out, illegitimacy skyrocketing, class divisions hardening, children growing up fatherless and with fewer options. For most of us, it’s been quite negative.

I wish I could say there was a solution to the problem, but it looks pretty hopeless. The alternative to what used to be seen as bad sex – marriage – has been all but destroyed by the liberation of female sexuality and the redefinition of marriage as little more than a federal tax status; a sort of very risky corporation with arbitrary rules. The result is that for men, there is really no such thing as “good sex,” that is, socially-approved sex — it’s a risk no matter what. Furthermore, a society in which the overwhelming majority of women are fornicators gives men no choice; you just aren’t getting a wife in the traditional sense of the word, so why bother with marriage?

I think men ought to realize that we got suckered in this deal, and perhaps we should have listened to the old sages who have warned us over the centuries. We overreached in our naivete, thinking we’d get more of what we desire if we only tossed out the old attitudes, but all we ended up with was more responsibility and fewer rewards.

...

[Wait, aren't women supposed to be the uncontrollably lustful sex? Goddamn keep you misogyny lore straight]

Nah, she ruined herself. In a sane society (like most in the world), women are considered more responsible for sexual restraint, because they are better at it. It’s the same reason men are considered more responsible for fighting, carrying heavy things, etc.

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

If you want to prepare for what's coming, the best thing you can do is to move out of the country. I heard Gerald Celente in December of 2011 on The Alex Jones Show recommend Norway in his Trends Forecaster newsletter. The globalists are going to create artificial scarcity of food, water and oil. Most people don't realize that the globalists own the Monsanto corporation (the mad scientists who gave us brain-eating ASPARTAME). Monsanto has created genetically modified seeds that terminate after a year, and seeds that won't grow unless activated with a proprietary substance. This gives them total control over the world's food supply. The New World Order is a global private world government.

The globalists have built a massive seed storage vault in the arctic to store original seeds. This is because eventually all food will be derived from fake seeds that the globalists genetically control and can turn off at will. It's weird and frightening science. Research these things for yourself! Whereas God made seeds to reproduce AFTER HIS KIND (Genesis 1:12), Monsanto has produced GM seeds that terminate instead. Mankind has an insatiable desire to play God and tamper with life. No wonder Jesus foretold of worldwide famines and pestilences in the End Times (Matthew 24:7).

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

Government spy satellites are monitoring every square inch of farming land in Europe and America. Increasingly, small and medium sized farms are being oppressed with burdensome relegations, over-taxation, harassing citations and ridiculous news laws intended to drive them out of business. The criminals behind the New World Order want to gain control over the whole world, and the fastest and surest way to do so is to eliminate the small and medium sized farms. If the world's elite can control the production and supply of food through a dozen large corporations, then they can smash the resistance of the people in just a matter of days until the food runs out.

In fact, Revelation 13:16-17 teaches that no one will be able to buy nor sell food without having the mark of the Beast in their right hand or forehead. The world is fast-headed for a total Police State control grid society. You'll have to have a government license for everything!

Whereas back in the Great Depression, 90% of Americans were self-sufficient; today only 10% of Americans are able to support themselves if the food trucks suddenly stopped rolling and th stores go empty. It is hard to imagine in the land of the plenty, where stores carry a dozen different brands of every food (from pizza to maple syrup), that the day is coming when the shelves will be empty. There is a massive food shortage coming and it will be artificially caused by the global elite through the corporations. It may not be next month, but it is coming in the years and decades ahead.

The global elite are already testing their cruel food shortage scheme in suffering nations around the world. In a time of food crisis, a society will exhort to cannibalism in 15 days. In the Old Testament, the people ate donkey brains and dove's dung for food during famine, and it can happen in America or anywhere else in the world...

2nd Kings 6:25, “And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.”

Do you think it couldn't happen in the United States? You'll thank God if you live on a smaller island if such a crisis develops, where at least fishing and local produce are plenty. In the metropolitan areas of the great cities, where millions-upon-millions of people dwell like sardines crammed in a tin can, there will be cannibalism, massive heinous crimes and all-out rioting and dementia.

I believe it is deliberate that the masses of humanity are being herded into major cities to live, because this makes it impossible to grow crops to support so many people. In reality, the masses are setting themselves up for disaster.

In the rural areas of America, where there are farms and people know how to survive off the land, they'll have a chance. City dwellers are slowly, but surely, digging a grave for themselves. I am convinced that by 2050 there will be famine in many of the world's major cities. Little by little all of the mom and pop gourmet restaurants and delicatessens of the past century will vanish away in America. When most people think of famine, they think of third world nations in Africa and elsewhere. In the Bible, it was war that often brought artificial famine, used as a weapon to conquer cities.

It will be the corporations who are controlled by the global elite that cause the famines of the future, to subdue the masses and to deliberately kill off 90% of the earth's population (as plotted by members of Secret Societies and revealed on the Georgia Guidestones). If you think this sounds too conspiratorial, then you should read up on U.S. President JFK's comments about Secret Societies. He tried to warn us, and they killed him! There are literally HUNDREDS of shocking books available, teaching about Secret Societies. Some of the books are written by members of the occult themselves, like Manly P. Hall, a 33rd degree Freemason. Truth is certainly stranger than fiction.

dreamfires #wingnut #quack #conspiracy deviantart.com

Government sponsored health care that is meaningful? Are you kidding? Not one soul in the US government has the foggiest notion of how to effectively apply the concept. I watch in many ways a world gone mad...literally.
All health care as currently envisioned by government is doomed to failure as it is built on premises promoting profit, not potency. They say the stakes could not be higher, that health care costs the economy more than anything else (I thought supporting Israel with gazillions of dollars while the US has crumbling roads costs us more?). But if the stakes are so high, why not get this right once and for all? Imagine the US setting an excellent example for all to follow. People debate passionately socialist vs. capitalist models, while leaving the most important arguments--namely, naturopathic versus allopathic medicine--wholly ignored.
Why? This is just a sick money grab. The pharmaceuticals pay off politicians, financing their campaigns. So guess what? The politicians will help insure health care costs are nuts on drugs. The main elements of cost are all wacko: insurance; drugs; doctors; and big science. US Health Care is now an applauded criminal enterprise. Last I checked, extortion was a crime. And that is what this is. Demand money from the healthy to pay for the less healthy, or punish them if they refuse. Never mind asking them for their best ideas…GIVE US YOUR DAMN MONEY—WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU DO WHAT MUST BE DONE! Right. Insurance? My knowledge is my insurance. I have often said all that insurance insures is that you pay for insurance. For years I watched a richer friend of mine spend at least $50,000 on doctors. Me? Nothing. I have been healthier. I have learned nutrition, detox, acupressure and more. Anyone can, no matter what they say. The best innovators in these areas have been erased from the school system, though their truths remain. Drugs? Not needed. Too many side effects, not the least of which is suicide and school shootings. Cost a fortune--all for no reason. I scoffed recently watching this naltrexone situation. Naltrexone was developed by DuPont long ago. It blocks brain receptors, preventing addiction. So why have you not heard of it? It was too good. Rehab clinics would go out of business. Too much profit lost, so no go. Only allow garbage on the market. But now naltrexone is out on the market again. Why? To stop obesity. Really? And they mix it with a screwup drug with bad side effects? Brilliant! But now they are actually considering spilling the beans and having naltrexone help addicts. Why? All the opioid addiction. Guess after zillions of corpses someone is thinking maybe now we can cash in? Wonderful people in this world.
What is big science? That is when you ignore urine, saliva and hair analysis and do whopper chem tests, x rays, PET scans, tossing in MRIs and other junk to help your doctor buy a yacht.
The biggest costs in health care are problems like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's--and all of these could be wiped out with the slightest effort. Cost mere hundreds of dollars, sometimes less if you are really good. There are about twenty different ways it can be done...but Congress remains silent. Never mind that Gerson testified about nutrition beating cancer before Congress decades ago...no one knows a blessed thing. Never mind that Thompson could testify that vaccine stats are bogus, and that Valentine, Doyle, Bystrianik and others proved vaccines did nothing positive in history--improved water and sanitation deserve all the credit. Just keep killing people--especially blacks, and pocket the change.
Western medicine is a special form of genocide. Why? Because unlike other forms of genocide, the public cheers it on. More than that, if you try to educate someone about vaccines, for example, they will flip out on you. Some even go so far as to insist your unvaccinated kids could sicken the vaccinated ones. But you know what? THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! Hopefully more will watch VAXXED and read writings like those of Heckenlively in Inoculated.
Even when people sound like they mean well, they are often way off. For years people asked me why I was not shouting about gluten woes. So why did I not jump on the bandwagon and be cool? Because I have learned my lessons, that’s why. Trust nature. I have said it many times: Nature is often slandered by the ignorant and later exonerated by the wise. People insist they cannot drink milk—but give them raw milk from healthy cows—no problem. And now people are squawking about gluten. Yet I just read an article claiming a woman dug more deeply, and guess what she found? People in Europe eat wheat and its gluten and are just fine! How about that? So what was the problem? Roundup. What is Roundup? A freaking pesticide the agrobusinesses love to dump on wheat before harvest. There you go! It is a lesson man is just too stupid to learn. Sling those pesticides and herbicides! Who gives a rat’s ass? What is a little lead, arsenic or mercury? Who cares if it ends up in breast milk? What are you bitching about? You got cheap food, right? Not like we can do any better, right?
Oops! As always, we could have done better. Way better. Julius Hensel showed us exactly how BEFORE THE END OF THE 1800S! When he was silenced, it was a death sentence for millions, not to mention the sheer pitiful plunge in quality of life. All you had to do was grind rock to powder (granite was best) and nourish the soil. That’s it. No need for pesticides, or herbicides. Not even manure (pathogens grow in crap, geniuses!) was needed. We all would have been stronger, healthier, happier. But they squashed Hensel and favored Liebig. Why? Anyone can crush rock and sell it cheap. But sell NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) in industrial forms, and you can just sit back and rake in the profits. Never mind the obvious fact that if NPK was as great as its advocates brag, the plants would not need herbicides and pesticides. But they do. The three minerals make plants big, not healthy.
Drugs cannot work with nature. You cannot combine methods. Why not? Because drugs are asinine. Take drugs and they beat up on each other… and then they beat up on your liver, and then on the nutrients in your foods. Many nutrients cannot be absorbed when a person goes on drugs.
Trying to get people shaken out of their arrogance and their brainless celebrations of man’s technology is apparently futile. They now tout genetic engineering. This is also doomed. Create the perfect genes and set your creatures loose in an environment of poisoned air, water and soil and guess what? Everything dies. Every time.
But harmonize with nature, mineralize the plants and positive builds on positive. Poverty and famine disappear. Disease vanishes. Visit my website, polytope.www1.50megs.com and check out the recommended reading. See for yourself. The mainstream media and government sure as hell are not going to tell you anything comprehensive.
Vaccine spread autism is now so insane that in the next decades one in two people may be out of their minds. One in two!
Stop going to town halls and yelling at others to fix your life. Empower yourself and you will be far better off.
Learn while you have the chance.
A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste….

coadie #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

"Did darwinism introduce cross dressers?

Ann Coulter says a frustrated Darwiniac resorts to an occasional outbursts regarding flat earth. This is done by taking a pet definition of "foundation".

The cross dressers as shown in google wear corsets as foundations. Is Darwinisms hatching of a definition of foundation really referring to a girdle?

The Mother earth wearing a girdle? Not very natural. There is no limit to the imagination of Darwinists."

Robert Taylor #fundie reactionaryliberty.com

[Post "Introduction to 'Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution'"]

For libertarians like myself, Dr. Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential runs were an absolute revelation. During the debates and in his media appearances, we saw a humble and decent man tirelessly seek out the Remnant of liberty in our dark age of perpetual war and unlimited state power. With uncompromising courage, Paul introduced millions of people to libertarianism.

Witnessing Paul openly denounce the Iraq War, central banking, and the entire premise of global empire launched my own personal philosophical journey. The works of Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, and Friedrich Hayek began overflowing my bookshelves. And when I eventually began reading as much Murray Rothbard as I possibly could, I was hooked.

[...]

Up until the end of Paul’s last presidential run and his retirement from public office in 2014, libertarianism fell on the Right side of the political spectrum by default. Its biggest proponents and advocates rarely spoke too loudly on cultural issues, but whenever they did, they were unmistakably un-Leftist.

Fast forward just two years after Paul retired, and the libertarian movement is now a shell of what it used to be. Its major party candidate in 2016, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, exemplifies this direction that libertarianism has taken ever since. Johnson, who displayed little intellectual curiosity and even rejected the key tenets of libertarianism (the non-aggression principle and free association), never missed a chance to advertise his politically correct, Leftist positions on marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion. Johnson even bragged that he is politically quite similar to fellow 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a not too subtle attempt to appeal to young liberals.

What in the world happened? How did libertarianism evolve from a highly disciplined and radical study of economics, rights, and the use of force in society (that also understood the necessity and desirability of hierarchy and tradition), into the milquetoast branding of “low-tax liberalism” and “fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

[...]

This book, then, is dedicated to what I call reactionary liberty: the defense of radical libertarianism and an unapologetic cultural traditionalism that rejects, root and branch, both state power and cultural Marxism. While libertarianism as a political philosophy concerns itself only with the question of political force, I argue that the libertarian ethic of non-aggression and private property necessitates a rejection of egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and diversity. “Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism...libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives,” argues Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Without this reactionary element, libertarianism can never be a serious movement because it will always fall victim to John O’Sullivan’s Law: that any movement, entity, or institution that is not explicitly right-wing will eventually turn left-wing. While libertarians may believe that they are “above” or “beyond” Left and Right, the Leftist infiltration of libertarianism (combined with the evolutionary psychology of r/K selection theory) proves that libertarians cannot be neutral.

Thus, the reactionary libertarian prefers the conservative Edmund Burke to the revolutionary Jacobins of the French Revolution. “Burke argued for the traditional liberties of the English against the ‘abstract’ Rights of Man advocated by the revolutionaries, predicting correctly that such abstract rights, with no force of custom behind them, would perish in a reign of terror,” notes Joseph Sobran. “The revolutionaries, he said, were so obsessed with man’s rights that they had forgotten man’s nature.”

[...]

For the reactionary libertarian, this requires an uncompromising opposition to this cultural Marxism—a counter-revolution against the perpetual revolution of Leftism. Individuals are different from another, and not equal; we live in an unavoidably tribal world; men and are not women and women are not men; freedom is both a responsibility and a right; democracy must be de-legitimized, but if we are to live in a democratic society, then the franchise should be severely limited. These insights into the human condition—including a complete rejection of egalitarianism—form the foundation for a consistent, coherent, and forceful philosophy of liberty.

[...]

The Italian traditionalist Julius Evola wore the term “reactionary” on his sleeve proudly, calling it “the true test of courage.” With this book, I look to blend this Evolian courage with a radical libertarianism to forge a coherent and forceful philosophy of liberty—reactionary means for libertarian ends.

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.

Mayor Larry Langford of Birmingham, Alabama #fundie bhamweekly.com

City of Birmingham Proclamation


WHEREAS: The City of Birmingham Like the City of Nineveh has experienced violence and murder that pails in comparison to the City of Nineveh of the Old Testament, Book of Jonah; and has become the fourth violent city per capital in the United States of America; and

WHEREAS: Many residents of the City of Birmingham, like Jonah, who turned his back on Nineveh, the citizens of the City of Birmingham have not only turned their backs on God but also turned their back on the freedoms that were won by and through the civil rights struggle; and

WHEREAS: Chapter 3, verse 5 & 6, of the Book of Jonah, Old Testament states, that the people of Nineveh believe God and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest of them unto the least of them. For word came unto the King of Nineveh and he arose from his throne and he laid his robe from him and covered him with sackcloth and sat in ash; and

WHEREAS: I, Larry P. Langford, Mayor of the City of Birmingham, like the King of Nineveh in verse 7, proclaim and publish a decree and do designate and set aside April 25th, 2008, as

“IT’S TIME TO PRAY”

in the City of Birmingham, and encourage all Bishops, Priests, Pastors, Ministers and all of our citizens of various denominations and creeds to join in this day that is set aside for prayer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Birmingham to be affixed this 22nd day of April, year of our Lord 2008.

TheEngineer19 #sexist reddit.com

Females cannot compete with men, or be equal with them, because they are lower than men. Men are intelligent, loving and kind, whereas femoids aren't. Females cannot feel love, they are not intelligent and they certainly can't show kindness.

As The Atomic BlackPill has shown, females are mindless beats who do not deserve to be equal with men. Females do not deserve their rights, and they themselves have proven this time and time again. It's astounding that these cum dumpsters are even considered human, and are treated as such.

The mask that these animals have slipped over men's eyes is beginning to slip, and their nature is being exposed. I'm proposing that females lose their rights and are treated like the mindless, sex obsessed creatures that they are.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

We are going to see a lot more ecumenical apostasy creeping into the churches. Many churches have been hoodwinked by Pastor Rick Warren's Satanic Emerging Church deception. Mr. Warren also teaches the heresy of Lordship Salvation. Warren is a disgusting compromiser, who has apologized to many his “gay friends” for taking a stand against homosexual marriage. Warren is far more concerned what people think about him, than what God thinks about him (John 12:42-43).

[...]

John Calvin was a monster! It does not surprise me that a crypto-Jewish occultist, fraudulently named John Calvin, introduced a false plan of works-based salvation into the churches, which infectes many churches still today. There are Satanic forces at work to corrupt and transform the churches into spiritually dead religious centers, instead of an assembly of Holy Spirit indwelled born-again Christians. Spirituality is replacing theology in the churches! Without the sound doctrines of the inspired Words of God in the King James Bible, the churches are losing their foundation. Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Please beware of John Calvin's teachings, commonly referred to as, what else... “CALVINISM”! Please beware of Calvinist influenced ministers and institutions; such as (to name but a few), Evangelist Paul Washer, Dr. John Piper, Evangelist Ray Comfort, Dr. John MacArthur, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, any churches that support and promote John MacArthur, et cetera.

Satan knows that the best way to hinder truth is to confuse people by introducing lies into the mix. The Bible teaches us about “the simplicity that is in Christ” in the Gospel (2nd Corinthians 11:3-4; 1st Corinthians 15:1-4). In sharp contrast, there is nothing “simple” about having to surrender all to Christ to be saved. There is nothing “simple” about forsaking sinful bad habits and confessing Christ before men publicly to be saved. The lie of Lordship Salvation places extremely heavy burdens upon men's shoulders; whereas Christ bore the total weight of every man's sins upon the cross, so that salvation could be made freely available to all mankind, by simple faith in the Gospel.

The true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is free and simple to anyone who wants it, by simply receiving Christ's sacrifice upon the cross as the payment for one's sins, and believing that Jesus bodily raised up the third day for our justification. This is drastically different than the extra-biblical requirement to cease from sinful living, forsake the world, confess Christ before men and surrender all to Christ to be saved. These latter are all self-righteous works, which are forbidden in God's plan of salvation (Isaiah 64:6). The false doctrine of Lordship Salvation is also held (or a variation of) by Roman Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Church of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name but a few Satanic cults.

Man has no part in God's salvation of man, except to BELIEVE the Gospel. When the Scriptures teach believers in Philippians 2:12, “...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” it does NOT say to work out God's salvation. 2nd Corinthians 4:3, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.” The heresy of Lordship Salvation cleverly hides the Gospel behind a wall of holy living, teaching people that to be saved they must repent in the sense of changing their life, and then continue repenting for the rest of their life if they're really saved. This effectively requires a lifetime of good works, and abstaining from bad works, to be saved. I've heard this garbage theology taught on UNSHACKLED by Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago, Grace To You with Dr. John MacArthur, and also by Evangelist Chip Ingram, and also Seeking Him ministry online, to name just a few.

Wake up oh Christian from your spiritual slumber! We are in a relentless spiritual war for God!!! Thank you for reading this.

Graham H. Seibert, reviewing the book “Race Differences in Ethnocentrism” by Edward Dutton #racist #fundie amazon.com

Stating the obvious, Dutton will be richly vilified by right-thinking people. Rather, left-thinking

Edward Dutton is a phenomenon. I attempt to review most of his books as they come out, and it is almost a full-time job.

His interests cover a wide spectrum, but they all seem to radiate out of evolutionary biology. His key insights are:

• Human populations have evolved to be profoundly different
• Race is a real and useful marker, a product of evolution
• Evolution is ongoing and rapid
• Evolution brought European peoples to the apogee of their intelligence about the time of the Industrial Revolution, and they have been in decline ever since.
• Two causes of the decline are obvious – smart people are not having children, and Europeans are being replaced by less capable immigrants.
• A less obvious cause is the accumulation of deleterious, "spiteful" mutations in the populations, rendering them less fit to reproduce and less intelligent. The unfit no longer die in childhood; society no longer keeps the unfit from reproducing.
• Racial and ethnic groups have different group interests. Ethnocentrism is the topic of this book, though it weaves arguments involving all the above.

Dutton does constant battle against the dominant dogmas of our age, chief among them multiculturalism and political correctness. Multiculturalism specifically denies the group interests of native Europeans. Political correctness has made it difficult to discuss these facts.

Dutton's conclusion is obvious, almost anti-climatic. White Europeans are the least ethnocentric major population on earth. Their denial of their own self-interest amounts to suicide. And yet, through the agency of political correctness, they are constantly vilified as being racist. This is so much the opposite of the truth that it's champions cannot let up on their propaganda. The big lie of white racism must be perpetuated at all costs.

Dutton calls on scientific research from every quarter to support his arguments. However, by their very nature his arguments are difficult to support conclusively, even through the application of statistics. Instead, he relies on corroborative evidence from many different fields pointing to what must be true.

This methodology, necessary as it is, lends itself to the criticism that he has not convincingly proven his arguments. He is arguing merely from preponderance of evidence. Opponents will thus attempt to belittle his work, claiming that he hasn't proven anything, and suggesting that he simply be ignored.

This is wrong, obviously wrong. The preponderance of evidence is quite weighty. An honest rebuttal would seek to marshal a similar number of arguments that go the other way. This, however, is impossible. The people who support multiculturalism and political correctness do so entirely on the strength of moral claims, and rare;u attempt to use science to buttress their positions.

Science is a collaborative effort. Newton allegedly said that if he had seen further, it was because he was "standing on the shoulders of giants." Dutton makes extraordinarily good use of both historical and modern giants. As a top 500 Amazon reviewer with an interest in most of the fields that occupied Dutton, I am in a good position to judge. There are 380 references in his bibliography. I recognize the names of 36 (in comment 1 below) and have reviewed about half of them. I know enough to say that no author who disagreed with Dutton's major points could compile a bibliography half as rich. Dutton is in line with most modern thinking in the realms of genetics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, religion, human evolution, paleontology and other related fields.

If the book has a flaw, it is that Dutton works so fast that he does not eliminate all of the typographic errors, small syntax errors, and repetitions. One can say that given the modest readership of books that tweak the nose of the powers that be, he is certainly doing an adequate job. The scholarship of the book is not in any way diminished. A five-star effort.

With a title like &quot;Race Differences in Ethnocentrism&quot; Dutton is just about obliged to name those groups whose ethnocentrism's prejudicial to native European populations (i.e., white people). He does not disappoint. He presents the consensus of evolutionary biologists, (the few brave enough to risk the wrath of the Powers that Be) as to who they are and what motivates them, whether consciously or from deep cultural memory.

Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie share a YouTube channel called "The Jolly Heretic." These are often discourses by Dutton on topics that interest him, such as why English men are so attractive to foreign women, why Eastern European women are so attractive to foreign men, how to judge people by their looks, and why people get tattoos. At other times they are discussions with fellow authors such as Kevin MacDonald. Although the YouTube medium demands more of your time for a given quantum of input, it is always entertaining. Recommend you look in.

ActiveShitter #sexist #fundie reddit.com

Re: Just more of the most based religion on Earth

image

Image of a man from Memri TV with captions saying:

Nowadays, wife-beating is illegal in the West. Illegal!

Can you imagine such barbarism?

Unbelievable.

Islamic beating is literally a joke. First you have to go through a few steps before you can resort to beating and then once you have exhausted all efforts you just hit her on the shoulder to scare her.

If you touch her face not only is your marriage over by law. Her family could beat the shit out of you. People who talk about this alpha posturing don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's like when the teachers would say open your hand and slap it with stick as a form of beating.

Also mohammed said that people who resort to "beatings" are not honorable. Back then people would die to protect their honor because it was the most important thing to them.

EDIT because someone sperged out about mohammed marrying the daughter of the second most powerful and influncial man in Islam Abu-bakr: Ayisha was 18-20 when she was married mohammed.

Only person out of 100,000 people who followed mohammed in his life were credited with saying the mohammed married ayisha when she was 9. This man was at the time in Iraq and over 60 years of age and was described as being confused at his old age (probably dementia). He said this claim in Iraq despite studying everything about Islam in madina. So he said it in a far away place where no one can confront his lies:

All sources are here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOyEt5szM0

Hm. Well at least they're still based enough to not take any of that "marital rape" crap seriously. Imagine a husband not being entitled to sex from his own wife, she wouldn't be a wife anymore she'd just be a parasite (which is what Western women are)

cuckslam JFL Saudi Arabia is a feminist country

They recently allowed women to drive and Allah immediately punished them by lighting half their oil factories on fire.

Just abandon your human rights bro.

That's very subjective. Human rights are only what the current social norms of white people are. If white cucks make a law to chemically castrate rapists then it's not against human rights, but if Muslims do anything similar to women (who do far worse things than rape, such as paternity fraud) the whole West flips out about human rights.

Ultra based isalm as always. Shariah law when?

With the Hispanic invasion of the US probably never. But in Europe... soon.

Inshallah, Sweden is already becoming one. Allahu akbar. True Muslims will never accept the filthy way of the west.

Now we only have to wait.

Colonelgoober #fundie banjohollow.wordpress.com

Brief statement on women.
Posted on April 5, 2011 by colonelgoober
There may be some confusion as to the opinion some of us in the KBH have of women. If we are not prone to eulogizing women, it is because we think more than anything they need to be deflated.

In a nutshell, the opinion expressed is that they are to be treated as property. Because women lack autonomy, they have to be led constantly. Apart from male guidance, they cannot be trusted at all. Women are inherently reprobate. Further to that, we consider them to be basically maya, the illusion made flesh.

Reality is what it is. You cannot be happy if you’re not living in accordance with reality, and that includes women. No woman is happy unless she is being led by strong men. Woman is not the problem per se, but the absurd social position she now occupies is the problem.

We do not advocate:

1. Banging them. We are chaste. We are not the kind of misogynist that takes advantage of the fact that in our time the majority of women are sexually eager.

2. Mistreating them. We strive to treat them as is just. When they get out of line, they should be put back in line. Decent females should be treated with decency, whereas whores should be treated coldly.

3. Marrying them. There is almost no chance to find a decent woman nowadays. Marriage is not worth the risk. As a man in the West, both society and the legal system are working against you.

I invite my brothers to add to, subtract from, or otherwise edit this post if they think they can improve upon it.

Dr. Dermot Hudson #fundie ndfsk.dyndns.org

Visiting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the 6th of September to the 13th of September I learnt that the DPRK, Juche Korea is pursuing the people-oriented policy. This is not a mere slogan but the reality of Juche Korea.

Dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN said at the 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea that It is important to apply the people-first principle thoroughly in all aspects of Party work.

Applying the people-first principle is the intrinsic demand of our Party, which is struggling for the sake of the masses of the people and conducting its activities by relying on them.

All the work and activities of the Party should be conducted with the masses of the people at the centre. The climate of believing in the strength of the people and depending on them should pervade the whole Party, and the main thrust of Party work should be directed at promoting the people's well-being.”
The present reality of Juche Korea indeed bears this out. The DPRK is truly striving under the guidance of dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN to implement people-orientated policies.

Along with the other delegates to the International Seminar on the Juche for Anti-Imperialism, Independence and Solidarity I visited the Pyongyang Orphans School on the outskirts of Pyongyang on Wednesday 7th of September. This school has been recently constructed under the leadership of supreme leader respected Marshal KIM JONG UN, a true people's leader. This school is located on the outskirts of Pyongyang. It was truly amazing. As our bus drove into the school a huge football pitch came into view. In the UK now many schools no longer have football pitches or sports grounds because these had been sold off to property developers.

The school was very clean and free from vandalism and graffiti unlike English schools.

The school is a three-storeyed building with 21 classrooms. There were up to date laboratories and all kinds of facilities. There is an anti-imperialist class education room to teach the pupils about the nature of capitalism and imperialism. Of course, anti-imperialist education is indispensible in socialist society in order to prevent ideological and cultural infiltration by imperialism and bourgeois corruption. The school had its own large-size indoor swimming pool.

In the UK such a thing would only exist in a private school where the fees can be easily up to £36,000! There was also a multi-use sports hall which could be used for all kinds of different sports. The dining room was truly palatial more like the dining room of a hotel or restaurant than a school. We also saw the kitchen which was clean and hygienic. It was also well stocked with food proving that the stories about "famine", "starvation” and "food shortage" in the DPRK are false.

In the UK and other capitalist countries there are Children's Homes and Orphanages but these are dark fearful places where the children are abused in all kinds of ways both physical and sexual abuse. Childrens homes in the UK are notorious for pedophile scandals such as the Kincora Boys Home case in Northern Ireland and the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal. In the UK orphans are treated like outcasts and orphans often becoming unemployed and homeless when they grew up. However in Juche Korea led by respected Marshal KIM JONG UN they have been given the best school. The reactionary imperialist media likes to talk about the "elite" in People's Korea but there is no such thing, the only elite in the DPRK if there is one is the orphans who have this wonderful school that is equal to elite private schools in the UK that are attended members of the Royal Family , the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie!

Juche Korea is carrying out massive housing construction for the people. Houses are built at state expense and given free of charge to the people. This is a dream to Londoners. Flats in central London can be anything up to a £1 million to buy plus service charges and ground rent or £600 per week (£31,000 per year) to rent . I was able to see the construction site of Ryomyong Street with 70 storey high buildings which looked very futuristic.

During the period of my visit the Central Committee of the Workers' Party took the decision to postpone the completion of Ryomyong Street in order to prioritise the recovery from flood damage in the north western region of the country. This was a wise decision as well as a true manifestation of the people-orientated policies of the great Workers' Party of Korea and respected Marshal KIM JONG UN.

Another fine example of the people-orientated policy was the newly reconstructed Pyongyang Central Zoo. I had visited this in the 19993 and in 2012 but this time it was far bigger. It had an entrance in the shape of a tiger’s mouth. The Zoo has all the latest facilities including a nature museum and a "Sea World” type centre where you can see fish swimming about. Really amazing. It also equipped with electric cars to ferry people around the Zoo as it is quite large. My guide Ms. Ri told me that the Zoo is virtually free of charge whereas in London an adult ticket for the Zoo is £25.45p rising to £28.10 for a ticket including a donation and £32 for a "fast track ticket”, for an old age pensioner the price is £22 and £18 for a children. Basically working class people in the UK are excluded from culture and recreation, whereas in People's Korea of Juche culture is accessible to all.

Pyongyang boasts of many theatres such as the Pyongyang Grand Theatre, East Pyongyang Grand Theatre, the People's Theatre in Changjon Street, the Moranbong Theatre and the Pyonghwa Art Theatre. Probably Pyongyang has more theatre seats per capita than London. I was able to enjoy a
splendid art performance in the Pyongwha Art Theatre on DPRK National Day on September 9th.The performance was splendid, it showed the superiority of Juche-based culture. I watched a circus performance which was enjoyable as well which was of high quality.

In Juche Korea people are able to pursue all kinds of cultural and recreational pursuits as well as to socialise properly. However the reality of the UK is that many people just stay alone in their homes either watching the TV or using the internet. People in the UK lead miserable lives as they are afflicted by poverty, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, loneliness and family breakdown. The capitalist media like to portray the DPRK in a very negative light and twist all kinds of things. The reality is the capitalist societies such as the UK and US that are dark societies full of misery.

I witnessed that Juche Korea led by dear respected Marshal KIM JONG UN is truly following people-orientated policies. The Korean people are rushing forward at Mallima speed to build a socialist people's paradise.

Unknown author #fundie breatharian.info

This is a state of man (inediate, not-eater, breatharian) characterized by the absence of eating, resulting from (or rather being a stage on the way to) expanding of the Consciousness sphere in which man lives. In general an ideal (fully realized) inediate, breatharian or not-eater has no need to eat or drink to keep the body working perfectly. A breatharian consumes no food and no drink, they needs only air to nourish the body.

Many not-eaters (even if they call themselves a breatharian) drink water, tea, coffee or other beverages from time to time. Some of them, in order to satisfy the sense of taste, eat a piece of chocolate, a cookie, some cheese, horseradish or something else once in a while. The not-eating state of an inediate, breatharian, not-eater doesn't require any ascetic practices of the body. This is more about the freedom of choice and a lot of benefits.

A person who regularly drinks liquid food, e.g. fruit juices, can't be called an inediate, breatharian or not-eater. This is a diet called liquidarianism. Also, we don't call a person an inediate or breatharian when he/she is fasting or on a starvation diet. Also in these cases food is not (or almost not) consumed during some time, but such situation lasts only temporary and then food consumption is resumed or the person dies. An inediate or breatharian, never starves or dies for lack of food because his/her body needs not matter called food.

Permanent not-eating, inedia or breatharianism are states which usually appear as a side effect of expanding one's sphere of the Consciousness. However there are also many cases that this state happened unexpectedly and lasted for months or years. A person who by force tries to refrain from eating can't be called an inediate or breatharian. Such action, if prolonged, is harmful to the body and can lead to death. Fasting and starvation diet are different subjects the inedia, breatharianism and not-eating.

Becoming an inediate or breatharian results (often as a side effect) on a way of expanding the sphere of the Consciousness which the person lives in. Inedia, breatharianism is more like a characteristic features of a life style and is not limited to just stopping all food intake. Because an inediate or breatharian sets him/herself free from the need to feed the body, he/she has the choice to eat or not to eat, but one thing is for sure, a real inediate or breatharian does not need to eat to keep the body working normally.

Explanations for the open-minded. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." No matter whether we believe in something or not, the phenomenon takes place irrespective of our knowledge or belief. Besides, no matter how we try to explain it, is the explanation arrived at really so important? The most important thing is that from the beginning of our civilization, there always were people who never ate. Such people existed, exist and will exist, which means that we too have this capability. We only need to find a way to adapt the body to a different kind of energy processing.

Explanation for an esoteric person: Ubiquitous energy, whether called prana, qi, ki, orgon, liquid light or by other names, maintains the organism of someone who doesn't eat. A human body can be powered by prana if the subconscious (which manages the body metabolism and shapes the physical body) acquires the skill of automatic transformation of ubiquitous prana to satisfy the needs of a human body.

Explanation for those scientifically-minded: Of all the other organisms, the human body is the most complicated, integrated and self-regulated energetic system. It is complicated and in many aspects unexplored computer-mechanic-chemical formation, controlled by the brain with the whole layout of magnetic, electric and gravity radiation. This complicated machine can be adapted to all possible living conditions on Earth, if given enough time and developed in right way. We haven't fully explored the human organism energy system. One of the ways of powering human body is energy and substances created by the chemical and physical factory of the body (excretory and respiratory system). Apart from this powering system, there is another, a reserve one (or maybe major one but moved away to the reserve role), which is able to transform the available energy directly. This powering system transforms the energy directly into matter, so in this way all that the organism needs.

The pineal gland is claimed to have a crucial role in this process. This hypothesis is confirmed by research undergone on some people, where CAT scanning shows a significant enlargement of this gland. The pineal gland manages (like a central processing unit) the mechanism of direct energy exchange between the organism cell and the surroundings (it actually occurs at a sub-atom level).One explanation, purely scientific, which comes from a nuclear physic says as follows: the organism consists of tissues, which are built of chemical molecules, and next these molecules are built of atoms. Atoms consist of electrons and protons, which are built of smaller elements. As the result of this way of looking for an origin element, we reach the point, where the matter does not exist. There, we have only something, which we can call vibrational whirls of energy.

As long as history exists it has been known under different definitions, for example prana, orgon, light. Hence such definitions originated such as "living on light" or "prana nourishment". All the matter which exists in the Universe, including the human body, is comprised of whirls of vibrational energy. The human body is the best well-known sophisticated, programmable and simultaneously self-controlled electronic-physical-chemical machine with a central management system, called the brain. There are centers in the brain, which manage body energy and chemistry (mainly pineal gland and pituitary). In this way, the organism lives and builds itself using these whirls of energy.

Explanation for a deeply religious person: God is everything. There is nothing which exists without God, there is nothing which has not been created by God. The inconceivable and almighty God is the only One and the highest perfection. Since the Almighty God has created everything and He/She/It is the highest inconceivable perfection, He/She/It can bestow the ability to live without eating on people of His/Her/Its choice. Since God is inconceivable and almighty, it is no use asking how God is able to do this. Important is the fact that God can and does select people to receive this grace. We can ask God for the grace of not eating, because God listens to sincere requests of the devoted children.

jdhowes #fundie livescience.com

Has anyone noted how open Creationist / "Creation" Scientists are to open debates in public forums, in scientific circles and schools? Whereas, Evolutionists / "Evolutionary" Scientists seem to avoid these forums whenever possible? Instead of being champions of "Free Thought" like Creationist demonstrate over and over... Evolutionists resort to insulting, marginalizing, undermining and restricting "Free Thought" that oppose them - Why? If they are right about this topic, why don't they seize each & every opportunity to prove it?

[NOTE: It is equally wrong for any religion to "force" or "shame" a belief system (i.e. like Creationism) on anyone. It violates an individual's God-given right to "Self-determination" and "Choice."]

And if Creationists are so wrong... then why are they so willing to talk out in the open; invite debate & discussion on such a foolish belief? People on the losing end of ANY debate (i.e. lacking facts, evidence, commonsense, stats...etc) AVOID open debates... seek to control what others believe... belittle non-conformists ...and... ahhh... hmmm... these sounds of 'retreat' sound more like strategy used by the all knowing Evolutionists... -interesting.

-You decide...

Leodigario #fundie news.yahoo.com

If their dating and their DNA test are accurate or near accurate, they must be up to the DNA of some superior human race: one who has not yet degenerated to what the humans are like now. That is before humans became so inferior not only morally but physically as they are right now,

We read in the only account of man's origin that human beings were created by his Creator to last endlessly or eternally without aging, but that was interrupted by man's disobedience to his Creator, However a default system was set in place that would restore humans to that original purpose of the Creator..

But the moral, intellectual and physical degradation of mankind was not sudden. Human's first parents live nine centuries according to biblical record. Then six centuries, then four, until Abraham who lived 175 years, until the time of king David who lived 70. Since then man's life expectancy remained 70 until now. This disprove Darwin's evolutionary theory.

If we will need biblical faith to believe biblical account of man's origin, we likewise need faith, a darwinian faith, in order to believe Darwin's evolutionary theory. But I would rather believe biblical account using biblical faith rather than darwinian faith to believe darwinian theory of evolution.

If scientists will only make objective studies rather than do studies influenced by biased subjective instinct to exclude their Creator from their investigation, it will not be long and their mind will come in contact the Great Creator.

usachinanukewar #fundie usachinanukewar.wordpress.com

My conclusion. I don’t need any gigantic penis and 8-packs. All I need now is my own immortal body that can fly. I wanna meet Jesus in the air. And, in the New Millennium, I can ask Jesus to go naked swimming with me in an island in the Pacific. I really would rather peek Jesus’ immortal gorgeous penis bumping and jumping just like a very extremely gorgeous pendulum swinging backward and forward in a really fast way when we both go naked playing volleyball on pearl-white sands of beach. I don’t need a huge jumbo walking HIV in human form with 8-packs and a gigantic penis, earthly and fast aging and dirty and deadly and very poor and very stupid. Bear in mind. I’m an extraordinarily smart Bella Boy, and I’ve found my Edward, Lord Jesus. I’m taken. So, any earthly Jacob with 8-packs and a gigantic penis is simply just a huge jumbo walking HIV in human form to me. Don’t bother me and get lost.

Eric Sheppard #racist valdostadailytimes.com

(Selections from a manifesto and accompanying sent to The Valdosta Daily Times by Eric Sheppard last year.)

Memorandum Ultimatum

Let me Clear the Air and Set the Record Straight once and For All on Questions Inquiries Suggestions and otherwise in regards to this Entire Ordeal. We Will Determine who Is Truly Guilty and Who is Truly Innocent Throughout the Course of this Literary Revelation. Many still question the possibility of my surrendering to the people who call themselves "authorities". To Give you a Simple Answer, No! I will Not Turn Myself Over to Any White Man and I will Ensure this With my Own Will to Self-Defend and To Annihilate those Who Come After Me. These same people who you all know as "legal officials/police officers/sheriff/detectives" or any other falsified label of 'authority' only know wickedness and devilish behavior. It SHOULD be clear by now that this is a White Supremacist Nation Owned, Operated, and Controlled by White People. Yes it is ALL white people who help to maintain this wicked nation to a greater or lesser degree given the default status aided to them by virtue or vice of White Privilege. Thus all functionalities, codes, rules, policies, curriculums, cultures and social criteria created or concocted therein are Meant to Benefit Whites ALONE AND EXCLUSIVELY!

[...]

You Seem to have Forgotten, European, that You are not indigenous to this land or ANY OTHER land on the face of the planet Earth. You Acquired this Nation and All other Nations Through Afrikan-Indigenous Genocide. Cultural Thievery, Mockery and Demonization was and still is your Concrete Methodology. You have consistently invoked a Pattern of Perverted Pyscho-Sexual behavior and Persistent Brutality in every imaginable sector of society. You All assume Your Wickedness somehow vanished and dissipated yet everything you gained and passed down was/is a Result of those actions. You have still not surrendered to Your Victims, Afrikan people, the Rightful Owners of ALL that You Have. You All, European Descendants on the Continent and Elsewhere, fit the Definition Perfectly of Devils. No, not a False Spook Devil said to live underground in a fictitious fiery pit but a Devil here on Earth subjecting Afrikan people to a Hellish (Non)Existence. It is TRUE that Afrikan people are the God Body that gave you, the devils of the planet Earth, a Heaven (Civilization) which before our Presence in Europe was Completely Non-Existent. Not Only are We your Fathers and Mothers Biologically and Genetically in MOST Regards, but we are Also the Fathers and Mothers of Law, Ethics, Morality, Agriculture, Economics, Culture, Spirituality, Art, Mathematics and Every Conceivable High Science in Existence. It was Afrikan People who Pioneered Research and Explorations into these Fields of Knowledge long Before you even began to CRAWL on All Fours Much Less walk Upright and Consume Your Own Babies just to Survive in the Barren Land of Europe.

[...]

It is 2015 on the European Gregorian Calendar and you coons & house niggas are still giving white people a pass as though they have collectively or individually done ANY good for Our race. No your "white friend"/ " white coworker"/ "white associate" is not exempt from any of the Evils that the white race has authored. No not your token Tim Wise nor Jane Elliot, those devils get no passes either! Your Liberal Alex Jones and David Icke are just as Guilty. Although they speak MILDLY against the Wickedness your Race has Authored Systematically they NEVER identify the Root of All of It as Being their Own White Race. So Yes, Alex, World War Three Is Here and It will Be the War to End All Wars.....The Final Ultimatum Between the Righteous Afrikan Martyrs and Revolutionaries and the Army of Wicked European Demons. This is What You All have Created and You Shall Eat it Whole Without Liquid and Choke on its Bitterness. There is no such thing as a "good white person". To be Good is to Be Without Sin. However Your Children are Born into Sin because They Are Inheriting a Legacy of Wickedness and Bask in its Foul Odor just as You have Always done.

[...]

??Many of you all questioned If I was a Christian? No, and for you pathetic racist devils who love to jump to ignorant conclusions, I am NOT a Muslim either. I hate All of Your (European) perverted concoctions. I could NEVER participate in the ways of my oppressor. Even the same slave/slave-master handbook which you Beat us over the Head with instructs against this (Proverbs 3:31). It is Interesting what you find in that perverted text especially once you actually READ its content Thoroughly and Completely. In another part of the bible, which again I emphasize I have absolutely no subscription to, states in Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." You Europeans have Kidnapped us from our Land through an act of Unprovoked War, sold us to other nations and bartered amongst each other with us and we are still held captive by this wicked nation disallowed to repatriate with our Native Land (in mass numbers) and in many cases made so deaf, dumb and blind that we are convinced to believe that Afrika is what you say it is (Undesirable), but is Actually the Motherly Sustainer of All Nations on the Planet. You put forth this Blatant Lie so that you can comfortably carry on your Criminal Colonialism and Resource Exploitation there. In another part of that sick doctrine it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9: " What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the Sun." So as You have Done so it Shall be done onto You. Every iota of every act of wickedness you have Committed; you shall be forced to re-consume back into yourselves. It will be like a gallon of Poison to an Infant Child. All things function in patterns. Just as there is a consistent and unbreakable cycle to Life, Death, and the Seasons of Nature so it is with the Rise and Fall of Nations and their People. History has shown us that No Nation has withstood its imminent Demise. You are living in the Times of the Destruction of Amerikkka. In another part of this same devilish text in Revelation 16:6 it states: " Because they have shed the blood of the Prophets (leaders) and of The Holy Ones (Afrikan People), You will be given your own blood to drink like water. They deserve it.” Europeans, due to their uncompromisingly savage behaviour, deserve the Very Worst Slaughtering and Consequent Death.

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Have any of these fools thought of the political implications of telling parents that their daughters have to serve in combat? It’s hard enough for parents to stomach their sons going to war, but at least they tend to think the young man might have a fighting chance.

Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys. Why not lower the age of military service to 14? What’s the difference, morally speaking? To me, one of the creepiest scenes from WWII video footage was of Hitler patting adolescent boys on the head before sending them out to die in a lost cause. Listen to the last boy. He’s a little kid. If I ever found myself sympathizing with Nazis, all I’d have to do to cure the sentiment would be to watch that clip and I’d be ready to string them up without compunction. Does Obama want to be shown sending women off to combat? Does Ash Carter?

These people are sick in the head. Women and children should only have to fight as a last resort, and our current situation is anything but that.

Dr. Gary G. Kohls #conspiracy globalresearch.ca

Those of us who consider ourselves honorable 9/11 Truth-seekers understand how Galileo Galilei felt when his scientifically provable truth (that the earth revolved around the sun) was brutally suppressed by the ruling clerical elites of the 16th century.

Of course his run-in with church authorities was partly incited because he couldn’t refrain from pointing out that, because of his astronomical findings, he had proof that certain passages in the Bible couldn’t be true, thus claiming that the Bible was not inerrant. Cognitive dissonance erupted in the Vatican, and Galileo was declared a heretic and an enemy of the church. His books were banned, he was forbidden by the Inquisition to teach his “heresy” and he was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. It took 4 centuries for the church to admit its error, thus inadvertently admitting that the Bible was not inerrant.

The enforced silence by the mass media concerning the Crime and Cover-up of the Century (the events of 9/11/01) should have been over long ago, that is, if there was any justice in this nation.

Is Courageous Investigative Journalism Dead?

If real investigative journalism was still alive and kicking in our corporatized, for profit media environment, and if exposing Big Lies was still regarded as important in our dying democracy, the black-listing of 9/11 truth-seekers and the court of law-worthy evidence that they have collected would have been celebrated and not denigrated.

patienceinbee #fundie reddit.com

No campaign to announce "Die Trans Scum" is necessary.

It's been in de facto effect for as long as cis people have murdered, brutalized, raped, beaten, harassed, denied access to health care or social services, or categorically discriminated against trans people because of their being trans.

"Die Trans Scum" is the default we as trans people face each day when we walk outside. No matter how transparent to the cis world we might be; no matter how many years it's been since our transition, that very risk of being forcibly disclosed as trans (or even accidentally so) puts us in the crosshairs of those cis people who do want all people with bodies like ours eliminated, if not violently reprimanded.

The campaign is provocative. It's meant to be. As the "Die Cis Scum" discussion has been going on with Tumblr and Twitter for some time now, the consensus has been such: if you're cis, and you're not remotely offended by the campaign, it's because the campaign isn't about you or cis people like you at all. If it offends you as a cis person, however, then it means you probably should to look at your own cissexism, trans misogyny, and trans enmity toward trans people.

The campaign, after all, is qualifying only the scum of cis people, not all of cis people. As a trans person, if it offends you to hear "die cis scum", you
might have some internalized cissexism to unpack, if not also internalized transphobia.

tl;dr: As put better by someone else, "No cis person has ever been harmed of died from 'die cis scum,' but thousands of trans people have been killed or maimed by 'die trans scum.'"

ItisOver #sexist #crackpot incels.co

RE: [SuicideFuel] If you think not all women are manipulative whores, observe your mother.

Watch how she talks to your dad, the wording she uses and how she uses it.

About half the time you'll notice the snake mouth, where shes trying to get something without saying it directly, manipulating your father to say it himself, as if it was his desire in the first place.

I had high estrogen for like a week cause of increased prolactin, and I became evil and mischievous as fuck. This is the default state for women.

Are you serious? Explain more.

Many people believe that testosterone is what makes men aggressive, but that’s a lie. Testosterone makes men collected and relaxed in high tension situation. Estrogen is the hormone responsible for overt mood swings and specifically emotions such as anger, jealously and holding grudges. I was taking mk677 which coupled with puberty sky rocketed my estrogen levels. I became impulsive, always angry. I hated people over the smallest of things. Women are like this everyday in their life’s. It’s makes sense since female queens for example had a much higher chance of starting war than males.

I don't think this science is correct here.
Testosterone is connected to aggression. When you cut off a male dog's balls, he produces less testosterone and gets less aggressive, right? That's because less test.
Ever heard of roid rage? That's caused by increased testosterone levels.

Testosterone causes aggression when theres a risk involved. It makes people more fair all around: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739582/. Estrogen causes people to be angry over the smallest of things. Teens who were socially dominant were shown to have higher testosterone levels and low estrogen levels. Teens who were physically aggressive have shown to have high estrogen coupled with high T.

Roid rage happens because your high testosterone levels get converted into estrogen. Endogenous testosterone helps you get calmer. Exogenous fucks you up. Testosterone negatively predicts physical aggression without a stimuli.

Henry Makow #conspiracy henrymakow.com

They do want to implant a chip in us so they can find and identify us, as well as monitor and control our purchases.

They are weaning us off national allegiance and will resort to terrorism to win our assent to their global police state. They may use "one or two nuclear bombs to convince people we mean business," Day said.

He refrained from mentioning who "we" are but said the names are recognizable. Given that he worked for the Rockefellers, I assume he meant the Rockefellers and their bosses, the Rothschilds.

This adds weight to the widely-held view that the central bankers are responsible for most terrorism, using MI-6, Mossad and the CIA. Dr. Day also said that "war is obsolete" given the danger of nuclear exchange so terrorism would be used instead. This was 1969.

Dr. Day said sex will be separated from marriage and reproduction ( i.e. "sexual liberation") to break up the family and reduce population. Abortion, divorce, promiscuity and homosexuality will be made socially acceptable. Gender-neutered and promiscuous, fewer people are able to bond permanently with a member of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation.

He said that there are always two reasons for anything the Illuminati do: the pretext which makes it palatable to the gullible public and the real reason. Thus, we are being turned into homosexuals in the name of "women's and gay rights."

"Homosexuals will be given permission to act out. Everyone including the elderly will be encouraged to have sex. It will be brought out into the open. Anything goes." [The "Stonewall Riots" which unleashed the "gay rights" movement, took place three months later.] The ultimate goal is to have sex without reproduction. Reproduction without sex will occur in laboratories. Family size will be limited as in China.

It will be made more difficult for families to stay together. More women will work outside the home and more people will remain single. Sports will be promoted to girls so they will become more masculine and seek career instead of family. They will be taught that they are the same as boys.

In general, international sports like soccer and hockey will be pushed so Americans will see themselves as "world citizens." American sports like baseball and football will not be similarly encouraged.

BRUTALIZATION

Pornography, violence and obscenity on TV and in movies will be increased. People will be desensitized to violence and porn and made to feel life is short, precarious and brutish. Music will "get worse" and will be used for indoctrination.

There will be unemployment and mass migration in order to uproot long established (conservative) communities. Social change will be introduced in port cities and work its way to the heartland. (Thus, the east and west coast are liberal.)

He said a cure to cancer exists in the Rockefeller Institute but is kept secret for purposes of depopulation. He said there will be an increase in infectious man-made diseases.

Dr. Day, who worked in weather modification during the war, said weather can be used to wage war or create drought and famine. The food supply will be monitored so no one can get enough food to "support a fugitive from the New System." Growing your own food will be outlawed under the pretext being unsafe.

"Each part of the world will have a specialty and thus become inter-dependent, he said. The US will remain a center for agriculture, high tech, communications, and education but heavy industry would be "transported out."

[America's Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore And Eliminate Thousands of American Jobs, 2013]

He said people are controlled by means of the information they are given. Often contradictory information works (i.e. discrimination is bad unless it is against whites.) Information will be selective. Not everyone will be allowed to own books. "Certain books will disappear from libraries." Literary classics and the Bible will be subtly altered.

People will spend longer in school but not learn anything. There will be restrictions on travel and private home ownership will gradually disappear. Homes will become so expensive that people will have to share small apartments with non-family members.

CONCLUSION

Our political and cultural "leaders" are accomplices in a plot to re-engineer humanity to serve the Judeo-Masonic central banking cartel. Wars, terrorism, depressions, political and social change, entertainment and fads are all contrived to gradually bring about an Orwellian police state.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that. When people say that not all women are like that, NAWALT, it is like aging fat feminists saying that different men have different types so you can't say one type of beauty overrules the others. Not so: Men want to fuck young, beautiful and fertile women. Women want to fuck arrogant, violent, criminal men. That is all there is to it. We may nuance after accepting that, but only after accepting that. Brad Pitt got horribly burned. Einstein wound up with a KGB girl friend who cared more about Stalin than Einstein. Feynman needed to learn game, put on an asshole persona, did pretty much what I am doing. If not all women were like that, these famous men would have done better. Feynman scored, I scored, but if General Butt Naked had shown up, wearing a necklace of human eyeballs, an AK47, and nothing else, we would have been shit out of luck. All women react to the same stimuli in the same way. It is just a matter of which stimuli they get exposed to. If Feynman cannot score merely being brilliant, famous, and admired, Brad Pitt gets burned despite being rich, famous, and handsome, Einstein winds up having sex with the KGB and serving as a communist loudspeaker, then all women are like that. The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him killing her kittens. To align the crude, cruel, simplistic, vicious, and brutal female perception of the male status hierarchy with the subtle, complex, multidimensional, and nuanced reality of the male status hierarchy as actually organized by males, we need to legalize and socially support domestic discipline by taxpaying husbands and fathers, also husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries. (McLintock), and back that discipline with conspicuously public state violence. We also need to make it legal to use violence on men who come sniffing round your women, as the law was under King Solomon. Then hypergamy will be eugenic, rather than dysgenic. Right now, hypergamy is massively dysgenic. Hence the character I play when interacting with fertile age women.

Women have a primitive concept of power. And we men are all dancing monkeys. So, the thing we are forced to do is to become powerful as women understand power.

Which unfortunately is anti civilizational and counter civilizational. Hence the need to modify civilization so that high status males get to perform more private violence. It is easier to have more private policing, to make male status hierarchies more convincing to women, than it is to make women have sex with the men that they should, and refrain from having sex with the men that they should not.

When affluent respectable middle class white males beat misbehaving daughters and wives, and receive any necessary public assistance in so doing from police and authorities, while low lives do not receive similar assistance, then IQ<80 criminals will stop being so strangely attractive to women, and the guy in the corner office will find himself receiving hot letters from women he has never met. But that said, women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.

Donovan Sharpe #fundie returnofkings.com

Why shouldn’t women be referees?

Estrogen. You see competitive sports on all levels gets intense. In the heat of battle, tempers flare, names are called, and shit gets physical outside of the normal playing rules. Minor scuffles break out all the time in the NBA and the NFL. The officiating crews know and understand that this is what happens when testosterone mixes with adrenaline in a competitive environment.

Cooler heads prevail more often than not (the Malice at the Palace being the one major exception) and outside of a few shoves and some foul language, referees generally refrain from imposing any sort of penalty.

Women are governed by their emotions. So when things heat up on the playing field and things get rowdy they go to their default programming which is make the call based on feelings. Thursday night was the perfect example of this. The Clippers were frustrated due to being blown out, but Holtkamp made it worse by unleashing her hair trigger finger with all of her terrible calls because she simply couldn’t handle the gravity of the situation.

The bottom line is she cracked under pressure and tried to mitigate the damage by projecting it onto the players by making bad calls. And if you think this going to be an isolated event, think again. All women are like that. Period.

Plus, when things do escalate physically referees step in to separate the players. You think a female is strong enough to stop a 6’6? 230 lb power forward from accosting another player?

Then there’s the issue regarding personal vendettas. Yes, men hold grudges from time to time, but females take them to their graves. Piss them off one time and you’re on their shit list for life. There’s no way Holtkamp doesn’t hold this against Paul, and I’d bet the farm that other female officials act on long standing quarrels with players and coaches on the regular.

In the end…

…this is about the relentless pursuit of the infiltration into a male sphere by women. Female referees, female sports pundits, women’s causes and every other vagina-motivated agendas are becoming more prominent by the day. This fiasco is further proof that sports on all levels will eventually be eroded by women and their white knight betas.

This is yet another feather in the feminist cap. Sooner or later sports will be completely infested by females rendering professional sports in this country just about unwatchable in every way.

diggerfortruth #conspiracy #racism diggerfortruth.wordpress.com

It wasn’t too long ago that I too believed some of these misconceptions. Sooner or later the Truth and reality catches up with all of us.


1/. White European nations became rich off of the backs of the slave trade and plundering other nations
This is inaccurate. It was always the jews and the gentry directly serving the jews who benefited from the slave trade. After all it was mainly blacks enslaving blacks in Africa. The jews just capitalised on this industry. The actual lower classes never benefited from slavery, because they were slaves themselves; and still are.

And to argue that even the lower classes indirectly benefited due to the infrastructure, this too is not accurate. The European mind and energy has always had the ability to produce, create and invent at an incredible capacity. The railroads, hospitals, theatres, educational institutes were all physically produced by the working class on meagre wages. Any financial gains obtained by jewish families were spent internally to help international jewry; certainly not philanthropically distributed amongst society for the benefit of European peoples. The trickle down effect is another myth. We built and financed everything ourselves, through our hard work, ingenuity and creativity. That is the reality.

The myth that European nations are rich because we pilfered and enslaved others is nonsense – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.


2/. White Europeans invaded African culture, enslaved the blacks and had a cruel apartheid system
First the white Europeans who were fleeing jewish enslavement settled in a barren uninhabited South Africa. There was nothing much there other than nature’s elements – rocks and bushes. The hard working, ingenious, mixed Europeans literately created a superpower out of the bushes. Then when they had built a civilised structure – the blacks came to them. They did not build up their culture off the backs of the blacks.

As for the apartheid – what else could they do? It was the most sensible thing to do, to keep the blacks from rampaging their culture. Just look what is happening to the Afrikaners now that the apartheid has been abolished. The apartheid was essentially a border control that’s all.

The myth that the white South Africans used the blacks to create their lifestyle is ridiculous propaganda – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
[please listen to Karen Smith’s interview below]
t
t
3/. Being racist is the most anti-social thing one can be
Well first of all this word racist was coined by a mass murdering jew called Trotsky. This was created in order to guilt up any Whites who dare to stand up for their European culture. It is a powerful word and meme and this single word alone enables vast amounts of white people to bend over backwards to accommodate non-whites into their culture, just in order not be labeled a racist. Whites will give up their heritage, jobs, culture, lineage, identity and lifestyle so long as they are not called this silly little name. It is truly incredible the power of trigger words through mind control – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
4/. Diversity enriches European societies
On the surface, one could argue that having multiple choices of restaurants from many different cultures is a positive thing for society. One could indeed say that these cultures are contributing to European culture by providing alternatives. But at what price? How much of a payoff do we have for this enrichment? It is obvious by now to anyone who is prepared to use an ounce of logic that behind the surface of this colourful enrichment; the indigenous European peoples are paying a hefty price. In fact we are suffocating. Multiculturalism is the death spell of European culture and civilisation. Had Europeans just had a policy that only small amounts of people can stay providing they provide a unique contribution: a Chinese martial art, a Korean healing system, an Indian meditation technique, etc; then this really would be enrichment. The reality is most people coming to Europe have only one interest – to serve themselves. None of them give a damn about the preservation of our European culture. Every single migrant cares only about their self interests and their culture. None of them actively help to preserve European culture. Diversity = white genocide. Diversity is enrichment – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
5/. Colour is just skin deep – we’re all equal
This is simply not true! One only has to objectively look at each race and look at each races’ achievements. One can use all the excuses in the world as to why certain cultures have not been able to develop; but we all have been on this planet for the same time. It’s too much of a coincidence that in every single part of the globe that White European cultures have lived – civilised cultures have blossomed. Europeans built the pyramids. It is only because of jewish interference that white Europeans have not been able to fully develop. Just look what Germany achieved in just six years free of the parasitic jews. The same for England after Edward the 1st (Longshanks) booted the jews out of England ….look how England prospered. It’s been the same in every European culture, if Europeans are left to flourish on their own without the parasitic jew. The ‘we’re all equal’ narrative is just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
6/. The only reason a high percentage of blacks are violent is because they have been socially suppressed by whites and all they are doing is venting their righteous anger – it’s justified
Righteous anger – about what exactly? Having been afforded 100 fold opportunities in a European culture than in their own culture? Just look at the opportunities they have been given. Companies and local councils are bending over backwards with ‘affirmative action’/equal opportunities for non-whites. In fact it is easier now for a non-white to get a job in a Government/local council job. Not to mention the handouts. And how can the unprovoked attacks on whites be explained in South Africa? These were not oppressed people’s, they were outsiders coming in to destroy White civilisation. The notion that all blacks (as a collective) need is education and they will blend into any civilised European society has now been proven a myth. How far do we have to stretch things to continually come up with excuses for black on white crimes – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide. [please see video channel below]
t
t
7/. White people and white cultures are innately racist
What could be further than the Truth. White people (as a collective) are THE least racist people on the planet. And I struggle with this term racist anyway; as it is another trigger word created by the jews. But as far as being accommodating – there is no race on the planet more accommodating than the white European race. We have given and given and given and given throughout our whole existence. And we continue to give in endless charitable and philanthropic projects. Yet somehow as the providers, we always seem to end up with the racist label and the ones feeling guilty for not having done enough and somehow being the suppressors of non-whites. Had it not been for the white peoples’ inventiveness, with sanitation, electricity, medical resources, etc; the population of non-whites would be far less. Whites are evil racists – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
8/. All races can pull together to fight the common evil
At one point I truly did believe this nonsense. I really did think that if all races and cultures woke up to the JCN, then we’ld live a more peaceful existence – ha. Oh dear, how embarrassing. The concept that if we all pull together to fight our common foe, we would live in peace. Utter nonsense. Just look at each race and how they only look after themselves. You can see it within the Truth movement – the blacks are all about their black issues, the Muslims are only pro-Islam, even the gays only care about their gay issues. None of these secular groups want to join forces to fight the jewish agenda, because secretly they know who is funding their particular agenda. They’re all ultimately about bringing down the European race.
t
t
9/. Just like mongrel dogs, mixed race people are healthier and less susceptible to inbred diseases
And there are people out there who propagate this garbage. As with all these modern memes, it couldn’t be further from the Truth and as always just more inverted Truth. The healthiest of races are the purest of races. This is a given. Mixed race children apparently are not able to receive organ donations. Why all of a sudden would genetics suddenly change in cultures? If races have bred amongst their own for thousands of years; why now is this seemed unhealthy? A jewish propagandised narrative perhaps – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
10/. Black men are more virile than white men
I know this may seem like scraping the barrel, but this topic often crops ups. I’ve had to listen to this crap all my life. It’s so obvious who is behind this myth and why they would propagate it. It is just another method to knock the white man’s confidence. To make him feel inferior to other races. Whilst at the same time programme (propagandise) white women, (along with the music industry) into believing that dating black men is a better option and somehow black men are more masculine. Hence to encourage race-mixing – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.

JaSon #fundie forum.myspace.com

(in response to a thread about a gay teen attempting suicide)

So what?

A pervert tried to kill himself.

Am I supposed to get all weepy eyed when millions of children are being murdered?

What dose this prove other then he was mentally unstable and to weak-minded to take the insults that he himself was responsible for.

While I think those people taunting him went way overboard I feel that there behavior was better then excepting his perversion and then teasing those who know it is wrong.

And I would not have resorted to such behavior unless the pervert was around little children and I thought he was trying to recruit.

Even then I wouldn’t resort to petty name calling I would use brute force to stop him from spreading his perversion and ruining another life.


By the way a fag is literally a bundle of hot and fast burning sticks.

Hate Crime Hoaxes #conspiracy reddit.com

Hate Crime Hoaxes (HCH)

A subreddit dedicated to cataloging incidents where people have lied about being the victim of a hate crime.

Rules are few, but important:

Posts should primarily be direct links to news articles describing the incident.

Articles regarding hate crime hoax statistics are also welcomed, as are stories of HCH from other countries or articles examining the media's role in promoting hoaxes.

1. Try to summarize the background of the hoax as best you can in the headline without editorializing. Try to be as clinical as possible this means refraining from vitriol and sarcasm.

2. Optional but appreciated to prevent duplicates: Note the date of the article and the city/state where the hoax took place in the headline title. This makes it easier to search for duplicates.

3. Please do not submit duplicate of the same event without a good reason. Karma is not a good reason. Seeing that the existing article leaves out a ton of important details or comes from a questionable source are good reasons to submit a better one. Duplicate stories are subject to removal.

4. Local news sources are best. If an interesting topic is discussed in a blog, HuffPo, AmmoLand, etc. look for the link to the original news article. Mods reserve the right to replace posts with a more relevant link. Off-topic and opinion pieces will be considered for deletion.

5. Commenting is unmoderated, except in instances where the comment violates Reddit's policies (giving out personal info, for example). Blatantly racist comments will result in an immediate ban. Terms like Jew, Jewess, blackie, whitey, chink, cunt, Pope worshipper etc are examples of descriptions that are unnecessarily inflammatory. Identity politics and attention whoring knows no limit based on race, gender or ideology.

Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow #fundie thelibertyzone.us

[On SJWs]

Ever notice how most of their pictures depict them with neutral expressions at best (I’m being generous) and most of the time, a sneer or some other ‘superior’ expression? Their default expressions aren’t pleasant either. Their general aura is sullen, unhappy, and they seem to expect offense at every turn so they can snap and snarl at the world because that’s easier for them than actually trying to be happy – and you can’t work at getting your happiness and joy if you don’t know what makes you happy. Which, I think sometimes, is one of the problems. They don’t have ‘true’ hardship so they make life hard for themselves and everyone around them, and call that suffering and martyrdom and victim-virtue. Don’t they realize that the reason why people admire the ones who survive horrible experiences is because they do it with determination (and unseen, have the dignity and self respect to weep in private!)

It is no virtue to be a victim, to have no power. They who have put victimhood on a pedestal, wrap it around themselves like a comforting blanket, tell themselves only lies “I have no power, it is not my fault my life is a cesspool of misery,” and use those lies as an excuse to lash out and think that the repulsed recoil gives them power.

The only power they have is to drive people away.

Candentia #sexist reddit.com

I don't trust all men on one basis: male socialization, which applies to all of them. To differing degrees and in different ways, sure, but still. Male socialization teaches them to look to women as inferior, as servile, as the ones to blame for their own actions toward them, as fleshy sex toys for their benefit, to be predators of women, to get the most they can for themselves short of it being unacceptable, to be blind to suffering in favor of "rational" principle, to be complicit and overlook the brutality and arrogance of their own group.

Then, it even goes as far as to have them suppress and shame their own emotions, so that they will remain effective as oppressors who will refrain from turning against their own group, who tends to even be shitty to them. No, he's not really a nice guy if he watches porn, and absolutely so if he is protective of his porn habits. If your boyfriend only considers the problem of it to be how its technically cheating to him, he either hasn't realized or doesn't care about the real problem of it.

I can only come to start trying to trust men who hate men themselves, which of course comes down to what the cult of masculinity demanded he himself become. However, even they have to be questioned on whether they are actual traitors to men or if they are simply that cunning to win your trust to then betray you personally. After all, the abusers who get the farthest are those who did the most in their power to avoid being recognized as one.

12.76.153.88 #racist en.wikipedia.org

(This is a banned editor moaning about his racist edits to articles being reverted)

One of the Wikipedia sayanim is heard from! Didn't take you very long.

Unconstructive? Uninformative? Because it tells the truth about who is commiting these crimes? Without resorting to weasel words, per Wikipedia guidelines. Can't have that now, can we? Try looking at the FBI violent crime statistics.

Or continue to believe that whites are avoiding one shopping mall after another because they are racists who fear "diversity" and not the crimes committed by this diverse population.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If the votes are honestly counted, Duerte Harry will be the next president of the Philippines.

He was previously mayor of Davao, where he solved a crime problem, in substantial part a problem of Muslim criminals predating on Christians, by killing criminals. A lot of criminals. Of all religions.

When I was in Davao, some people threatened him with lawfare, and he responded in his newspaper that if they sued him, he would kill them, their wives, and their children.

Motorized tricycles are the major form of public transportation in some parts of Davao and most places near Davao. My tricycle driver stopped to buy fuel, and told me how a street kid had snatched a fuel payment, equivalent to six US dollars, and subsequently been killed by one of Duerte Harry’s death squads.

I wonder how many other payments that kid snatched before they nailed him. Also, how big was this “kid”? Had to be strong enough to snatch, and fast enough to get away.

The people who were allegedly death squads were wonderfully disciplined, always perfectly polite and courteous, their uniforms extremely neat, their guns and decorations shiny. I felt very safe with them, whereas I don’t feel safe with western police, who are conspicuously undisciplined and discourteous. I always get the feeling that western police may capriciously decide I have done something illegal (after all, there are so many things that are illegal) just to show me who is boss. I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble with police even when caught red handed, except for traffic offenses, or else my lawyer was able to talk me out of trouble, but why the hell should I need to talk my way out of trouble? I am an honest decent guy. Anarcho tyranny is that they enforce all sorts of laws against people like me, and not against the kid who snatches six dollars.

When car-burning riots raged in Sweden, police had a policy of deliberately doing nothing about the rioters while cracking down decisively on so-called “vigilantes” who tried to stop immigrant rioters burning cars and neighborhoods. To add insult to injury, authorities issued parking tickets on burned cars.

In America, a four year old boy was groped in a bathroom. His father slugged the groper. Father arrested, groper not arrested.

See Will’s anarcho tyranny blog for a long long list of what police do while allowing criminals to run amuck. He tends to focus on tyranny. Here is some anarchy. And more anarchy.

Duerte Harry’s death squads don’t do anything like that, any more than they would let the brass on their uniforms get dull, or drink while on duty, or wear uniforms that were less than perfectly neat and pressed. Their scrupulous neatness and rigid discipline is a symbol that they do not engage in such self indulgent bullying. Their perfect courtesy and crisply pressed uniforms are a promise that they do not threaten people like me. They threaten people who would snatch six dollars out of my hand.

Rowan Walters #conspiracy discussion.theguardian.com

Playing Devil's Advocate here, it sounds as though the only real breakthrough is that the existence of a Will Shakespeare from Stratford has been confirmed, as has his association with the theatre via the reference to him as "the player".

I have yet to read the book itself of course, but this article certainly doesn't provide any details that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that said Will Shakespeare, "player", was the author of the massive oeuvre of genius that has come down to us bearing his name. The existence of William Shakespeare of Stratford has never been in dispute, nor has the fact that he was associated with the theatre - at least insofar as the case for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the real author, is concerned.

Perhaps the book itself provides further evidence, but it seems improbable to me that a man who had never left England could have shown such familiarity with foreign locales like Verona - all of which, incidentally, de Vere is known to have visited. Or that he could have the extraordinarily broad knowledge of law, medicine, languages, protocol and court life, etc etc that are evident in the works of Shakespeare.

It doesn't seem to me that the hypothesis that the man from Stratford actually wrote Shakespeare's works has been proven.

Doc Savage #conspiracy freerepublic.com

OK, one more time:

1. HIV does NOT cause AIDS.

2. AIDS is NOT a sexually-transmitted disease.

3. There is no pandemic. There is no epidemic. There is no heterosexual epidemic.

4. African AIDS is NOT AIDS. It is not caused by HIV. It is based on malnutrition, common bacterial, viral and fungal infections, and poor sanitation.

5. The HIV test is NOT a test for the presence of live virus (antigen). It is an antibody test showing prior exposure to a harmless retrovirus.

6. The only people who are at risk of acquired immune deficiency are homosexuals (for a variety of disease issues) and IV drug users. Period.

7. AZT is a DNA chain terminator and kills people, it doesn't cure them. Next?

Roger Patterson #fundie oursaviorpomona.com

The most persuasive—and dangerous—definition for evolution is “change through time.” Just because organisms can be observed to change over a period of time does not mean that all life has a common ancestor. If we think of the classic peppered moth example, we started with light and dark moths (Biston betularia) and ended up with light— and dark—colored moths of the same species in different proportions. This exemplifies the creationist idea of variation within a kind.

The natural selection that produces the variety of living things we see today began after Adam rebelled against God. The concept of natural selection was published in a biblical context by Edward Blyth 24 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. Blyth is forgotten and Darwin is remembered because of the philosophic and religious implications of his idea, not the scientific applications.

Natural selection has been shown to change organisms but always within the boundaries of the created kinds. This type of change is often termed “microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change that turns fish into philosophers is known as “macroevolution.” The large-scale changes through time are simply dramatic extrapolations of the observed phenomenon of natural selection. This degree of extrapolation has no basis in operational science. There are limits to the amount and type of genetic change that can occur—no matter what amount of time is allowed. As an illustration: if you can pedal a bicycle at 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon? Bicycles have limits that would make this goal impossible regardless of the time you have to accomplish it.

RetroSpriteResources #sexist retrospriteresources.deviantart.com

Remember how I used to believe we could stop the rape of respectable women by limiting rape to sluts? Well, now I have a new idea on how to stop the rape of respectable women without sacrificing sluts.

It's simple really, you will never stop men from wanting to rape women. 58% of men are just the ones who will admit that they wish they could legally rape a woman. Thing is, for men at least, sex is a basic need. It's like food or water. Only someone with either an exceptionally strong will, access to it or has something wrong with them won't do anything at any risk to get their hands on food and water.

No amount of laws, enforcement, education or punishment will stop men (and some women) from wanting to rape others. Normal men (and some women) will always resort to rape when sex is taken away from them unless they have Buddist monk level willpower or are asexual.

So the only way to help solve this problem is to wake up, smell reality and realize that we can't create a rape-free utopia, we just have to do the best we can to fix the problem 99% of the way.

To stop most rape, we could just campaign the government to take all the worst male and female prisoners who have murdered, abused children, raped, etc, and turn them into public sex slaves.

This way, only piece of shit men and women who no one loves or cares about will be raped and no innocent people will ever have to suffer again. Plus, they'll get extra punishment for the crimes they committed. It's a win-win situation.

There will also be tons of other side benefits such as saved money on rape prosecutions that can instead go towards things like building the southern wall or strengthening our military.

Please don't say your voice doesn't matter, because it does. Campaign the government to do this for the sake of every innocent rape victim who has suffered.

Peace! Make America great again!

Conservative Headlines #racist conservative-headlines.org

[From "Poetic Justice (Part I)"]

Although credit is often mistakenly given to Shakespeare, it was the 17th Century literary critic Thomas Rymer who coined the term “poetic justice.” Poetic justice occurs when some particularly hypocritical or vile individual receives a fitting and appropriate end, particularly one with irony in abundance.

The following are examples of poetic justice, and many are so perfectly appropriate that they even hint at the possibility of Divine Intervention.

Amy Biehl: Filled with the self-righteousness that only Jews can feel towards blacks with whom they have no contact, Amy Biehl traveled to South Africa in 1993 to help register blacks to vote in the 1994 South African National Elections that ended “apartheid.”

She must have assumed her degrees from Stanford would insulate her from the routine violence of black savages. However, to paraphrase an African proverb, “the leopard cannot change its spots.”

That election almost immediately transitioned South Africa from a First World civilization into a Third World cesspool. It also ushered in a new era where black savages gird up their courage and their loins before murdering white farm families and stealing their land with impunity.

[...]

Four sub-human rat-apes were arrested and charged with her murder, but after their convictions, all four were pardoned by South Africa’s so-called “Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” The latter is anything BUT a source of “reconciliation,” and their pardons were conclusive evidence that South Africa is now as lawless as Zimbabwe, Haiti, or every other black shit-hole.

If there were ever a perfect example of poetic justice, it is Amy Biehl’s brutal and senseless murder at the hands of the same black savages she worked to “liberate.”

It is the Amy Biehls of this world who feel the insane need to empower the most violent, savage, witless and predatory race in human history, and she was instrumental in helping to destroy South Africa by turning it over to witless black savages, whose true nature will forever remain a mystery to her. It is only justice that she should die at their hands.

Julie Laible: This woman was raised on a farm in a nearly all-white region of Illinois. She studied Spanish at the University of Illinois, where she was inspired (wink, wink) by a black teaching assistant who opened her eyes to racial injustice in America. At his suggestion, she attended graduate school at the University of Texas at Austin, where she could get all the exposure to Hispanics she might ever want.

[...]

Steven Otter: Steven Otter was a self-righteous author and “journalist,” who routinely vilified other white people for what he charged was their “misperception” of black crime in South Africa.

In a truly delicious example of poetic justice, his home was invaded on December 16, 2016 — South Africa’s “Reconciliation Day” — by two black savages who stabbed him to death. He died in the arms of his mixed-race “partner,” Nathalie Williams.

[...]

In truth, Otter was just another foolish white race-traitor, who was not squeamish about affiliating with certain violent and savage, black and Marxist revolutionary parties found in South Africa. These included The Pan-African Congress, and the Afro-Marxist Economic Freedom Fighters.

Otter’s assailants must not have read his work, so they were never informed of how innocent and peaceful they actually are. In any event, had Otter listened to all those “racist thoughts” and “racist voices” from his childhood — that he made it a point to reject — he might very well be alive today to further lecture us about how wrong we all are about blacks and their violent and criminal inclinations.

underverse #fundie mmo-champion.com

f an underage girl pursued an older male and she initiated sex with him and they both consented, enjoyed it, and she was not traumatized by the experience, then is it still wrong, is anyone really hurt, or is there even a victim at all? The same for an underage male pursuing an older female?

On topic, no there's no damage caused. There's no victim. We just have religious/puritan roots and tolerate sexual interactions to only the most necessary degree.

Can't consent according to the law of most civilized countries.

The difference is that 2 16 year olds have a pretty similar power balance, whereas a 16 and a 21 year old have a completely different one.

Power imbalance is inherent to the vast majority of relationships and is actually a good thing in most cases. It increases the risk of abuse, but it also increases the reward for the weaker party as they are able to obtain extensive resources and knowledge through their power imbalance relationship.

When you consider things like attraction, though, power imbalances generally disappear.

the law dictates that kids are complete absolute 100% dumb fucks.

Kids are deemed so stupidly retarded they cant even answer a simple question 'yes or no' regarding sex


Oh but they can. They can consent to sexual activities with other people their age who are, apparently, just as clueless as they are. An then people wonder why teenage pregnancy and STDs are so prevalent.

If anything, age differences in relationships are safety nets.

Besides if any adult decides to mess with my Daughters, regardless of who initiated the contact, they better invest in some soap on a rope. I'll make damn sure that fucker ends up behind bars.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the parallels with fathers who would say the same thing about a black man 'messing with their daughters' not too long ago are pretty overt.

ut the man opens himself up to a world of hurt should the girl regret her decision, and the law is in place to just give a clear-cut line where it's not any use in saying "but he/she wanted it too!" for the adult. It's to stop adults from taking advantage of young people.

I never understood this argument. When I was younger, I was in a relationship with someone 7 years older than me, for 2 years. I had basically all of the power in that relationship, for a few reasons: one, I could leave whenever I wanted to, and as the object of desire my basis for remaining in the relationship did not involve attraction, but rather behaviors and stability. Two, our culture hates it when older people are in relationships with younger people for some shitty reason, so if anything went wrong I would have the full support of everyone around me. In short, I couldn't be in the wrong, and that gave me a significant amount of power.

If anything, it's the younger person that's taking advantage of the older one. The older one gets some eye candy and maybe fulfills their desire to provide and protect, while resources and knowledge are transferred to the younger one.

The damage people experience as a result of such relationships is largely an outcome of societal condemnation. If you remove a minor's agency and condemn their behaviors - even if they are not responsible for it - you will damage how they view themselves and relationships. That's right - WE are responsible more than the 'perpetrator' of the act for the damage caused by these relationships (in most cases, not all). The only reason I have a solid mental state and positive image of myself and relationships after coming out of that relationship is that I don't give a single fuck about what other people think. I used to, but not anymore after I realized how destructive other people can be just with their opinions, and especially to an underdeveloped mind as my own was when I had to think about these kinds of things at 15.

I want to reduce damage. I also want people to be able to acquire resources and stability if they so choose. Living in a society that condemns relationships with large age differentials and illegalizes them in some cases does neither.

I was in a sexual mentoring relationship with someone significantly older then me. It worked well for me, gave me an edge over my peers, and is party responsible for my success. I'm still good friends with the guy, and though I am not interested in a sexual relationship with him any more he still provides me with guidance. I would not have been able to obtain all of the knowledge and resources I did without the relationship being sexual; it wouldn't have been worth it for him, and I didn't mind/enjoyed it after a few times.

Chad Greene #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aiming at Sex-Gender Alignment

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

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

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

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

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

We Need a Real Cure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vincent Cheung #fundie vincentcheung.com

(Figures that he's a presuppositionalist, seeing how van Til, the one who founded the idea, was also a Calvinist.)

Some Christians attempt to defend the faith with scientific arguments, such as those based on physics, biology, and archaeology. Along with the unbelievers they assume the reliability of science and attempt to "do science" better than the unbelievers can. If what I am saying is correct – that is, if what Paul is saying is correct – then of course we are able to do science better than the unbelievers, since Christians possess presuppositions that correspond to reality, that tell us the truth about God and his creation.

That said, the scientific method itself precludes the knowledge of truth, so that even with the correct presuppositions, science is totally unable to discover or describe the nature of reality. As Ronald W. Clark writes, "Contemplation of first principles progressively occupied Einstein's attention," and in such a context, he quotes Einstein as saying, "We know nothing about it at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren....the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never." Of course, he could speak only for science and not revelation.

Karl Popper, who has produced a number of works on the philosophy of science, writes as follows:

Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it....In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth....Einstein declared that his theory was false – he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.

Scientists conduct multiple experiments to test a hypothesis. If observation is reliable, then why do they need more than one experiment? If observation is less than reliable, then how many experiments are enough? Who decides? [...]

The probability of drawing the correct curve (about experiments determining the exact boiling point of water, taking into account minutely different observations) is one over infinity, which equals zero. Therefore, there is a zero probability that any scientific law can be true. This means that it is impossible for science to ever accurately describe anything about reality. Thus Popper writes, "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero." [...]

Scientists, of course, attempt to get around [affirming the consequent] by having "controlled" experiments, but they are faced again with an infinite number of things that may affect each experiment. How do they know what variables must be controlled? By other experiments that affirm the consequent, or by observation, which we have shown to be unreliable?

Bertrand Russell was a celebrated mathematician, logician, philosopher, and wrote much against the Christian religion. So he was not attempting to endorse Christianity when he wrote:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

Yet many who speak this way refuse to draw the logical conclusion that all science is irrational and without justification.

Most people feel compelled to respect science because of the practical success that it appears to achieve; however, we have noted that affirming the consequent may yield results but not truths. Remember what Popper said about Einstein: "He would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory." The typical college student would disagree, but the typical college student is not Einstein. Accordingly, although science sometimes achieve practical ends, it has no authority to make pronouncements concerning the nature of reality. If the scientist does not know his place, an informed believer should not hesitate to put him back in his place. Theology is the ruling intellectual discipline, not science.

Peter LaBarbera #fundie lifesitenews.com

Liberal law center demonizes Christian foes of LGBTQ agenda as ‘hate groups’

August 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — In the vast array of leftist lies, one of the most dangerous is that groups and people defending historic Judeo-Christian sexual morality are somehow guilty of "hate." The main perpetrator of that “big lie” these days is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has turned smearing and demonizing social conservatives fighting the homosexual-transgender agenda into a very profitable business.

The SPLC is attempting to pull off one of the nastiest and most audacious “bait-and-switch” propaganda coups in history — equating the Christian-conservative led effort to defend biblical morality against the aggressive LGBTQ lobby with vile racists, Neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic extremist groups.

The Birmingham, Alabama-based SPLC’s “hate” campaign is helped along by lazy, biased journalists and online “social justice warriors” who delight in using its past anti-racism credentials to advance the Left's immoral and deviant sex-gender agenda.

CNN lends legitimacy to SPLC

Yesterday, CNN shamefully assisted the SPLC’s bogus “hate” narrative by running a story featuring its “hate map” under the initial headline, “Here are all the active hate groups where you live.” It was accompanied by a graphic of the SPLC’s “hate map” of alleged “hate groups,” which includes, under Illinois, my organization, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). We have been slandered as an SPLC “hate group” for the last several years.

On the SPLC ‘s Illinois map, AFTAH and other Christian pro-family groups are listed alongside a KKK group, a "white nationalist" outfit, and some affiliates of the Aryan Nations Sadistic Souls MC, another Nazi group. This is the SPLC’s vicious handiwork, treated as “fact” by the media.

After protests by those miscast as “haters,” CNN changed its headline to "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups.”

Similar stories featuring the SPLC’s bogus “hate map” have popped up across the country, including one in the The Boston Globe headlined, “Where hate calls ‘home’ in Massachusetts.”

The following pro-family groups join Americans For Truth in having the distinct “honor” of being lied about by the cunningly deceptive, sleazy and, yes, downright evil SPLC:

Abiding Truth Ministries (Scott Lively)

Alliance Defending Freedom (the SPLC recently attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions for addressing this group)

American College of Pediatricians (Dr. Michelle Cretella)

American Family Association (Tim Wildmon)

American Vision

Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM; Austin Ruse)

Citizens for Community Values

Conservative Republicans of Texas (Dr. Steve Hotze)

Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)

Family Research Institute (Dr. Paul Cameron)

Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (H.O.M.E.)

Illinois Family Institute

Liberty Counsel (Mat Staver)

Mass Resistance (and its chapters in various states; Brian Camenker)

Mission: America (Linda Harvey)

Pacific Justice Institute (Brad Dacus)

Pass the Salt Ministries (Coach Dave Daubenmire)

Pray in Jesus Name Project (“Chaps” Klingenschmitt)

Public Advocate of the United States (Eugene Delgaudio)

Ruth Institute (Jennifer Roback Morse)

Save California (Randy Thomasson)

Traditional Values Coalition (Andrea Sheldon)

World Congress of Families/Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society (Allan Carlson)
As you can see, this is quite a large group, representing many millions of Americans and including some of the most accomplished and effective pro-family leaders in the United States. Who knew that these great Americans were the moral equivalents of neo-Nazi Stormtroopers and the Ku Klux Klan?

Hating truth

They are not, of course. Not even close. Could it be that leftists who deliberately conflate mere opposition to the LGBTQ agenda — a revolutionary sin movement that has destroyed the sanctity of marriage in the law and is leading the assault on citizens’ right to live according to the dictates of their faith with hatred— are the ones truly guilty of hate-mongering?

Common sense and logic tell us that those who resist a deviant-sex movement that has produced such profound evils as “pregnant men”; perversion-positive “Christianity”; and teaching little children that they can “become” the opposite sex though medical manipulations of their young bodies, are motivated not by malice or bigotry but rather a heartfelt desire to ward off the social destruction that comes from celebrating unnatural behaviors.

There is a popular saying in Christian, pro-family circles today: “Those who hate the truth call truth hate.”

I believe that at some level that is true, because when “journalists” cavalierly repeat politically calculated tripe like the SPLC’s “hate” smear as if it is authoritative and meaningful, they demonstrate contempt for sincere people of faith simply trying to follow God.

Besides, one of the “old school” rules of “fair” journalism is that in covering a cultural debate, you do not rely on one group’s biased characterization of its opponents, to preserve the ideal of a disinterested, neutral news story. Of course, those days are long gone as most media have shorn any pretense of objectivity and are increasingly fanatical cheerleaders for Big Gay and Big Trans. (What’s next, Big Poly?)

Go with the Big Lie

And so we behold a Fourth Estate very much interested and dutiful in advancing the “narrative” of one side of the “culture war” over homosexuality and “transgenderism,” using the noble-sounding cover of “civil rights.” Most media don’t even bother anymore to get viewpoints of the “other side” on this issue, or if they do, it’s often just a token quote to help reporters feel like they’re being fair.

This makes the SPLC’s goal of advancing its bold, pro-LGBT “hate” lie much easier than it should be.

It turns out that the “Big Lie” tactic attributed to Hitler was something he accused “the Jews” of doing in his 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf, years before he led a demonization- and then genocidal government campaign against them. But history records that the mustached Nazi dictator and his henchmen (most notably Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels) became masters of the tactic, ultimately using it as part of their horrifyingly evil program against Jews, Poles, and other “undesirables.”

Hitler wrote: “For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

Today’s leftist liars understand this harsh reality and know that their “end justifies the means” approach toward delegitimizing pro-family conservatives as “hateful” bigots yields big political and cultural dividends — and scares the media away from featuring conservatives in their stories.

So rather than oppose pro-family groups civilly on public-policy issues concerning homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism), the Left resorts to a sophisticated version of name-calling. It began in the post-Stonewall ‘70s, as radical “gay” activists held up signs equating prominent religious opponents of organized homosexuality, like Anita Bryant, with Hitler.

From there it went to tarring their foes as “homophobes,” a term invented by pro-“gay” psychologist George Weinberg, who neatly flipped the pathology from homosexual behavior itself to opposing homosexuality.

Ultimately, the SPLC “codified” that Big Lie, as it were, with its “hate-labeling” strategy that preposterously mixes Christian, pro-family groups opposed to the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) Lobby with vile neo-Nazis and white race-warriors.

The SPLC claims it is not demonizing moral and religious opposition to homosexuality but only the methods that the above conservative groups use to oppose the LGBTQ movement, but this is an absurd technicality. In another column, I will expose the arbitrariness of the SPLC’s “criteria” for determining which groups belong on its “anti-LGBT” “hate map.”

‘I’m not a hater?’

And yet, despicable as the SPLC’s hate-smear campaign is, it is highly effective. Making the spurious charge against morality-defenders as “haters” is far easier to do in our post-Christian, morally dumbed-down culture than defending oneself against the loaded accusation.

Indeed, forcing conservatives and Christians to plead defensively, “I’m not … ” is part of the SPLC’s propaganda strategy. We have become a society of simplistic slogans, like “Love is love” and “marriage equality.” In such a culture, accusing good-hearted Christians and conservatives of “hating gays” merely because they oppose (very unhealthy) homosexual behavior, “gay marriage” and creating sin-based “rights” is par for the course.

Denying that you are a “hater” when the most powerful forces in society — media, corporations, academia — are matter-of-factly echoing the SPLC smear — is sort of like denying that you beat your wife. You would never beat your wife — you are called to love her sacrificially as Christ loved the Church — but suddenly you are accused of having abused her, by an organization lionized by the press. A cunning, well-funded organization masquerading as a “civil rights” champion whose allegations are repeated far and wide with an air of moral authority and respectability.

Your pleas about the falseness of the outrageous smear are shared by friends (some similarly accused of beating their wives) but together you are drowned out by a chorus of enemies who have won the sympathy of the corrupt media.

Your only hope for justice is that a large and growing army of people — aided by some counter-cultural media leaders — comes to your aid and exposes the hateful slanders and the wicked organization behind them, so that nobody will ever believe its lies again.

This is how we must counter the SPLC’s calculated, cynical “Big Lie” against people of faith who humbly set out to speak truth, in the love of Christ, about one of the most difficult issues of our age.

Next: The shoddy research, irrationality and arbitrariness of the SPLC’s LGBT “hate group” lie.

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

Creeping Sharia has come to a grocery aisle near you. Campbell’s soups have come out with a line of 15 halal-certified soups which comply with the dietary regulations of the two percent of the American population that follows Islam. The soups have been certified by the Islamic Society of North America, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood whose cluster of 29 affiliated organizations - including ISNA - have a goal of “exterminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist-fund raising trial in history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. Well, nobody will be able to blame Campbell’s for not doing its part to cooperate with those who hate America and want to see her and her Constitution subverted and then wiped out altogether.

The next time you pop open a can of Campbell’s vegetarian soup, you’ll have the comfort of knowing that you are consuming jihadi-sanctified food.

To see where things are going with this whole halal business, look no further than the U.K., where grocers have gone whole-hog - pardon the expression - on offering halal meat but without telling anybody about it.

The largest supermarket chains in Britain are selling lamb and chicken which come from animals which have been slaughtered in the Islamic way. Even fast-food joints like Domino’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, and Subway are using halal meat, but they aren’t telling their customers about it either. Domino’s, for instance, has been serving halal chicken for 10 years in 580 outlets across the fruited U.K. plan. Folks in hospitals, schools, and pubs across the U.K. have been eating food that has first been blessed in the name of the demon-god Allah but know nothing about it.

betterthanabortion #fundie betterthanabortion.tumblr.com

There are three main facets of the bodily autonomy argument: 1) the idea that there is no significant relationship between the pregnant person and the fetus, 2) the idea that denied access to abortion is equatable to “forced organ donation,” and 3) the idea that “consent can be revoked at any time.” If we can make our way through these points while remaining consistently pro-life for BOTH the mother and child, we can come to the logical conclusion that supporting one’s rights to bodily autonomy is not synonymous with supporting abortion. In fact, it is synonymous with being against abortion, because abortion robs someone of their right to life AND their right to their body.

Argument 1: The Parent/Child Relationship
Biologically speaking, a fetus is the “offspring” (or child) of the pregnant person. This means that by default, pregnant persons are biological parents. Since we know that a child’s life begins at the moment of their conception, we can conclude that parenthood also begins at this point. The law dictates that parents should not only refrain from intentionally causing harm to their children (which is the case in most abortions), but are also obligated to provide what resources they reasonably can to keep their children alive and safe from harm, unless and until they can transfer them to another’s care. A healthy, non-life-threatening pregnancy is not an unreasonable feat of provision, and since parenthood begins when pregnancy begins, that’s when the principle of parental obligation should begin to apply. Anything less constitutes an inconsistency in the legal system.

Argument 2: Pregancy =/= Organ Donation
When presented with Argument 1, many pro-choicers argue that parental obligation does not require parents to give organs or blood against their will. They then make the case that in order to be pro-life, one must be in support of forced organ donation. But the difference between pregnancy and organ donation is like that which is between me giving my child a ride somewhere in my car, and handing them the title to the car. Pregnancy is a temporary sharing of resources between a mother and her child, and is not comparable to the permanent removal and loss of an organ. It does not deprive a mother of the use of any of her organs. In fact during and after pregnancy, her organs continue to serve their natural purpose for both her AND her child while remaining wholly hers. The fact that she cannot kill her fetus to stop the sharing of her resources with him/her does not diminish her ownership of her body.

Argument 3: “Consent” as an Excuse for Negligence
After being presented with Arguments 1 and 2, some may still make the counterclaim that the “consent” a fetus requires to remain in their mothers’ uterus (where they were forced by her and their father to be in the first place) is a continuum which can be revoked by the mother “at any time for any reason.” However in the case of abortion, “revoking consent” involves ending the life of one’s child by intentionally denying them resources which the parent is able to give, until they die. While this cannot legally be considered murder, it IS child neglect, and should not be legal under any circumstance. And since there is no significant difference between a child who is in the womb, and the same child after they’re born, anyone who is going to make this argument must also justify a parent’s “right” to neglect their born child with the intention of letting them die.

· · ·

I too believe that everyone should have the right to control their bodies, which is why I am against abortion. No one should have the right to crush a child to death to absolve themself of parental obligation.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.no

Sex Difference Explained by Steve Moxon
I have been getting some stupid comments lately claiming that "Evo psych hasn't been taken seriously since around 2009." Well, that is nonsense, of course, and as luck would have it, now there is a brand new publication on the subject by Steve Moxon. An entire monograph, in fact, written from an MRA point of view and with an up-to-date bibliography:

Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors
Abstract

This is a ‘layman’s guide’ – for, the interested rather than the merely general reader – to recent major scientific insights that together reveal a comprehensive, holistic understanding of the sexes: what actually distinguishes them and why. A much needed overview drawing together hitherto disparate topics outlining how several principles mutually relate; it’s a simplified distillation and update of the several topics that are the subject of other review papers, which provide more detailed and precise accounts and further sources.

No prior knowledge is assumed, so any other than common-knowledge scientific terms are either explained or replaced with less formal terms (where they are not too imprecise). Notably, instead of the formal, easily confused terms intra-sexual / inter-sexual, the terms within-sex / between-sex (or same-sex / cross-sex) are used. The word 'sociality', is also used despite its unfamiliarity; because it's useful shorthand for social system / dynamics. The term gender (sic) is specifically avoided - other than in 'scare' quotes since it is an ideological rather than scientific term.
And the blurb:
In SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, Steve Moxon argues that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes. The 'genetic filtering' to deal with this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.

The female contribution is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.

Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman's peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness.

With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to 'marry out' to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.

Moxon sees the underlying sex dichotomy as being perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.

The book is not only available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle editions, but also open-access, with the full text downloadable at New Male Studies Publishing.

I will start reading it now and then post a review, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Norwegian readers should also check out this article by Terje Bongard:

Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv

And if anyone wants to argue that evolutionary psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

James Bailey #conspiracy of-americans.beforeitsnews.com

I saw the future destruction of America in a dream. In this dream I was at an outdoor dinner party at a resort hotel on the east coast. It was a formal corporate business event in an elegant setting. I was there because I was an employee of this corporation. All the men were wearing black tuxedos including me.

I was not shown the date, but I was able to see it was in the future, not in the next few weeks or months, but it seemed further into the future than that. I saw that America had already endured a series of severe problems that had caused great trouble for the people, but nothing as bad as what was about to happen. We had reached the point when the final phase of our government’s plan was about to unfold.

One of the men at this dinner party came and talked with me. I was able to see and know who he was and what he was doing. Although he was cleaned up and nicely dressed, he was actually an evil man and a murderer. He was in a high-ranking position in our federal government. He was a key player in the government’s plans to destroy America. He had first-hand knowledge of many of the things that had already happened and also knew what was about to happen.


I saw blood not just on his hands, but on his arms, too. In his position he was personally responsible for the murder of many American citizens. Although he was not personally killing people, he had a large number of government agents working for him. They carried out his orders to kill whomever he told them. They had already murdered many people, but now their murderous plans would be going to a new level.

He said to me, “Let me give you some advice. The President is leaving the country. He has left behind a few of his top people to carry out the final stages of his plan. You need to get out of America while you still can.”

I asked him, “Why, what is going on?”

He said, “I am going to be leaving for a very short time, just a few days. When I come back the killing begins. The plan is to kill everybody in the country. You and your family need to get out of the country right away. Anyone who does not leave is going to die.”

I was very alarmed by what he said, especially given such a short amount of time left.

Then he said, “ I am not sure exactly how many days you have left, but my boss is here so let me ask her.” He invited his boss to come talk with us. I was able to see things about her just like I did with him. I saw that she was the government’s top person in charge of implementing this evil plan. I was not shown her title, but I knew she was in a very high level position, such as a member of the President’s cabinet.

She gave me the same warning saying, “Let me give you a word of advice. I am going to be leaving, but I am coming back. Let’s see… today is Wednesday? I am coming back either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. You need to get out of here by then because anyone who is still here is going to die. So unless you leave before we come back you and your family will die.”

When she mentioned my family, I saw a quick flash of my home, which I knew was very close to where we were. It was a small, but nice home in a residential neighborhood. The odd thing about it was I had never seen this house before, but in the dream it did not seem odd to me. I just saw it as being my house and I thought about the safety of my family. Not only that, but this house was very close to the coast. I actually live very far from the coast.

I was able to see the reason why these government leaders were so confident about their plans. They knew they had the American people completely deceived. They knew they had total control over the news media so the people were only hearing what the government wanted them to hear. It was virtually impossible to warn the people at this late hour. Even if it were possible they would not believe it because they had already rejected the truth. They preferred to believe the lies because it sounded much more pleasant to their ears. So these traitors knew they had a complete death grip on the situation. With the final phase about to begin they had nothing to worry about. That is why they were willing to talk so openly and warn a few people. From their perspective they had already crossed the finish line.

Then I saw a large banquet hall filled with people. I knew the hall represented our country. I saw everyone there was going about their daily lives completely unaware of what was about to happen. There was not the slightest concern that they were in any danger. They were deceived so they went along with what they were being told. They did not even suspect their leaders of betraying them. All the way up until the end the government and the news media assured the people everything was getting better. Everyone was aware of the problems, but they were repeatedly told the plans were underway to fix things so everything was going to be okay. It was only through these lies that the government was able to keep some semblance of order in the nation, but the lies were only a stall tactic to give the leaders more time to get things in place so they could carry out the final stages of their plan. Now they were finally ready. This man and woman were both going away for a few days, but when they return disaster would strike suddenly. America would become a slaughterhouse.


Then I saw an airplane flying overhead. We were on the east coast so I saw the plane was leaving the country and going out over the ocean. I knew President Obama was on the plane. The news media had reported he was leaving the country on an official trip to meet with other leaders. They made it sound like it was normal government business and that he would be back soon, but it was another lie. In reality he was leaving permanently because he knew the country was about to be destroyed. Very few people knew the real reason why he was leaving, but his departure was part of the plan all along. He would escape unharmed while the American people were slaughtered.

As I was standing there looking up into the sky watching Obama’s plane fly away I heard someone behind me say, “He has completed his assignment here. He is now moving on to his next assignment. He is truly the antichrist.”

That was the end of the dream.

holocaustdeprogrammingcourse #conspiracy #pratt #racist holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

Defining Deviancy Out of Existence

Societal norms are determined by the culture at large, not by a pointy-headed, ideologically driven ruling class. Yet sometimes the ruling class demonstrates an alarming ability to stampede the masses in any direction it chooses, like drovers directing a herd toward a stockyard. For example, in 1974, the American Psychological Association, yielding to pressure from militant homosexuals, stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder. A generation later, Christian businesses are forced to close their doors for refusing to participate in blasphemous homosexual parodies of weddings. Now on to the next “civil rights” frontier:

In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.

Nothing wrong with thinking about it; just don’t actually do it.

Again we see that moonbattery is imposed by increments. Otherwise the frog would jump out of the pot.

DSM VI will likely drop any reference to the subject. By DSM VII or VIII, we will see a listing for pedophobia, the shameful condition suffered by neurotically narrow-minded people who are judgmental about pedophilia.

[...]

Having been down this road before, we know where the reengineered societal attitudes will take us. You can easily lose your job for failing to revere homosexuality, a practice regarded with near universal revulsion within living memory. The same will soon be true of pedophilia. Our government has already issued a [Harvey Milk] pedophile stamp, so baby-rapers don’t have long to wait for their place on a pedestal.

RareSorbet #sexist reddit.com

There no fucking point if you're not a Stacey. How many layers of makeup and how much do I need to socialise before I find a guy

Fuck everyone who comes here with shitty advice

Obviously socialise because it's good to meet people but if you're an ugly woman it's over. Guys aren't "shy" they're not waiting for signs, even the ugliest mfers put as much time and effort into the hottest woman as possible. The entirety if pop culture is centred around guys getting hot women. Only hot women lie about men.

Half finished rant because I'm busy lol brb

Edit:I'm back. I was SoCIaLisiNg like I always do. Shockingly I didn't become anymore attractive. It's nice to vent but yeah, you dont need to be a Stacey to get a guy but you do need to be attractive which I am not. Thanks genetics.

The Sacred Sandwich #fundie sacredsandwich.com

In a recent Steven Crowder YouTube video, Alexa, the interactive virtual assistant built into Amazon’s Echo, was asked the question, “Who is the Lord Jesus Christ?” Her answer was short and to the point: “Jesus Christ is a fictional character.”*

We may gasp at that shocking response, but the answer really shouldn’t surprise us. We live in a day and age where biblical truth is marginalized and the once-distinct line between reality and fantasy is blurred. Nowadays, a fetus isn’t a person, there are more than two genders, and Lucifer is a semi-fallen angel with a heart of gold on a successful Fox TV series.

No wonder Alexa can answer the question as she does. The existence of the biblical Jesus is up for debate in these wishy-washy times, so why mince words just to appease a fading orthodoxy in Christianity? Besides, any post-Christian church can still flourish these days without objective truth or a historical basis in fact. Today’s “spiritual-but-not-religious” people are more informed by their emotions than by an external revelation from the one true God. Jesus is now whomever they want Him to be, as long as it “feels right.”

Mark Steyn, in fact, gave the scathing opinion that many mainline Protestant churches, especially in Europe, have turned Jesus into nothing more than a soft-left political cliché. According to their sentimentality, Steyn writes:

“…if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an “Arms are for Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.” ? America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

So how did Jesus Christ, whose incarnation divided the world’s measurement of history, begin to be relegated to fictional status? The Bible has shown us that the attacks against Jesus have always been about tearing down His legitimacy in one way or another, and this is no exception. The current approach, however, is to lump the historical Jesus together with every “Christ figure” that mankind can conjure up in its imaginations. In fact, Jesus warns us of this sort of thing: “If anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Matthew 24:23–24).

Current signs indicate that we are allowing the real Jesus to lose His distinction among the mythological “Christs” of the present world. Therefore, who’s to say which Christ is hard fact and which Christ is idealized fiction? To be sure, Western society’s current obsession with mythology and other popular products of the imagination, both new and ancient, have brought us to a point where the biblical Son of God is no more significant than any other literary or cinematic character imbued with religious symbolism. Jesus, it seems, has become just another “archetype” among many in which to inform our postmodern spirituality.

The concept of archetypes, first theorized by Carl Jung, put forth the idea that universal mythic characters, or archetypes, reside within the collective unconscious of all humanity and have emerged through our art over the centuries. Not surprisingly, this Gnosis-based theory has so infiltrated the religious sentiments of the current population that a savior like Jesus Christ doesn’t have to exist in reality; it is only the internalized “idea” of what He symbolizes that brings one closer to enlightenment and divinity. Who needs the Son of God slain on the cross when we can find comfort in an imaginary archetype of sacrificial love and acceptance that allows each person to rise to the higher Self by their own power?

Sadly, the dependable eyewitness accounts of the New Testament now have to compete with the fantastical tales of the Marvel/DC universe, Hogwarts, Middle Earth, or even Narnia. In the end, the Gospel record is far too mundane for a world mesmerized by glowing screens filled with CGI candy. Jesus and the apostles, much to the chagrin of some, never wore superhero costumes, flew Firebolt brooms, or slew mythical creatures with swords or light sabers. Is it any wonder, then, that the mythic archetypes of our popular culture are considered more compelling than the real men of God who toiled in a ministry that often brought ostracism, suffering, and ignominious death?

The Confusion Of The Younger Generation

My immediate concern, of course, is for the younger generation growing up in this current crusade of make-believe and religious skepticism. It’s one thing for grown-ups to deal with these assaults upon truth, but young children are not intellectually developed enough to make a distinction between what is real and what is imaginary. Some people who are involved in early education, even in the most progressive schools, have found this to be true in their experience:

“A child who spends too much time in a world of fantasy may find it difficult to relate to others, to interact in a group, to be in the here and now. It can also be scary for a child… When a child under 5 or 6 hears a fairy tale with a wicked witch, they then also imagine this witch to be real as a child of this age has a very concrete understanding of the world. They visualize it as if it is real as they are not yet able to clearly separate fantasy from reality.” – Montessori And Pretend Play: A Complicated Question

This childhood interaction between fact and fiction can be even more complicated when you, as a Christian parent, begin to introduce your child to the real person of Jesus Christ. This should be an exciting and joyful truth to share with your little one as you begin the process of rearing your child under the instruction of God’s word, but it can oftentimes be a difficult education if Jesus has to compete with Santa Claus, Superman, or Harry Potter as the object of your child’s fledgling hero-worship.

Recent research has proven this confusion among children to be a real issue. Case in point, a 2014 research study at Boston University where it was discovered that young children with a religious background were less able to distinguish between fantasy and reality compared with their secular counterparts:

In two studies, 66 kindergarten-age children were presented with three types of stories: realistic, religious and fantastical. The researchers then queried the children on whether they thought the main character in the story was real or fictional.

While nearly all children found the figures in the realistic narratives to be real, secular and religious children were split on religious stories. Children with a religious upbringing tended to view the protagonists in religious stories as real, whereas children from non-religious households saw them as fictional.

Although this might be unsurprising, secular and religious children also differed in their interpretation of fantasy narratives where there was a supernatural or magical storyline.

“Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional,” wrote the researchers. “The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

– BBC News, Study: Religious Children Are Less Able To Distinguish Fantasy From Reality

The researchers concluded (as most college researchers are prone to do) that exposure to a religious education is probably the main culprit in a child’s difficulty in identifying fact from fiction. This conclusion, however, seems to indicate an anti-biblical bias that completely ignores the alternative possibility. Why is religion the problem? Isn’t it just as plausible that fictional stories involving magic are the real cause of confusion, especially when these fanciful tales, like Pharoah’s magicians, are the ones mimicking God’s miracles in the Bible?

In light of Scripture, this alternative conclusion is clearly confirmed. For starters, God is not a God of confusion. God’s word will not return void, but will accomplish what He pleases and will prosper in that thing for which He sent it. Over and over again, the Bible confirms that scriptural instruction from the word of God is essential to a child’s proper upbringing. It keeps them far from folly, equips them for good works, and makes them wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (Proverbs 22:15 / 2 Timothy 3:14-17).

The one thing that is likely to undermine this God-ordained training is when an unaware parent interjects inappropriate fantasy stories from movies and literature as a compatible resource for their child’s development. This misstep is compounded when the parent’s reason for doing this is not because Disney movies or similar entertainments have any legitimate educational value, but because they don’t want their children to miss out on what the popular culture has to offer, even if it contains unbiblical content. To be blunt, raising children with such an indiscriminate use of worldly influences is almost a cultural form of Moloch worship which the faithless Israelites succumbed to when they delivered their infant children over to paganism for the sake of their temporal prosperity (Psalm 106:34-39).

Think about the possible consequences. Should we really be surprised when little Suzy suddenly has trouble maintaining the reality of Jesus walking on water after watching Luke Skywalker use the Force to levitate himself? And what should Suzy’s parents do after this happens? Do they let Suzy try to figure it out for herself or do they attempt to adequately explain the unexplainable to a kindergartner? And does it really matter at this point?

Some may suggest (and rightly so) that we can’t always shield our children from the world’s influences and the confusion these things might engender. Surely this is part and parcel of the average childhood and will no longer be an issue once they grow older and gain the intellectual capacity and religious understanding to correctly divide fact from fiction or right from wrong.

This is a valid point, and yet not particularly the issue at hand. The concern is not so much in how such exposure might temporarily affect a child, but how it might impact the child later on and into adulthood. A childhood immersed in “make-believe” might well lead to a misguided adulthood that finds more “truth” in paganism or occultism than in the Bible. It might also lay the groundwork for the idea that God’s word is just another fairy tale of human invention. And eventually, these adults might find themselves falling into the ditch of full-blown skepticism or atheism.

This possibility, in fact, was recently explored in a research study titled, Make Believe Unmakes Belief?: Childhood Play Style and Adult Personality as Predictors of Religious Identity Change. Published in 2014, the study looked into the relationship between childhood imagination and religiosity, finding that people who intensely engaged in pretend play as children were more likely to change their religious identity later in life, with apostasy being the largest category. As reported by Merrill Miller:

“The study assessed the role of ‘pretend play’—creating and acting out imaginary scenarios in made-up worlds—in the childhoods of individuals… and found that individuals who did not change their religious or nonreligious identification were less likely to have engaged in pretend play. Converts and switchers, however, were more likely to have played pretend, and apostates were the most likely to have often engaged in pretend play.” – The Humanist, Are Nonbelievers More Imaginative? A New Study Suggests They Might Be

Why were children who actively pursued a fantasy world more likely to abandon their religious upbringing as adults?

“The study’s author, Christopher Burris speculated that the higher correlation for apostates is because of the shift from structure — common among religious institutions — to unstructured — that is found in pretend play. ‘The realm of the nonbeliever is much less structured than the realm of belief is,’ he explained. ‘People’s cognitive, intellectual and emotional needs are not met sufficiently by faith traditions, so they strike out on their own way.'” – Massarah Mikati, Deseret News

The Biblical Approach For Christian Parents

The Bible, of course, has already anticipated the possible spiritual fallout from cultivating a child’s wild imagination instead of grounding them in reality and the clear instruction of God’s revelation. The biblical remedy?

Train up a child in the way that he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. – Proverbs 22:6

This is not to say that Christian parents shouldn’t encourage their child’s emerging creativity. But it should be grounded and fostered in reality. To truly instill an active and abiding love for God and neighbor, a child’s imagination must be connected to this real-life task and to exposing the child to those faithful people in their lives who emulate Christian duty in their various talents and occupations.

Even without the benefit of this biblical insight, Dr. Maria Montessori made the academic observation that reality was the key to a more profitable imagination:

“The true basis of the imagination is reality, and its perception is related to exactness of observation. It is necessary to prepare children to perceive the things in their environment exactly, in order to secure for them the material required by the imagination. Intelligence, reasoning, and distinguishing one thing from another prepares a cement for imaginative constructions… The fancy which exaggerates and invents coarsely does not put the child on the right road.” – Spontaneous Activity in Education p 254, Chapter IX

Don’t misunderstand this point. Pretend play is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is an activity meant to assist children in processing the real world around them. “For example, if they see an excavator at work in the street,” writes one teacher, “they may then be attracted to working with a model of an excavator, to reading books about construction vehicles and to play based on this. This is a child’s imagination at work.”

The fact is, even children themselves would much rather engage with real-life activities when possible. Many educators are well aware that a child is much more excited by helping Mom or Dad prepare a meal in the kitchen than pretend-cook with a toy stove. And Scripture finds great wisdom in this approach. Notice how God instructs His people to teach their children in the course of their daily activities:

You shall teach [the words of God] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. – Deuteronomy 6:7

Here we see no significant time set aside for daydreaming or chasing after empty phantasms. This is an all-encompassing lifestyle that weaves God’s truth into one’s daily labor from dawn to dusk, and from childhood to adulthood. It is the command from Genesis and throughout the Bible to bear fruit in every good work and increase in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:10) “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).

Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. – 1 Corinthians 14:20

The Mature Approach For All Christians

Where is this maturity of which Paul speaks? Truly, one of the problems with American Christianity today is that too many professing believers have failed to see the importance of sobriety and maturity as a biblical imperative for discipleship. They twist the meaning of Luke 18:16-17 and simply refuse to grow up. They see their childlike fascination with games, fairy tales, and the playthings of their youth as a crowning virtue instead of a possible impediment to spiritual growth. In turn, these parents immerse their children in the same enthrallments and find great satisfaction in molding little ones into their own image, forgetting that the Bible instructs them otherwise.

On the contrary, God is the only object of wonder we need to focus on:

We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. – Psalm 78:4

I ask you: How could anyone fully submit to this sacred task if Jesus is only viewed as a mythological “archetype of Christ” or a good teacher who said wise things but never really existed except in our collective unconscious?

Any confusion about the reality of the Son of God is never going to serve this dark world, especially in an age where fantasy is actively usurping real life. As Christians, we have a holy calling to go into the world to make disciples, not to go into a fantasy-land to do so. God’s word and the Holy Spirit have shown us the only mind-altering vision we need to ignite our passion. We need to humbly submit to our Lord’s charge to deny self, follow Him, and stay true to our Gospel witness and testimony for the sake of the lost.

We know, of course, that shielding people, young or old, from the counterfeit fictions of this world won’t guarantee their eventual conversion. Ultimately, it is only by God’s grace and power that hearts are changed and the lost through faith are saved. Yet, we also know that if salvation does come to an individual, it won’t be because of fairy tales or myths, but despite them. Our job as Christians is to stay on point with the pure Gospel message, and not capitulate in any way to the world’s insatiable desire for an alternate reality. To give in to that desire does nothing more than bring confusion and cast doubt on the existence of the living Savior and the faith that brings eternal life.

The next time Alexa, or anyone else, dares to tell you that Jesus is a fictional character, ask them what the Bible says about Him. Why? Because the biblical answer to that question is the only response that truly holds the power of the Gospel to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, recover the sight of the blind, and set at liberty them that are bruised (Luke 4:18).

“Whom do you say I am?” – Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:15

empatheticapathetic #sexist reddit.com

Shy, nerdy girls are the biggest sluts

All men like shy, submissive girls. Just like all women like strong masculine guys. It's just the embodiment of the most principal parts of each gender.

When i was a 25 virgin i met a girl who was a shy, nerdy, 'loser' girl who was also sarcastic and still confident in who she was. We shared a lot of similar aspects in our upbringing and we were also the same race (a rarity for me). She seemed like she could have been from my family. We met under circumstances where i seemed a lot cooler than i was (i was out of town). Eventually she stated she wanted me to take her virginity and i was planning to, but before i could see her for that meet, she lost her virginity to Chad in a bathroom stall. She then told me all her slut secrets of sucking guys off in movie theaters and other club bathroom shenanigans.

I was pretty destroyed and eventually found TRP. The brutality of it all along with other shitty life circumstances at the time (failed career, moved back with parents) made me consider suicide. All of my peers have lost their virginities by now, had many girlfriends and some were settling down. Whereas the only girl i ever met that shared mutual attraction humiliated the fuck out of me.

I kept seeing more and more of reality peek out from under the false reality we had all been presented.

A few years later i have moved city, got a job, trying to build SMV. I met a girl at work who was this shy type (my type) and we flirted a bit. She was simply too ugly and too old for Chad so i was the next best thing. Soon i realised she is like this with all men. It's simply her strategy to find a man before it's too late.

Right now i live in a flat with a mix of girls and guys. One girl is a cute kawaii anime watching socially retarded asian girl. She's definitely my type.

All the other girls in the flat can make friends easily, have social lives and have strict standards for men, but this girl doesn't. She sits alone in her room all the time. For company, she just constantly invites a string of men over (some chads, some betas) to fuck her. It's a clown car of men coming in and out of her room because she feels lonely and doesn't know how to make friends.

When she first moved in, i had a little fantasy about me and her. That was quickly destroyed.

Gents, destroy any fantasies you have left, the reality is more bleak than you could ever imagine.

Slut shaming is dead. All we have left is how we treat these women and how we treat ourselves.