Similar posts

Brenton Sanderson #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

In a recent article I explored the Jewish role in the hyper-sexualization of Western culture. I made the point that this phenomenon — the most obvious result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries — represents the deliberate ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. This hyper-sexualization agenda, which has had disastrous social consequences for White people, operates in tandem with the Jewish-led “civil rights” movements which demand deference for non-Whites and sexual non-conformists — these serving as proxies for Jews as the prototypical outsiders in Western societies. With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured (largely as a result of Jewish efforts) the focus of the “identity politics” agenda has now shifted to deconstructing traditional Western views about what it means to be a man or a woman.

As with the other “civil rights” movements dominated by Jews, the motivations underlying the “transgender” rights movement are ultimately grounded in the subversive doctrines of the Frankfurt School — and in particular The Authoritarian Personality which found that those who ranked highly on the ethnocentrism scale (i.e., those more likely to harbor “anti-Semitic” views) tended to live in worlds with rigid gender boundaries, where attractiveness was grounded in traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity, and where sexual mores were clearly delineated. Kevin MacDonald notes that “Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.”[i] It is therefore in Jewish interests to subvert all non-Jewish social categories — whether these be based on race, religion or gender boundaries and roles. Hence their recent championing of the concept of “fluidity” which is the very antithesis of anything separate, homogeneous, or with clear boundaries. All cohesive (and evolutionarily adaptive) social categories that have characterized Western civilization have been subverted by Jewish activists.

post-woman #fundie post-woman.tumblr.com

Age of consent is 1) a statist/legal framework, with all of the faults that entails that is 2) transparently premised on the denial of agency and autonomy to those designated as minors, which plays into 3) the positioning of the state and the nuclear family as the proper and necessary guardians of children.

The fact that age of consent has been so normalized as *the* thing to rally around in opposition to csa is terrifying tbh.

The specter of pedophilia is so central to homo/transphobic and transmisogynist myths. It's so central to the maintainence of the nuclear family and forced divisions between generations. The stakes involved in these questions go so far beyond whether people should (be allowed to) have ~relationships~ / otherwise be intimate when there's a large age difference. The pedophile is one of the central images of the #deviant we need the state to protect us from. People should be way more wary of mobilizing that ready made image.

But more than that, it's such a conservative and authoritarian position to say that people can't make decisions about their body / their relationships / their lives until they're 18. There are obviously anarchist alternatives to saying that the answer to minors sometimes being drawn into abusive relationships is to ban relationships with age differences and rally around adult authority.

People could, idk, intensify their attacks on the authoritarian structures of the family and the state and civilization that all help directly facilitate abuse and render minors more alienated and dependent on adults and thus more susceptible to abuse. They could reject ageist models that (rightfully) discredit them to minors and do more to display and pass on possibilities of what anarchist relationships can look like. They could engage in any number of strategies that align with youth liberation and actual anarchist anti-abuse frameworks.

Or I guess people can just copy the conservative position when shit like Milo's comments come out and rally around the legal denial of agency to minors.

#csa #abuse #youth liberation #age of consent

smalldarlinglesbian #sexist smalldarlinglesbian.tumblr.com

yarsir-blog replied to your post: Is it wrong or bad to say that all porn is bad?…

I, ancedotally, disgree with the ‘inevitably look for more intense…’ portion. I’d argue one could slide up the quantity scale rather than intensity. But, I don’t think that changes the meta-effects/discussion. The only porn I’d contemplate arguing as ‘good’ would be consenting exhibitionist couples, or some sort of 'free choice’ sex work empowerment. Of course, being at the consumer end doesn’t prove the whole production was equitable. Random thoughts. Have a good 1.

No, I completely disagree.

It is not possible to have “good” porn in a society built on patriarchal exploitation of female bodies.

As for “consenting exhibitionist couples”… my question to that is my question to all porn: Is it possible to verify 100% without a shadow of a doubt that the act is consensual and not rape on tape?

And if the couple is male/female there is the added question of can this woman truly, freely consent to a man when there is a power balance built into this coupling on the basis of sex due to patriarchal society? When one party is societally the oppressor and one is societally the oppressed, how can consent truly exist? And how can it be verified by the viewer? Is there any money involved? Any earning potential? Consent cannot be purchased or bartered for.

Lastly, there cannot be “free choice” “sex work” “empowerment”. That’s just purchased compliance.

Not consent.

So no. Under a patriarchal society there cannot exist pornography which is “good”.

Gus Cotey Jr #fundie jpfo.org

The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

THE FEARFUL
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.

The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

Azril Mohd Amin and Rafidah Hanim Mokhtar #fundie themalaymailonline.com

Let’s be clear. Being leftist does not inoculate you from behaving like a fascist; just as authoritarianism is not the exclusive vice of the right wing. The Nazis, after all, were socialists and lest we forget, Joseph “Dictator” Stalin and Chairman Mao Zedong were communists, while Francisco “Fascist” Franco in Spain was, in fact, a left wing socialist.

The most archetypal examples of totalitarianism in the 20th Century were incarnated by left wing ideologues and simply, using liberal jargon with the aim to appeal to compassion and tolerance in order for you to advance a deeply authoritarian agenda does not make that agenda less offensive.

What makes a movement fascist is the degree, to which it does not accept dissent, its refusal to tolerate other opinions and the outright arrogance in seeking to advance its agenda through force, demonization and denigration of anyone who disagrees with it. And this is quite noticeable among the so-called “progressives;” or what should be more accurately described as the “regressive left.”

The left does not deal magnanimously with anyone who challenges its narratives; in reality, the supporters can be quite malicious.

In Malaysia, human rights NGO, the Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy or Centhra, along with a broader coalition of NGOs under the name Macsa (the Malaysian Alliance of Civil Society Organisations in the UPR Process), recently published a statement against the efforts to advance political agenda of the LGBT community in the country against the prevailing sentiments and religious concerns of the general public.

Centhra and Macsa were instantly excoriated online by gay-rights activists and left-wingers as advocates of “selective rights.” Worse off, Centhra and Macsa were brandished as bigots and as religious extremists. Their credentials as human rights defenders were rejected with the allegations that they purportedly did not align with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) in their opposition to, for instance, same-sex marriage.

LGBT defenders’ political game

To begin with, it should be acknowledged that it is a political ideology to regard homosexuality as an identity akin to race or ethnicity. This is neither an objective nor a scientific fact and for all intents and purposes, it remains merely an opinion.

Another opinion, far closer to objective evidence, is that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour. Therefore, the moment we begin to talk about the “rights” of the LGBT community, we are participating in an ideological discussion.

Declaring that LGBT individuals deserve special rights and protections is based on the concept that homosexuality is an identity, and this should not be accepted as an un-debatable fact. A good deal of the progress in the LGBT agenda has derived from their making this concept unquestionable; even though the actual science on the matter is, at best, inconclusive.

It is an entirely valid viewpoint if you do not subscribe to the idea that there should be special rights afforded to LGBT individuals. This viewpoint does not in any way equate to believing that the general rights afforded to all people do not apply to them.

If you choose to believe that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, which, in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary, is the most reasonable assumption to make; then, like everyone else, LGBT individuals are, and should be, subject to laws that regulate public behaviour.

Furthermore, like everyone else, their choices once made, will tend to limit (or at the very least impact) their subsequent available options.

Take for example the right to contract a marriage. The right to marry is upheld by the UDHR, but it is a right upheld for heterosexual couples exclusively, wherein article 16(1) thereof uses the phrase “men and women of full age.”

There is nothing whatsoever that contradicts the UDHR if one does not believe in the right of same-sex couples to marry. Nor is there anything inaccurate about describing the push for gay-rights and same-sex marriage as essentially a political agenda, rather than a human rights concern.

If one chooses to exclusively partner with members of one’s own sex, one has implicitly chosen to not marry and to not procreate. It is made with a conscious decision to choose. These are at least two of the obvious ramifications of that choice, and avoiding the consequences of one’s decisions is not a human right.

One cannot invoke their right to food, for example, when they have chosen to spend their income on other things.

Pushing political agenda in the name of human rights

The regressive left are manipulators of the UDHR, not defenders of it. They are not human rights campaigners; they are political extortionists who couch their demands in the language of human rights.

The preamble of the UDHR states that “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realisation of this pledge,” yet the leftists want to reinterpret the terms of the contract which the UDHR represents after it has been signed; and by this new interpretation, they intend to include things to which the signatories have not agreed; and they call this “defending” the UDHR!

The UDHR provides no special recognition of homosexuality as an identity deserving specific rights or protections; it only states that the general rights outlined in the declaration cannot be denied to any individual on the basis of his or her sex.

That is what the signatories have agreed to; nothing more and nothing less of this. And the term “sex” used herein refers to the biological anatomy of an individual, as opposed to the term “gender” which may refer to the social role based on the sex of the person.

Pushing the political agenda of recognisng homosexuality as an identity rather than a chosen behaviour, has no basis in the UDHR, and opposing that agenda is in no way conflicting with the rights enshrined in it. Every nation is free to legislate behaviour according to their own standards of morality and justice and logic.

The UDHR has always respected each member state’s rights to establish its own human rights laws within the ambit of its national narratives.

One must ask, why are the leftists in Malaysia holding other fellow citizens in such contempt that they believe they are incapable of determining for themselves what is best for our society? Why do they presume, when the people of Malaysia disapprove of homosexuality, and resist the same-sex political project, that they are all religious extremists and ignorant bigots; all the while it is the leftists who are seeking to force average Malaysians to follow their unpopular political opinions?

In short, why are they so fundamentally undemocratic in their pursuit of their “human rights” agenda?

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:

* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives,[4] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking[5]
* support affirmative action for women
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[6][7]
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying[8]
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";[9] object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"

Slavpride #racist stormfront.org

I do not know about the rest of you, but I have had enough exposure to jews, most of the white skinned people in my school are jews. This has been more than enough exposure for me. I despise jews. I despise jews who claim they are Russian, the nerve of them! They think they're Russian despite the fact that they raped the nation for 90 years, my dad's side of the family spent their time in the Gulags because of their involvement in the White Army. My mother's family spent their time in long lines trying to get basic necessities for themselves. This was brought on by jewish extremism and anti-white hatred. I also hate what the jews have done with Germany and I despise the fact that many "historians" try to separate the anti-Jew league (Slavics and Germanics) from each other, with lies like, Hitler killed 50 trillion Slavs and said he'd kill more. When in fact it was the Jewish USSR that killed over 60 million Slavs and forced the rest into slavery or eternal poverty. I detest seeing Slavs running around wearing commie shirts and yelling "kill all German fascist pigs", yet I also detest seeing Germanics or worse, Anglo Saxons running around yelling "kill all mongoloid commie Russkies".

People who are not exposed to jews do not understand people who hate them.

Sara Crawley and Rebecca Willman #fundie journals.sagepub.com

[Bolding is mine; I filed this under FSTDT rather than SSTDT because even with the radical feminist ideas, it doesn't seem to hate any particular sex]

Heteronormativity made me lesbian: Femme, butch and the production of sexual embodiment projects

Queer theory argues that ruling heteronormative discourses are productive of sexualities. How then does heteronormativity produce lesbians? We theorize femme and butch as sexual embodiment projects—processual, relational responses to patriarchal heteronormativity incessantly textually threaded throughout our lives. Drawing on radical feminisms updated with Foucault and Dorothy Smith, we offer autoethnographic accounts of our sexual embodiments of butch and femme, arguing not that rape experiences, but the constant threat of rape in everyday life can produce lesbian desire and embodiment. Ultimately, we understand sexual embodiment as not based on a fixed ontological ground but always in the relational, everyday doings of people and, hence, malleable within the social context, discursive moment, and individual intersections of one’s life within relations of power (gender, race, class, religiosity, nationality, and so on).

Marie #fundie freerepublic.com

I'm am so SICK and TIRED of being told by the GOP and the 'conservative talking heads' that I'm stupid, emotional, 'baffled', not thinking straight, having a 'tantrum', am racist, or some other ((insert insult here)) for choosing to support Trump as my candidate!

The people who I have voted for, the people who *I* helped put in office, now dare to insult my choice today?!

They didn't seem to have one problem with my ability to rationalize when I was sending them money and pulling the lever for *them*. Why is my judgement now questionable?

The talking heads who I once respected have NO respect for conservatives now. I cannot turn on the news without hearing about how simple and emotional Trump supporters are.

How insulting. How condescending. How rude.

It's taken all summer, but now the b@$tard$ have finally GOT an emotional reaction out of me.

Remember that "Tea Party" thing that caused such a fuss awhile back...?

Yeah. We're still here. And our memories are long.

The vulgarians are at the gate, buster.

Brett Caton #sexist brett-caton.tumblr.com

Australians may have to give verbal consent ahead of sex under new law 'It is a responsibility, both in the ask and in the reply'

Under these laws, almost all sexual acts can be prosecuted as rape. And unless you record every moment, how could you prove a partner

a) had consented verbally (considering tongues are often being utilised elsewhere)
image
(picture of a man and woman rubbing their tongues together)

b) didn't withdraw consent silently?

However, as we have seen elsewhere, they are selectively applied - only to harm men.

And I have to wonder if that isn't the point for Ms Goward? She likes the fantasy of men begging her, and her being able to destroy them afterwards on a whim.

Of course, men react in places where such rules apply by withdrawing from women - whereupon they are called "incel", and treated as if they were evil man-baby cowards (insert insult of choice here).

And what else do Feminists want outlawed?

Sexbots!

Because having made sex a miserable affair, the last thing they need is some sort of silicone competition...
image
(picture of an overweight woman captioned "this is what a Feminist looks like")

I’m so turned on right now....

#sexual consent #feminism #antifeminism #intersectional feminism #australia #rape #sexbots

Chris Fellows #fundie goodreads.com

The temptation with this book is to go full Macaulay and write a ten thousand, fifteen thousand, twenty thousand word review that tells you much more about me and how clever I am than about the book. This temptation I will try to avoid. At least a bit. If you are reading this review I expect you are familiar with its thesis: Legutko has lived in Communist Poland and in Post-Communist Poland and has written this book about the worrying similarities he sees between the two. Everyone must think the same, or else; and the false gods of the ‘Liberal Democratic’ West are not so very different from the idols of the Communist East.

“The atmosphere the systems produce is particularly conducive to engendering a certain type of mentality: that of a moralist, a commissar, and an informer rolled into one. In one sense, this person may think that he performs something particularly valuable to humanity; in another, the situation helps him to develop a sense of power otherwise unavailable to him; and in a third, he often cannot resist the temptation to indulge in a low desire to harm others with impuntiy. For this reason tracking opposition and defending orthodoxy turned out to be so attractive that more and more people fail to resist it.”

Like most of my countrymen, I am used to thinking of ‘political correctness’ as an American disease, so it is salutary and sobering to read a book such as this which is primarily concerned with the impact of the same disorder on the European Union.

The odd thing about reading this book was that as I went on I found myself growing more cheerful and optimistic. It started from the question I have learned to ask myself, whenever I write a long screed complaining about something: ‘What positive alternative is there to this bad thing I am complaining about?’ I think it makes a difference if you can propose a solution, as well as describing a problem, even if (like Dostoevsky) nobody ever remembers your solution and only applauds how elegantly you have stated the problem. So, I thought, what is the alternative to this ‘liberal democracy’ which Legutko does not like, and which I do not particularly like either?

For almost all places, at almost all times, have enforced an irksome conformity. We who lived when Communism collapsed have been lucky enough to have lived through one of those stages of rapid flux from one to another, in which for a brief period of time all the walls seem to vanish like the insubstantial fabric of a dream, and endless vistas of possibility stretch out in all directions. ‘What joy it was in that dawn to be alive...’ But the steady-state condition of human society is not like that.

Legutko never spells out clearly what sort of society he would like to see instead. Is there any time we can point back to and think, that was definitely better than this one? I think if we read any history at all we have to say, no. Was the Poland between the wars a society where hierarchical structures guided people towards high ideals while letting them speak and write freely, harmoniously combining the best features of Christendom and the Enlightenment? I don’t think so. Or is Legutko looking back nostalgically to the glory days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? I think, though he never says so explicitly, is that something like that is what he would like: an aristocracy, a constitutional monarchy, respect for western culture, and an overarching Church that tolerate minorities magnanimously rather than being a tolerated minority itself. It would be nice to have more detail of this positive vision. He does say: “Christianity is the last great force that offers a viable alternative to the tediousness of liberal-democratic anthropology” (And I wish this were true; but atheist statist authoritarianism that puts bread on the table is still going very strong; and Islam is a force looking stronger every day).

Christianity had nigh 1500 years to work on Europe, and very rarely reached the heights of the Most Serene Republic in its best years. I am sure that the average person plucked from a field or street anywhere in Europe between the time of Constantine and the French Revolution had more to fear from speaking their mind if they disagreed with the prevailing orthodoxy than an average person you were to pluck out nowadays. So if Legutko’s preferred vision is a Distributist neo-mediaeval republic on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonealth model, I would expect, from a philosopher and political scientist, more detail about how will get there, and how we will incorporate checks and balances to avoid all the flaws we know Christendom was prone to.

It is not clear how Christianity differs in essence from Communism and ‘Liberal Democracy’, as described by Legutko: “Once a man joins an ideological group all becomes clear to him and everything falls into place; everything is either right or wrong, correct or incorrect.” Except that everything will fall into place in the way Legutko approves of. Furthermore, offering God to Man only as a means to the end of ordering society seems to me to somewhat sacriligious. It is like offering Victoria Falls as a means to make a cup of tea.

Ah, I have worked it out. This is primarily a Euroskeptic polemic, the goal of which is to fire up as many Euroskeptics as possible within a ‘broad tent’ of opposition to the nihilistic vision of European Union. As such, too much of a detailed positive vision would be counter-productive.

Where was I? Ah, why I got more cheerful the more I went along reading this book. Trying to think about where and when, if anywhere and anywhen, humanity was better off reminded me of all the other places besides Central Europe where things were much better than they were thirty years ago. There were a lot of them, and they were places where ‘Liberal Democracy’, broadly understood, was definitely on the side of the Angels. The problems Legutko talks about are problems of Western Europe and its overseas offshoots in the Americas and Australasia. All those places put together have a population less than that of China. While I yield to no man in my loathing for the unelected unrepresentative swill who tyrranise the Renegade Mainland Provinces, things are undoubtedly better than 30 years ago in China by a very great extent, and not only in material terms: people have more access to all the good things about Western culture that Legutko is keen on, there are many more people who, as Christians, are active participants in the Western culture that Legutko is keen on; and the worst excesses of ‘liberal democracy’ seem pretty harmless compared to the things that people have to put up with. In Korea, also, the growth of Christianity and liberal democracy over the past half-century have been positively rather than negatively correlated, as far as I can tell. In India, which again has about as many people as Europe and the Americas put together, people are also not only materially better off, but have much greater exposure to the good bits of Western civilisation, and the switch from ‘Third Way Socialism’ to something more like liberal democracy was a major driver of this. Indonesia has gone from dictatorship to something like liberal democracy; a peaceful and democratic transfer of power is not big news in Nigeria, which also has moved in the direction of liberal democracy with good results; ‘liberal democracy’ is still something people look at as a source of hope in places further to the periphery of Europe, like Turkey and Ukraine. In all these countries of course there are big problems, but political correctness does not rank highly among them. As I read through Legutko’s book, I thought about all these places more and more, and the declining relative importance of Europe and the Americas made me more and more cheerful about the way the world is going.

Legutko valuably points out the pernicious over-emphasis on ‘entertainment’ in the West. We are all doped up on electronic soma 24/7 so we never stop to think about the Ultimate End of Man, or the Nature of Reality, or What Constitutes the Good Life. But I guess, honestly, not too many of us ever thought about those things back when we were tilling our barley fields and occasionally seeing someone who could read in the distance.

It would be gutless of me to review this book without empirically testing its hypothesis. It is obvious from evolutionary biology that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, as the Catholic Church teaches, and that it is almost certainly a mental rather than a physical disorder.

O'Brien Award

Adunaiii #moonbat #pratt #wingnut #racist #psycho reddit.com

[Submitter’s note: not sure how to do quote bars? I’ll just put brackets around what he’s quoting, and if someone without my technical ineptitude could fix it, that would be smashing] [Edit: fixed]

In fact, North Korea is ranked at or near the bottom of several freedom rankings, including Freedomhouse and Heritage.org.

Philosophically, we disagree. Personal freedom is a lie. An ideal for Christians. Nature only knows the survival of the population. This way, I am philosophically fascist, authoritarian - all men and women in Juche Korea work for the betterment of their entire nation. Even the lowliest job is important.

Life for one's own self is disgusting, no wonder southern Koreans are emigrating to the USA by the millions, and never have children. This is so funny when only a few hundred people per year emigrate from the DPRK.

the common citizen thats being oppressed or for the Kim dynasty that only seeks to expand their power.

We are all "oppressed" by life. The way of individualism is suicide - collective suicide. Beauty lies in embracing our oppression, and by working out a great future together, not dying alone.

if NK did not pose such a threat and be so aggressive against literally everyone then the US would have no reason to have a presence in SK.

Asking a foreign power for help in the matters of civil war is unfair and scummy. See the Irish in the 12th century.

Also, American occupiers kill Korean girls (Wikipedia).

I honestly get green with envy that the DPRK can have such glory, and my nation is drowning in squalour.

[…]

Thats not even taking into account the soldiers used by the PRC, which amounted to roughly 3 million over the course of the war.

Wasn't the RoK propped up by Americans? Then it's fair game to bring in friends (the Chinese are far closer to the DPRK both racially and ideologically, Mao Tse-tung was like a brother to Comrade Kim Il Sung).

I find it amusing that you preach about being independent when the nation you have trumped up as the golden standard has failed by the very metric you hold South Korea against.

Southern Korea bases its entire raison d'être on being a cog in the machine of Christian American capitalism. If they survive its collapse, then we'll talk. But a far more likely scenario is that they'll beg for a reunification under the DPRK to save them from utter chaos.

(The fall of the USSR is nothing like what will happen when the colossus with the feet of lay that America is disintegrates.)

Also, authoritarian governments only care about remaining in power and accruing more power, they don't care about you or anyone else as anything more than a tool by which they can spread their influence.

Yes, the government cares about its people, for without the people, it will not exist. In a word, fascism.

No, the DPRK government is rooted in the Korean race, not in economics or memetics. It is precisely the opposite - it is the southern Korean government that would rather import Filipinos to prop up its failing economy than care for its very population. It is the capitalists who view their people as interchangeable units to produce the idea of money - not the hard matter of blood.

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

Nick Kristoff, a NY Times opinion columnist who writes like a Unitarian minister and pens self-serving articles urging liberals to give more money (his wife is in the philanthropy business), has come up with a long piece advocating a “Crusade” on behalf of women all over the world.

...

So what we have is a concerted global effort to help “women and girls,” probably along the lines of the decades-old campaign to do so here at home, which has resulted in the collapse of traditional marriage and boys being increasingly marginalized in school and the workplace.

One of the tools used to promote women in less developed parts of the world is “microfinance” — essentially small scale credit extended to women through World Bank programs and such. An example Kristoff gives is that of a Pakistani housewife with an unemployed husband (who is, naturally, described as a deadbeat and a wife-beating villain)[.]

...

So here we have a success story, in which wealth is being created through light industrial production of apparel.

Of course, we should all cheer the change in circumstances for Saima, who has now turned the tables and become domineering toward her husband[.]

...

No, I don’t think so. Countries that successfully raised themselves out of poverty following WW II did not do so through small businesses run by women. Certainly, they put women to work, particularly in Asia, but these jobs were part of a state-planned emphasis on light industry that exploited country girls by making them the low-wage workhorses in factories, i.e. sweatshops. For Korea, China and Thailand this has worked out pretty well, but it didn’t have anything to do with “liberating” women; in fact it was all about control and exploitation. And once the sweatshop model outlived its usefulness, countries like Korea have switched to higher value-added products rather than footwear. These high-end products are manufactured and designed overwhelmingly by men.

Kristoff (who is actually a supporter of sweatshops) is getting it wrong. The countries that most successfully lifted themselves out of poverty did so through patriarchal authoritarianism and strict control and exploitation of women. Of course, once the hurdle was cleared, women were given increasing freedom and opportunity, after which most voluntarily switched from production to service jobs.

So Kristoff’s crusade is doomed. Any effort that encourages female independence and dominance as a means to lift a society out of poverty is working against its own stated goal, as we can see from our own ghetto failure here in the US, where women are clearly socially dominant, and yet have not managed to lift themselves out of poverty without paternalist carrot and stick type incentives from above.

We should beware of crusades advocated by pompous elites like Kristoff, who think they can solve the world’s problems despite having only a contrived understanding of the world, honed to very narrow specifications in detached, exclusive institutions.

The Sector Union #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

WARNING : THIS IS NOT A BLOG POST. THIS IS INFORMATION FOR A DISCUSSION.

This is just too much.

Aurora Colorado Shootings
12 deaths, 58 injuries
Suspect : James Holmes

Sandy Hook Elementary Shootings
28 deaths, 2 injured
Suspect : Adam Lanza

Christopher Dorner Shootout
4 deaths, some casaulties
Suspect : Christopher Dorner

Many more minor but deadly shootings happened throughout the 2012-2013 but about 3-4 like I mentioned were the biggest. But why did these have so many headlines? Why are all the death numbers an even number?

and now my friends, we have the Santa Monica Shooting. It was only a small number of deaths luckily, 4.
SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/santa-monica-shootings-suspect-identified-john-zawahri/story?id=19359338#.UbTJsPm1GSo

These have got to be a complete set-up. Don't mistake me, the deaths are real, but the motives? We all get the same information. Crazy, lunatics with a gun out to kill. Same shit, different day.

But you need to remember, lives are at stake here. I think there is a secret gun control cult out there sending out suicidal agents to kill and push the gun control bill to congress by creating an orchestra of calculated massacres on not only the American people, but the people of the world. You might recognize the name of Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian shooter who killed 77 deaths and over 200 casualties. And that is a huge, huge death toll that happened in a country that's got a lot of liberals. See no one is safe. Now and then, the liberal countries get shot up to attempt to prove to you guns are evil.

It''s sickening.

Now is the government behind this? No. Governments would never do this actually. Many conspiracy theorists think the governments or the corporations are out to get you and do evil things like this. This is a people conspiracy. The people are behind this. The people are out there, organized into these cults to kill and to manipulate the governments. The Govenment has become the victim, not the villain! It's the complete opposite. What we feared most of a very controlling authoritarian, fascist government, is actually a reverse-oppressive-democracy. The Government is a puppet to the evil citizens.


Don't point your fingers at the government, point your fingers at the people. The people are plotting these massacres to get the guns taken away!!!!!!!!!


Now,

Your thoughts?

Brandon Straka #fundie walkawaycampaign.com

The #WalkAway Campaign is a true grassroots movement, founded by former liberal, Brandon Straka, dedicated to providing a place to share #WalkAway testimonials and personal journeys to freedom. It is inspiring, exciting, heart-wrenching, and extraordinary to watch and read the stories of the individuals who no longer accept the current ideology of the Democratic Party, what it has become, and are now bravely sharing their stories with the world.

Some of us left long ago, while many have only recently begun to reject the narratives of the left. Some people have wanted to #WalkAway for some time now, but have feared the consequences they may be forced to endure from friends or family if they were to share their true feelings and #WalkAway.

The #WalkAway Campaign encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today. Classical liberalism on the left is a thing of the past. Today’s leftist pseudo-liberalism is more committed to expanding the scope of government, pushing us into collectivism, and groupthink. The Democratic Party has gone astray, and it is time to recognize that there is very little true liberalism practiced there anymore.
?
The “liberal” agenda of today has become authoritarian and fascist: forcing people into government-controlled health care; restricting school choice to assigned government-run schools; stifling speech that challenges liberal beliefs and candidates; buying political support from corrupt interest groups; welfare programs that breed dependence upon the state; legal preferences for particular groups rather than equality for all before the law; establishing price floors and ceilings enforceable by law; using government to redistribute wealth just to satisfy their egalitarian instincts, and shaming anyone who dares to deviate from their obligatory way of thinking.
?
The Democratic Party of today has adopted a destructive belief system, happily and without skepticism, separating people into groups based on identity and organizing them into camps of victims and oppressors. If you are a person of color, an LGBT person, a woman, or an American immigrant; the Democratic Party wants you to know that you are a victim and destined to stay that way.

They will insist that you are a victim doomed to exist within a system that is rigged against you; that you are a victim of systemic oppression; that you are a victim of your circumstances; and that no amount of hard work or motivational action will ever allow you to overcome your victimhood or the privilege of those around you.

This is perhaps the Democratic Party’s greatest and most insidious lie.

If you are a minority in America today the liberal media and left-wing politicians don’t want you to ever discover this lie. So they bombard us with stories designed to reinforce the narrative that you are in danger, that you can not succeed. They manipulate your fears and concerns by telling you that you are disadvantaged, disempowered, and disposable… to everyone except them.

Minorities in this country, are told by the Left, their entire lives that they are not welcome on the Right. They are told that they are hated because anyone who isn’t a Democrat is racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, and sexist. It is now the time for us to help minorities recognize that they do not owe their subjugation and allegiance to the Democratic Party. Centrists, Libertarians, Independents, and Conservatives believe there is a seat at the table for everyone. It is time for us to show minorities that they are cared about, appreciated and welcomed by conservatives and Republicans alike.

We invite Americans who have never been Democrats to join the campaign to share their own written and video #WalkWith testimonials supporting those courageous enough to #WalkAway. We need Americans on the Right to stand up and use their voices to tell the world the truth about what it actually means to be a conservative in America. We must come together to declare, loudly and often, who we really are, our real values, and finally expose the lies the Left has tried to place on us for far too long.

The #WalkAway Campaign also serves another fundamental purpose. For far too long, the Left has controlled the narrative in this country within the news and media, while the “silent majority” on the Right have done what they always do – remain silent. The Left has been allowed to reinforce the narrative that everyone on the Right is a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, and so on. This dangerous lie cannot be perpetuated any longer.

The Left has become so extreme and relentless that it is now the time for us to fight back!

The #WalkAway Campaign is a movement of Patriots from all walks of life – men, women, black, brown, white, straight, LGBTQ, religious, and non-believers – who share something very important in common.

WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, and we will not surrender our country.

Manal Tamimi #racist everydayantisemitism.com

Crowned a “Supermom” by the Arab press, Manal Tamimi, 45, a pro-terrorist Palestinian activist, has recently lost her status as a UN “human rights defender” because of antisemitic tweets that accuse Jews of drinking Palestinian blood. On September, 2015, this post appeared on Tamimi’s Twitter feed: “Vampire zionist celebrating their Kebore Day [Yom Kippur] by drinking Palestinian bloods, yes our blood is pure and delicious but it will kill u at the end” (September, 2015).

Tamimi’s tweet promotes the classic blood libel, which goes back centuries, that Jews murder non-Jews, especially children, so that Jews can use their blood to bake matzos for Passover, and re-enact the crucifixion of Christ. The tweet is part of a series of antisemitic tweets that Tamimi posted starting in 2015. The married mother of four calls for both violence against Jews, “Zio roaches”, and the destruction of Israel. The tweets are accompanied by vile drawings that pay tribute to Nazi era political cartoons.

“I do hate Israel, i do hate zionism, i wish a third Intefada [Intifada] coming soon and people rais [raise] up and kills all these zionist settlers everywhere”. (August 1, 2015)

“…I have a very good Jew friends, I hate Zionists & I’m not denying that, Zionism, KKK and ISIS R all the same to me” (August 20, 2017)

“The much needed button–delete Israel” [referring to nuclear holocaust] (October 5, 2015)

“You will never make peace with vampires because the taste of your blood will always attract them” (March 31, 2016)

However, it is significant that Tamimi, who is constantly calling for the expulsion of Jews from Israel, only lost her honored title because of an official complaint about her tweets that was filed by the NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, a watchdog that tracks the activities of human rights groups. A letter of protest was delivered to the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. In response to NGO Monitor’s complaint, Tamimi, the leader of the Popular Resistance Organization Committee, was removed from the list of “human rights defenders” that had been compiled by S. Michael Lynk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the disputed territories.

Earlier this year, Tamimi, who runs an online news service, the Tamimi Press, spoke at a EU financed conference that was held in Barcelona, Spain. The topic was “preventing violent extremism”.

Her participation in that conference strains the boundaries of reason. Every Friday, for the past 7 1/2 years, Tamimi, her husband, Bilal, and their followers, have marched from their village of Nabi Saleh, to the Jewish community of Halamish, where the group hurls rocks at the Israeli soldiers, who are guarding the town. On July 21, 2017, in Halamish, three members of the Salomon family were stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists while they were having their Shabbat dinner. It is important to note that Tamimi has not publicly condemned the murders, and, in fact, sees nothing wrong with stone throwing. According to a report in the Algemeiner, “the Tamimi’s contend that the soldiers’ arrests of rock throwers constitutes persecution of the residents of Nabi Saleh”.

It is a given, however, that a thrown stone is as dangerous as a gun. In recent years at least 15 Israelis have been murdered as a result of stone throwing, and countless others have been injured. Given Tamimi’s mindset, it is deeply troubling that she was invited to appear at a conference that condemns violence. And the fact that this conference was funded by the European Union is of great concern. NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg told the Algemeiner, “There is no excuse for funding Jew hatred in the guise of promoting peace…or for giving antisemites such as Tamimi the status of ‘human rights defenders'”.

Steinberg is highly critical of the actions of both the UN and the EU: “the disconnect between noble objectives and immoral actions has been clear for many years”. Steinberg believes that “full transparency and oversight for the massive sums [of money] going to radical NGOs is crucial so that this behavior is halted”. However, unlike the UN, Amnesty International, has embraced Tamimi’s cause, despite her blatant antisemitism. According to the Algemeiner, “Amnesty has declared that Tamimi’s village, Nabi Saleh, is a “community-at-risk”.

Amnesty researcher, Saleh Hijazi, who has worked in the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Ministry of Planning has publicly stated: “We need to tell the Israeli authorities: enough – you are no longer facing a tiny village on a small hill. You now have the entire Amnesty movement to reckon with”. According to the Algemeiner, in an undated essay published in the Huffington Post, Edith Garwood, Amnesty International USA’s specialist on Israel, the disputed territories and the PA, wrote that Tamimi’s group from Nabi Saleh “face frequent violent repression from the Israeli army just for practicing their human rights to peacefully expression their opposition” to Israel. Garwood believes that “even in cases where the protesters have thrown stones…these have posed little or no serious risk” to the targeted Israelis.

The fact that Garwood, a prominent Amnesty International official, can so easily disregard Tamimi’s virulent antisemitic tweets, while downplaying the connection between stone throwing and fatal traumatic brain injuries, should send up a red flag to the international community. Amnesty International fails on all levels, as a social justice organization, when its contempt for Israel is so great, that it whitewashes stone throwing as a form of legitimate peaceful protest. What Amnesty International’s position regarding Tamimi’s remark that Jews are blood-drinking vampires is unknown.

However, what is known is that, in 2016, government officials banned Tamimi from entering the UK. The British Home Office has refused to explain why Tamimi was denied a visa.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesusisprecious.org

I deliberately avoided the political mudslinging during the entire campaign of Hillary and Trump over the last year. I didn't want to play the Illuminati's game, letting them waste my time, and insult my intelligence (what little I have...lol). I knew that one of them had already been picked at a Bilderberg meeting to become the next U.S. President. I had a hunch it would be trump, as I indicated once in 2015 and again in 2016 in my recent section, letting my web visitors know that the last time a Democrat candidate won a Presidential election following a two-term Democrat (like Barack Obama) was in the year 1836. Sure enough, it didn't happen. I detested the insults and mudslinging between Hillary and Trump, knowing in my heart that it was all staged for the benefit (or demise) or the public. People (including Christian people) are by nature very gullible, easily duped and enslaved.

Luciferian Secret (Occult) Societies Control the United States

America will be destroyed (as evidenced on the reverse of every U.S. one dollar bill), and out of the heap of chaos and ashes will arise a New World Order! If you'd like, go ahead and take out any one dollar bill right now. I will interpret the Latin words on the seal. “Annuit Coeptis” means “Announcing The Birth Of” and “Novus Ordo Seclorum” means “New World Order.” So therefore it says “Announcing the birth of the New World Order.” The date in roman numerals is 1776, the year the modern Illuminati was formed and also the year of American independence. The Latin “E Pluribus Unum” means “One out of many” (that is, order out of chaos) which is the foundation of the New World Order's plan to unify the world's governments, religions and money systems into one so the world can be controlled. History Of The New World Order (Dr. Ralph Epperson exposes the Devil's New World Order).

The symbols I am speaking of are located on The Great Seal of the United States, created in 1782. Our nation was birthed in 1776. As difficult as it may be for the average American to grasp, our nation from the very beginning was formed by an occult secret society (Freemasonry) with the intent of achieving World Government, aka, a New World Order. They are not in a hurry, obviously. It is a generational conspiracy, which is speeding up as we near the end times. The world is moving faster each year. The whole of man's knowledge doubles every 8 years. Daniel 12:4, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” This will be a new civilization, a 6,000 year old human conspiracy orchestrated by Lucifer (Satan), which began when Lucifer rebelled against God in Heaven (Isaiah 14:12-17 - All Scripture references are from the trustworthy King James Bible). We see Satan's conspiracy in action at the tower and city of Babel in Genesis 11:7-9, when the Devil tried to unite mankind in rebellion against the Lord, but failed, because God thwarted his efforts.

What nearly every student is taught about so-called “history” is a fairytale. To find THE TRUTH, you've got to study on your own, and keep an objective mind (i.e., question everything). The internet is a valuable tool in fact checking everything. But keep in mind that everything in life is a doubled-edged sword. The internet is just as much a tool for occultists to spread lying propaganda. There are hundreds of educational videos on YouTube. Simply search for “New World Order exposed.” Please be aware that there are lots of nuts, deceivers and CIA operatives at work on the internet, who intentionally publish bogus videos, talking about aliens and weird things to discredit truthers. Oftentimes you'll find truth mixed with insane claims, intended to discredit the truth. As a Christian, the indwelling Holy Spirit helps me to discern what is true or false, filtering everything that I hear with Biblical principles. Think!

PETA #fundie pix11.com

Article Title: PETA says phrases like ‘bring home the bacon’ are comparable to racism and homophobia Posted 3:24 PM, December 5, 2018, by CNN Wire


Meat-based idioms, like “flogging a dead horse” or “taking the bull by the horns,” can be compared with homophobic and racist language, according to animal rights organization PETA.

“Just as it became unacceptable to use racist, homophobic, or ableist language, phrases that trivialize cruelty to animals will vanish as more people begin to appreciate animals for who they are and start ‘bringing home the bagels’ instead of the bacon,” PETA said on Twitter.

The group took to Twitter Tuesday, offering a graphic showing some possible alternatives to meat-related expressions.

Instead of “kill two birds with one stone” say “feed two birds with one scone,” and instead of “being the guinea pig,” say “be the test tube,” PETA said.

“Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it,” it added.

The comparison with racism and homophobia was met with anger on Twitter, with some arguing that PETA was trivializing race and gender issues.

Others said the animal rights organization was giving vegetarians and vegans a bad name.

PETA’s tweet comes after a UK-based academic argued last month that an increased awareness of vegan issues may lead to new modes of expression.

“Metaphors involving meat could gain an increased intensity if the killing of animals for food becomes less socially acceptable,” Shareena Z. Hamzah of Swansea University wrote in the Conversation.

“If veganism forces us to confront the realities of food’s origins, then this increased awareness will undoubtedly be reflected in our language and our literature.”

The legal system is already getting to grips with the subject. It was announced this week that a British employment tribunal will decide whether ethical veganism is a “philosophical belief” that should be afforded the same protections as religion.

Witchwind #sexist witchwind.wordpress.com

UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

I haven’t been writing in a while, and it’s not because I don’t like writing any more but things have accelerated elsewhere in my life and I can’t be involved everywhere at once. As this isn’t paid work, obviously I can’t afford to put blogging first.

Anyway, there are still many posts waiting to be finished. In the meantime, I’ll start another one.

I often muse about all the things that we’d need to change about patriarchy if we abolished men’s rule over women and the earth. Everything and every single aspect of social organisation is so much the opposite of how it should be, it’s dizzying to even begin to think about all the things we should stop / change.

Mostly it’s about men stopping from doing harm. But stopping men isn’t enough because beyond that there is the entire world to relearn, to heal, and our entire society to rebuild. We would be faced with the immense task of replacing all the misogynist, genocidal, biocidal practices men have ordered our society with for eons. So many of us now are acculturated, cut from land, nature and from one another.

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Men’s position in society

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Major serial killers, serial torturers, pimps, pornographers, severe domestic abusers, serial rapists, genocide planners, biocide planners and pedocriminals across the world will simply be euthanised: the decisions will be taken by women in a mass world tribunal for patriarchal crimes. This is by far the best solution, and is the most legitimate, ethical way of reducing male population to more reasonable levels. Such men would otherwise forever pose a threat to women, children, animals, the earth and society as a whole, and we know they have no chance of ceasing their violent behaviour after having reached such an advanced stage of sadism and sociopathy. It would be reckless to spend space, resources and energy in keeping them alive in prisons.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle.

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Family, child-raising and reproduction

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Schools as we know them as punitive reclusion centres for grooming into male domination and female subordination (as well as selection system for elite executors of patriarchal institutions) will be abolished. Boys would definitely not be around the girls, certainly not most of the time, and never beyond the age of puberty. And obviously no adult male would be allowed near children.

There will be no such thing as “teachers” with positions of authority over children. “Guiders” could learn also from the children or students as much the students from them. We’d learn anything we’d want from languages to sciences to art to music to medicine to building to witchcraft to swimming (etc) without restriction of age or time, as long as it’s adapted to our capacities, level and availability. Learning would be autonomous, with guidance when needed, instead of enforced and dictated. They’d be no need for external reward, marking or punishment because the process of learning in itself is so rewarding and fascinating that it’s self-sufficient. Anyway I could go on and on, non-patriarchal learning is truly riveting.

Social structures between women.

All relationships of authority, domination and subordination will be abolished between all women of all ages. We will be able to recognise each other’s strengths, expertise, guidance and capacities (or lack of) without it implying superiority, inferiority, veneration or lack of respect. We would find each other beautiful. We would live our friendships, love and affection for women unhindered.

MEN’S INSTITUTIONS

All oppressive male institutions will be abolished after men have been retrieved from them. We obviously won’t keep these institutions. They will return to the nothingness that they belong, just as a distant, bad memory.

Military:

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

State:

States, borders, nations, laws would be abolished and totally dispensed with. Laws mentioning the number of prohibited acts will be kept for men only. Women do not need laws to contain ourselves. Laws were created by the male elite to protect their property from other men. Laws are rigid and static, that’s because their purpose is to hold existing patriarchal powers in place. Our own society would be in constant evolution, improvement, creative renewal, yet grounded in reality and adapted to our needs and circumstances.

Women would be able to move freely.

Societal structures and decision-making assemblies wouldn’t exceed roughly 300 women (representing no more than themselves). Keeping numbers low for cooperation is important because the greater the size of the unit, the more horizontal cooperation becomes difficult and requires vertical hierarchy. Possibilities for peaceful, cooperative organisation between women are infinite – as long as they respect the individual integrity of every female – the group should never weigh over the individual but be a source for support and efficient organisation of collective life and space. There could easily be associations of exchange between different groups and peoples in order for women to cooperate regionally and globally where necessary. There would be no limit in age of participation in decision-making for women and girls, which means adapting the format to different ages and capacities.

Medicine:

Men would be permanently banned from any kind of medical practice. All woman-hating, genocidal institutions such as gynecology, psychiatry, obstetrics, big pharma, the torture of living beings in the name of “scientific experimentation” will be banned. Men’s fragmented, objectifying, sadistic view the human body will be part of history, replaced by biophilic medicine. Medical science will no longer be monopolised by a small elite but available to all at any age where appropriate. The (female) doctor’s role will be to guide the patient in her own healing, never to exercise authority over her or take decisions at her expense. Special healing spaces (where surgery is necessary, etc) will be so nice, warm and welcoming that just being there will make you feel better. The soul and life conditions of a person will always be considered part of the body, and symptoms will always be understood in a holistic way. There will be no more chemical, synthetic and toxic products with often worse side effects than the illness itself it claims to heal.

Perfect health would be the normal state of women anyway, as we will learn by experience and observation what we should eat and do to stay healthy at all seasons and times. Most women will have rediscovered our healing, divination and extra-sensory communication powers.

Religion:

Patriarchal religions will crumble down with men’s oppressive system. Religious ideologies, along with its hierarchies and vacuous rituals will cease to exist. I believe a woman’s world would be spiritual. Spiritual connection isn’t based on faith but on critical observation and experience, on a real personal connection to the elements, beings and spirits that surround us, and on the real magnetic power of beings.

Economy (tied to ecology):

Obviously, Slavery, men’s exploitation of women, men’s capitalist systems will be abolished too. The most important aspect of male economy is that it’s based on men’s competitive accumulation of resources (by killing, destroying, commodifying, taking control over, extracting the greatest possible amount of life) and based on production of poisonous, addictive, programmed obsolescent goods — in order to win the patriarchal game of achieving greater domination over women and girls.

This necrophilic relationship to the world and the environment will be abolished, to be replaced by biophilic ecological and economic principles. This will encompass every single process of our life activities, from house building, to food consumption, to communication, travelling, furniture making, cooking, etc. They will have to be carefully designed and thought out in a way as to never endanger the survival of any species, never pollute any environment, never require the use of poisonous, non-recyclable materials, never to require indentured labour or exploitation in order to be maintained. This would obviously impact the nature and scale of our activities. “Work” (exploitation and division of labour) as we know it would disappear. It would be the responsibility of each individual or group to sustain herself more or less autonomously.

We should learn to observe our environment and deeply understand the interconnectedness of all beings around us, as well our own impact before deciding whether or how to transform it. Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone. For instance, if we pick leaves of some plants, it’s important not to rip the whole plant off, to take only parts of it so it can grow again. Or to only take a few plants (or seashells, whatever) where there are many, so to respect the survival of the species where it is settled. If we cut trees to build our house, replant them. There are also infinite ways of making the most of materials for energy, food or production while using it as efficiently as possible. Building houses in ways that don’t require heating in winter or cooling in the summer. It is now widely known that energy such as electricity can be infinitely renewable if we use wind power, magnetic power, water power… And everything can be made DIY.

We will learn to be autonomous again and make our own clothes, food, furniture, houses, soaps, detergent products – or maybe someone else will make them but most things can be handmade and it’s so much more rewarding.

In a biophilic world, nothing is garbage, nothing is pollution. Everything is conceived so as to be part of a life cycle. This doesn’t mean we should keep the same toothbrush for 50 years or never improve on our machines, technology and infrastructure, but there’s no such thing as a dump, or toxic spilling. All materials should be harmless, recyclable or biodegradable, given back the earth if we no longer need them.

Industrial agriculture and farming:

Genetic modification of plants, pesticides, monoculture, field ploughing and consequent aridification of the land will be considered criminal. Our right to self-sustenance would no more be confiscated by mega food corporations – as they will no longer exist.

Agriculture should always be small-scale, local, and as much as possible be modelled on wildlife, self-growing / self-renewing conditions (the less work and intervention, the better), and especially be conceived so as to nourish and sustain rather than deplete wildlife and environmental balance. Again, possibilities are infinite, we have so much to learn.

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely. Maybe after a few decades, after the human population has stalled, male population has decreased, and after we’ve made serious efforts for reforestation and restoration of wildlife on the earth, it would probably be fairer to hunt animals occasionally. Right now, given the extinction rate of animal species, I find it criminal to hunt or fish. We don’t need to eat that much meat anyway.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

If they don’t get that class at age 12, because they went to a Muslim school, or because they did not go to school, their expected number of children is six or seven, even if they went to a high class ladies Muslim school. If they got western education at age twelve, then they have western fertility levels, far below replacement.

There is something taught to twelve year old girls in Nepal in Western schools, but not in Muslim schools, that drops fertility from six or seven children per female to less than 1.5 children per female.

This is what Boko Haram is complaining about. They view it, reasonably enough, as genocidal.

...

Here is my theory explaining this observation:

If women are emancipated, fertility collapses. But merely legal emancipation has limited effect, because females are extremely vulnerable to social pressure and conformity, so that peer pressure, social pressure and parental pressure, can and routinely does prevent emancipation from being effective, and thus prevents fertility from collapsing.

So the Cathedral has to reach into society through propaganda in school and television, and remake society to emancipate women, then fertility collapses because the girls spend their hottest and most fertile years fucking bad boys.

If women are low status relative to males, all males look attractive to them.

If women are restrained from screwing outside of marriage, if they cannot get their hands on males and males cannot get their hands on them (except in parentally supervised dancing with parentally selected partners) they want to get married. If all males look attractive to them, they can get married, and will love their husbands.

If women get married young, love their husbands, and submit to their husband’s authority, they will have a reasonable number of children – around six or seven, if the husband can afford it.

If, on the other hand they perceive themselves as equal to males, they will look around for males that are somehow higher status – typically convicted felons and such, for example Jeremy Meeks. They spend their fertile years fucking those guys, and only when the booty calls stop, only then do they condescend to reluctantly notice someone who is inclined to support and father children. And many of them, particularly the most intelligent, the most highly educated, the most wealthy and successful, for example the infamous lawyer pussy, when they are too old to get booty calls from Jeremy Meeks any more, will find all males that might return their interest beneath their notice, and wind up as cat ladies.

...

To have eugenic population growth: Abolish welfare and put female sexuality and reproduction under parental control, until they get married whereupon their sexuality and reproduction comes under their husband’s control.

Parents will delay their daughters reproduction until their daughters get married. Parents will only allow males able and willing to support a wife and children to court their daughters, and only allow them to court their daughters for marriage, not sex.

Wealthy people will marry young, poor people will marry late.

In order to reproduce successfully, reproduce biologically and culturally, men and women have to behave in different and complementary ways.

For the family unit to function, it has to have a single head, and that head has to be the man, because women will not endure sex if they are the head. And it has to be legally and socially binding.

If, on the other hand, women are free, their natural inclination is to engage their hypergamy with a minority of males outside the family unit, which natural inclination is reinforced as the normal life course, normal behavior, by school and television, which results in non reproductive sex. Successful societies repress this, frequently employing alarmingly drastic means, but the ordinary pressures of social conformity and adverse economic and life outcomes suffice to reduce it to quite manageable levels. Adulteresses in Timor Leste are punished only by social stigma and divorce without property, rights to children, or alimony. Stoning is not required to reduce the problem to acceptable levels.

noone #fundie blog.christiandomesticdiscipline.com

Other than providing a temporary source of cheap labor, liberation of the *liberated* Western woman has been good for only one thing. Thanks to a unique combination of abortion, birth control, and truly atrocious parenting skills, it is breeding the species out of the human gene pool.

While patriarchal religion is frequently blamed for the subjugation of women, the real culprit is Darwinian biology. Those who do not breed - and raise children willing and able to breed - disappear forever.

--------------------------------------------------------

History will record that curious species know as the *liberated* Western woman did little more than *agitate, agitate, agitate* herself into oblivion as she became her own worst enemy.

VonMisesJr #conspiracy americanthinker.com

Mises "Socialism" enumerates many forms of socialism that in their extreme case is totalitarianism. They are all authoritarian, centrally planned, statist paradigms but come in many flavors and strategies for implementing them. Today we have multiple forms of socialism emanating from DC and Blue State Crapitals.

The Democrap version is Marxism or communism. It is "public ownership of the means of production." Think the Student Loan industry or the DOJ and HUD nationalizing the suburbs and rural America. It is "One World Government" as evidenced by the TPP and Obama taking the Iran Nuclear Deal to the U.N. It is "democratic" in appearance as it appeals to the mob by a demagogue such as Obama, Schumer and Pelosi.

The GOP Establishment favors fascist-style socialism. It is "control of the means of production." It is the Farm Bill and Export Import Bank that showers billions on favored corporations. It is owned and operated by the Crony Chamber of Commerce. The GOP Establishment loves Agenda21 with its light rail and solar boondoggles as monopolistic, fascist government breeds corruption between politicians and big business.

We also have syndicalism with our unions, especially Public Employee Unions. It is no different than the Guild system of Feudal times except that it is based on ideology instead of heredity.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

William of Glynn:
This article mistakenly indicates "two homosexual men," where it should read "couple."

Oboehner:
You mean sodomites.

Parodyx:
No, most of us can function perfectly well without using insulting gutter language.

Oboehner:
How is my accurate verbiage "gutter language"? How can a legal term be insulting, when one man inserting his genitalia into the orifice from which another man defecates is not?

Parodyx:
Where do you want me to start? You're reducing homosexuality to a single act which happens also to be practiced by straight couples.
Many gay men don't do what you're suggesting.
Lesbians, which comprise half of the homosexual population, have nothing whatsoever to do with this act.
Would you want your faith to be identified only by burning crosses? That's basically what you're doing here.

Oboehner:
I would say the same of "straight" couples.
The vast majority do, those who don't... give them time.
Lesbians have other issues.
Would you want your faith to be identified only by sexual depravity? That's basically what you're doing here.

Parodyx:
No, I think we have hit the crux of the matter with you here. You're grossed out by one single sexual act and you want to pin it exclusively on gay men and make that the way you identify homosexuals. You completely overlook the fact that they are human beings who fall in love like everyone else. But all they are to you is the act of sodomy. Whether they do it or not. Real nice.

Oboehner:
In your whiney tirade you forgot to mention the extremely high percentage of queer men who engage in sodomy versus so-called straight couples. You also confuse lust with love.

Stephen Gowans #fundie gowans.wordpress.com

(From an article titled "Why North Korea Needs Nuclear Weapons")

Because North Korea has long been vilified and condemned by the Western press as bellicose, provocative and unpredictable, it’s difficult to cut through the fog of vituperation that obscures any kind of dispassionate understanding of the country to grasp that the DPRK represents something praiseworthy: a tradition of struggle against oppression and foreign domination, rooted in the experience of a majority of Koreans dating back to the end of WWII and the period of Japanese colonial rule. This tradition found expression in the Korean People’s Republic, a national government, created by, for, and of Koreans, that was already in place when US troops landed at Inchon in September, 1945. The new government was comprised of leftists who had won the backing of the majority, partly because they had led the struggle against Japan’s colonial occupation, and partly because they promised relief from exploitation by landlords and capitalists. The USSR, which occupied the north of the country until 1948, worked with the KPR in its occupation zone, but the United States suppressed the KPR in the south, worked to exterminate leftist forces in its zone, and backed conservatives reviled by Koreans for their oppressions and collaboration with the Japanese. By 1948, the peninsula was divided between a northern government led by guerrillas and activists who fought to liberate Korea from Japanese rule, and a southern government led by a US-installed anti-communist backed by conservatives tainted by collaboration with colonial oppression. For the next 65 years, the essential character of the competing regimes has remained the same. Park Geun-hye, the incoming South Korean president is the daughter of a former president, Park Chung-hee, who came to power in a military coup in 1961. The elder Park had served in the Japanese Imperial Army. Kim Il Sung, grandfather of North Korea’s current leader, Kim Jong-eun, was an important guerrilla leader who, unlike the collaborator Park, fought, rather than served, the Japanese. The North represents the traditions of struggle against foreign domination, both political and economic, while the South represents the tradition of submission to and collaboration with a foreign hegemon. Significantly, there are no foreign troops stationed in North Korea, but are in South Korea. North Korean troops have never fought abroad, but South Korea’s have, odiously in Vietnam, in return for infusions of mercenary lucre from the Americans, and later in Iraq. As regards repression, South Korea’s authoritarianism on behalf of rightist causes is long and enduring, typified in the virulently anti-communist National Security Law, which metes out harsh punishment to anyone who so much as publicly utters a kind word about North Korea. The South Korean police state also blocks access to pro-North Korean websites, bans books, including volumes by Noam Chomsky and heterodox (though pro-capitalist) economist Ha Joon-chang, and imprisons anyone who travels to the North.

...

North Korea is one of the few countries left that commits “the supreme evil.” Allowed to develop in peace, unimpeded by military pressure and economic warfare, it might become an inspiration for other countries to follow. From the perspective of the US ruling class, the United States’ North Korea policy must have one overarching objective: the DPRK’s demise. Asked by The New York Times to explain the aim of US policy on North Korea, then US under secretary of state for arms control John Bolton “strode over to a bookshelf, pulled off a volume and slapped it on the table. It was called ‘The End of North Korea.'” “‘That,’ he said, ‘is our policy.'” [2]

On top of profit-making goals, and crippling North Korea economically, politically and socially to prevent its emergence as an inspiring example to other countries, Washington seeks to maintain access to its strategic position on a peninsula whose proximity to China and Russia provides a forward operating base from which to pressure these two significant obstacles to the United States’ complete domination of the globe.

Ricardo Duchesne #racist eurocanadian.ca

Whites are the only race prohibited from having any pride in their ancestors. Millions of white students across the West are told daily their history is a litany of crimes, while foreign immigrants are told to be proud of their heritages and to believe that without white racism and imperial exploitation their cultures would have flourished beyond anything seen in the West.

They have declared a racial war against whites consisting of four angles: i) denigrate white history, ii) celebrate third world peoples, iii) condemn as racist negative statements about the history of non-whites, and iv) call racist any white who admires the achievements of his ancestors.

These angles are intrinsically connected around the idea that modernization of white nations was possible only through the "underdevelopment" of non-white countries that had long been more advanced. White nations became rich by plundering non-white nations, derailing them from their own "communitarian" path of progression, destroying their identities and "self-respect".

Only years of British self-flagellation have given Tharoor's argument any force. The argument is devoid of empirical support. The British had the easiest time taking India over because it was a totally corrupt, inefficiently-run, caste-divided, backward, starving, inept, irrational empire. The little statistic he offers in the just cited passage is incredibly misleading and not quite accurate. It is based on calculations by multicultural historians, such as Kenneth Pomeranz, who were determined to elevate Asia over Europe as part of creating a multicultural curriculum. They argue that Asia was "richer" than Europe before the industrial revolution began in 1750/1820 and that only the exploitation of non-Europeans enriched Europe.

But all the estimations about Asian superiority have been refuted. First, it should not be surprising that India and China were generating a higher percentage of the world GDP since these two nations represented about one-third and one-quarter of the world's population, respectively. They were producing a lot of rice for hordes of people barely surviving.

AndreiTLC #fundie forum.paradoxplaza.com

(Thread on Europa Universalis IV forum "Do any religious people play this game?")

I m preety religious miself(orthodox) and yes sometimes I feel offended,but not by the game,rather by the paradox forum community.

Lots of communists,anarchists and hard core atheists,who like bashing christianity(and only christian religion maybe because of PC) and are very few times sanctioned by the moderator.

Caamib #sexist #psycho rgif.is

There are some unhealthy patriarchal societies but history has never recorded a society that was both healthy and not patriarchal. It just doesn't happen.

In a healthy patriarchal society fathers own their daughters and marry off their daughters to good men when these women are still virgins and aged about 15-16. Their husbands are then the ones who then become their new owners. Imagine such women to be group 1 for purposes of this post.

In a feminist society this doesn't happen and women become massive sluts even at the age of 13-14. They become completely broken and are no longer even relationship material, let alone marriage material. They are scum of the Earth. Imagine such women to be group 2 for purposes of this post.

Women from group 2 deserve to be raped, but what is more important is that their rapes should remain outside of the realms of law. It should not be prosecuted in any way, much like cats or dogs mating should not be prosecuted.

It's different with group 1. If such women are raped than that should be a crime, but not against the woman but against her owner - ie, father or a husband.

My point being - a sane society differentiates between acts or rape and crimes of rape. These are not the same in a healthy patriarchal society.

Read CoAlpha Reactionary Forum - Obvious facts about rape

CapitalKiller #fundie reddit.com

This is fundamentally a question about illegalism. And there are two questions nestled in here: why do you personally choose to work wage labor instead of crime, and why should people submit to wage labor instead of committing crimes?
When the term “wage slavery” entered the vernacular, it was contemporary with American chattel slavery. It wasn't socialists, or Marxists, etc. that used it. It was slavery abolitionists. Two prominent examples are Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe. While Africans and African descendants were being whipped and killed, some of those who escaped would turn around and compare their previous condition as chattel slaves to their new condition as wage slaves. Thus, it's not a new term, it isn't something invented by academics, socialists, anarchists, or modern anti-capitalists. It was originally a statement that wage relationships are literal slavery. I want everyone to keep this fact in mind, to help frame where I am going with this.

Further, when I say “choose” in the title I don't mean it in the pseudo-choice “voluntaryist” sense, as if either crime or wage slavery are free, peaceful, or voluntary arrangements. But I do mean it in an absurdist or existentialist sense, in that you can in fact wake up one day and decide to go to work at Subway or choose to rob Subway. Alternately, you can choose to lay in bed for days at a time, or hang yourself by a rope in your closet. This does not deny the material conditions that influence one decision over the next (e.g. the consequences of working at Subway versus the consequences of robbing Subway), but rather affirms what Jean-Paul Sartre called “radical freedom.” You don't have to submit, although there may be consequences for not submitting.

I actually don't expect the few illegalists here to answer, and I might even discourage it. I don't want anyone to implicate themselves in a crime. I want you to keep going strong. I'm interested in hearing why people have chosen to submit to wage slavery versus crime. To go back to the first framing point: there were slaves who submitted to slavery, and there were slaves who started insurrections, fought masters, got beaten, got killed, or ran away and escaped. Why are you in the first category (the wage slave who submits) and not the second category (the slave refuses to submit)? If we truly believe that wage slavery is slavery, why are so few anarchists willing to reject wage slavery in full, throw it off, and lay down their own lives (or at least take the high risks of crime) instead of enduring slavery?

In an earlier comment on a different topic I said that I didn't trust anarchists who had not been arrested. This was unpopular. Probably because most anarchists (especially the American Reddit demographic) are not criminals, are not illegalists, and have not been arrested. However, I don't mean this to be a personal attack. The purpose of direct action/illegalist/insurrectionist groups is criminal. You have to be able to trust those people. And a good way of knowing if someone can be trusted, of knowing if someone can handle the inevitable interrogation and criminal justice ringer, is if they've caved under pressure or resisted in the past. If someone has been arrested and they didn't snitch, that's a good sign you can trust them. Further, if someone has been arrested and they did snitch, you've weeded them out. This does not even need to be a political/social/anarchist crime. It reflects upon how well someone is able to cope with arrest and provides an indication of their trustworthiness and dependability.

This is not “who is a better anarchist.” It's a practical tactic for forming illegalist, insurrectionist, and direct action groups with people you can trust.
(I wont go into people who are arrested and become informants, unfortunately you just may not know. And so there are some limitations here. But, in most cases, if someone is arrested and snitches you will find out during the legal discovery process or the street grapevine.)
There was one response that said I “glorify crime,” “romanticize crime,” or something to that effect. Friends, if you've read any illegalist literature, it all glorifies and romanticizes crime. The act of crime in and of itself, be it illegalist (e.g. for your own financial gain to avoid wage slavery) or insurrectionist (illegal, but for political/anti-political and without lucrative purpose), is supposed to be liberating. In fact, every time someone posts a picture of a riot, a burnt police car, calls an arrested anarchist a hero, etc. they're glorifying crime. Look at Bonanno's "Armed Joy" - does this not glorify crime?

Now, there is no glory and nothing romantic about prison. Prison sucks. There is nothing glorious about a lynched slave. But this does not mean that crime itself is neither glorious nor romantic, nor liberating, nor joyful, nor beautiful. We don't blame the anarchist criminal here for being a victim. We blame the prisons. We blame the lynchers. The anarchist criminal is not at fault. The state, the prisons, and the police are. As a minor footnote, in anarchist revolutions past and present (Spain and Rojava), “martyrs” were/are glorified and elevated. In Spain, militias were named after anarchists killed in heroic attacks on fascists. In Rojava, there are murals painted and walls plastered with the pictures of revolutionaries who died fighting Daesh.

There's nothing great about getting killed, either. But this does not mean that getting killed – or going to prison, or getting arrested – is not the inevitable consequence a heroic revolutionary act. In fact, it's something you have to accept as a revolutionary, an illegalist. It's something everyone who fought in Spain, or who are currently fighting in Rojava, have accepted. Thus it is both an inevitable and necessary act of individual and collective revolutionary struggle. We should treat the anarchist martyr, the illegalist, or the prisoner, the same way we we would treat the failed runaway slave, or the failed slave revolt leaders, who are ultimately caught and killed by slave hunters. They were brave, they tried, they didn't make it, but maybe someone else will. Who condemns the runaway slave for trying to escape?

Why, then, is there so much opposition to crime from anarchists? Not necessarily in word (although also, unfortunately, a lot in word), but in deed. And why do so few anarchists seem to be criminals (at least in the USA)? What is holding you back, exactly? Why isn't illegalism a real trend – and not only a trend, but the most prominent trend – for anarchists?

An Lê Quý #moonbat facebook.com

Andrew VanHauer This is when the liberalism in your brain start spilling all over the place. What is "freedom of movement"? Why is it awful that professionals be forced to go to the third world to serve the masses? Slavery is a mode of production with its own economic logic, you can't spam the word "slavery" to describe whatever you don't like, it's like when anarchists say Stalin is a "Red Fascist".

I'll give you an example: After reunification the Socialist Republic of Vietnam basically forced professionals to be relocated to areas where they are more needed, in service of the proletariat. Is the Communist Party of Vietnam practicing "slavery"?

Traditional Catholic Femininity #fundie #wingnut #sexist tradcatfem.com

MONARCHY IS STILL THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT

Some ignoramus, probably hyped up on misguided Americanism, sent me a message saying:
“Monarchy is a bad form of government because Prince Andrew has proven so.”

Sigh.

I know that the vast majority of Americans are not so childish or simple-minded, so I am sure this guy does not speak for you all.

America has A LOT going for it, so this hypersensitive reactivity to anything monarchy or frankly, non-American, is just so strange.

Nobody is going to rob you of your national identity, so this overcompensating gung-ho peacocking is honestly not necessary. CALM DOWN. Don’t let national pride veer into arrogant nationalism.

Now, it is no secret that I absolutely detest any form of nationalism (American, British or otherwise) that sees itself as superior to God’s Kingship or God’s template for human governance.

Patriotism is good, nationalism is also good, but any governance that is unBiblical or lacks basic common sense, (see Mr MUH-RICA above) is abhorrent.

Saying Monarchism is a bad form of governance because of Prince Andrew or a handful of badly behaved Royals, is just as retarded and stupid as saying Catholicism and the Catholic Church is bad due to the priest scandal or badly behaved popes.

It is also as stupid as saying Family and Marriage should be completely abolished because of a few marriages that end in divorce or some families that are rife with abuse and violence.

In addition, it is VERY disrespectful and invalidating to many faithful and honourable spouses, priests, bishops and Royals.

And when it comes to the Royal Family, it is undeniable that the way certain Royals such as the Wessexes, the Cambridges and of course, the Queen herself, conduct themselves and their duties has drawn nothing but respect, admiration and inspiration worldwide.

Every establishment (Church, State, Monarchy, Family, Parliament, etc) will always have some form of corruption within.

The difference is that establishments that are ordained by God ie Family, Monarchy, Church and so on have God’s blessing and grace to endure.

How else do you think these establishments and even the Catholic Church itself have continued to exist centuries later?!

Sheesh! I expected more intelligence and critical thinking from some people!

Sorry cupcake, but monarchy was ordained by God and remains the best form of governance, no matter how much the Devil tries to pervert or destroy it.

Just as the Vatican is in chaos, so too is the British Royal Family, at the moment.

And just as light is being shone on to the darkest crevices of the Vatican, exposing evils, so too I believe is the light being shone on to the British Royal Family, especially the House of Windsor.

Sure, the BRF has lost its way, starting when King Henry VIII left the Church, but that doesn’t mean Monarchy itself is bad or not ordained by God!

I believe that the exposure of these scandals within the Church and the BRF are necessary, and are all part of God’s Plan to purge and purify these establishments.

As St. Thomas Aquinas said in De Regno:
“Monarchy is the best form of government.”

A Monarchial nation that turns its back on God and the Church is a nation that is doomed to fail – just take a look at France.

You cannot dive into traditional Catholicism without diving into history and having a respect, understanding and appreciation for Monarchy.

This is why a lot more people, reluctantly or not, are recognising Monarchy as an ideal government, and those with Monarchies fallen to the wayside are working on restoring them.

MORE HERE.

In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas also said:
“Human government is derived from Divine government, and should imitate it.”

Now, of course, it is natural for certain hardline Americans to buck against this idea.

In fact, it is to be expected. After all, America used to be under the British Empire and the British Monarchy, and patriotic Americans do take their “independence” seriously.

However, just because you don’t like Monarchism doesn’t make it any less ordained by God.

In very much the same way, just because a hard-headed wife baulks at the idea of submission to her husband doesn’t make it any less Biblical. Submission is a commandment by God.

The idea of America coming under a monarchy may sound very attractive to some, but therein lies the problem – who shall become King or Queen of America?

You must remember, the Monarchy is ordained AND inherited, NOT elected, so Americans who desire a Monarchial system have quite the conundrum there.

Kings are truly BORN to rule ie it is through lineage.

Monarchs are anointed, NOT appointed.

They are crowned in an Abbey, not elected.

They are ordained by the Church and their ordination goes back thousands of years to old European kingdoms, when the Church and the Monarchy were one.

In essence, the Monarchy is a biological, historical and spiritual lineage, which America, a relatively young country simply does not have.

Doug Mainwaring #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.

“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

Learning from Experience

As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.

I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.

During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.

I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn't diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.

Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.

When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.

My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.

Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.

A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.

Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.

Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions

Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.

At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.

Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.

And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.

There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.

Rich Versus Diminished Lives

Sexuality is fluid for many, and much more complex than many want to acknowledge. Gay and straight activists alike pretend this isn’t true in order to fortify their positions. If they fail to maintain that mirage, fundraising for their organizations might dry up, as would the requests for television and radio interviews. Yet the “B” in the middle of “LGBT” acknowledges an important reality concerning our human sexuality.

Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually. They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

What Now?

In our day, prejudice against gays is just a very faint shadow of what it once was. But the abolition of prejudice against gays does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is inevitable or optimal. There are other avenues available, none of which demands immediate, sweeping, transformational legislation or court judgments.

We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”

Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it's going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.

caamib #fundie blogger.com

Well, Eivind, I congratulate you on your final victory. Predictably, all those idiots who chastised you when you were arrested and celebrated when your detention period was initially extended in July 2012 are now completely silent.

But what can you expect from such vermin? The amount of lies and hysteria they can produce is truly astounding, kinda like this nutjob in the comments who claimed you were under suspicion for murder in 1999 Norway when you didn't even live there at the time. But this is probably some of the less crazy shit they said. I remember liberals saying you were the author of Emma's posts, then that got your girlfriend because you bought her since she's a destitute Russian or entire campaigns to get you off University because your beliefs about rape somehow meant you are a rapist. These people have no knowledge of the material world. Their fantasies and incorrect nonsense is all that exists for them. They are dangerous, they are maniacs and they hate you because you're white, straight and male. They don't give a fuck about any rape or age of consent or whatever.

The groups they find immune to criticism could rape their mothers, sisters or daughters and they'd be ok with it. The groups they find immune to criticism can rape newborns, it's all ok to liberals since these groups can't be criticized since they lack privilege. You have to understand that to a liberal actual definition of rape is any rape a straight white male has at any time. They are self-hating freaks and monsters and they will get what's coming to them very soon. They have already basically stopped reproducing and turned women over to groups like Muslims and they have no biological or ideological future. Nobody wants a pathetic mangina who asks for consent over and over again every millimeter. Women want men who do what they wish with them, it is in their nature. Consent is a very useful concept within an environment of patriarchal civilization. Today it's a gone concept. You cannot have consent as something that is demanded of just one group of people and liberals actually believe that just one group of people has to think about "consent". And even when they do get consent they still hate this group !

Liberals have no chance with any of these women and they have only decreased their chances by making the women in their countries basically a monopoly of the Muslims. And in the end these same Muslims will destroy the liberals who cherish them so much and that is a good thing. Western world has forfeited its future. It is gone. It can no longer be saved.

The all golden #racist reddit.com

I don't quite get your point. You don't have to look much farther than our nation's immigration policies pre-1960s to see clearly that we favored white immigrants over non-white. Of course there would exist cultural differences between white Americans, we all had to have come from Europe, which has many diverse cultures, but the beauty of being racially homogeneous meant that these cultures co-existed rather peacefully and we were able to make some pretty amazing strides. This wasn't some complex structure, it was simply natural to want a country that's racially homogeneous, that's how all societies organize.
The U.S is at its core white, that's how its been for the vast majority of its history. I do accept the fact that we certainly can allow non-whites to live here, blacks have been here for as long as whites have and the U.S is as much their home as it is ours. I just want a return to sanity, there is a clear trend among the left that we can't have a majority white population, that we need less and less white people. This entire movement is a reaction against that trend, some are far more extreme than I am. I don't consider myself a fascist, a monarchist or any other form of authoritarian. I'm more of a centrist than anything and I think our political system is great, though corrupted and in need of a cleaning. At the very least, we need to end policies that favor non-whites over whites and start enforcing border security, at the most we need to restrict immigration to allow in only high skill specialists and start incentivizing whites to marry more and have more children.

Marjan Šiklic #fundie kiwifar.ms

1. Rape can be both bad and good, depending on circumstances in which it happens.

In sane patriarchal societies rape isn't about women's consent but a property crime against woman's father/husband. In that case rape is bad. The fact that those women also don't like it in such cultures because they're civilized and want sex with just their husband and are used to peaceful men who don't beat them is of secondary importance.

In feminist societies the dysgenics caused by feminist women wanting seducers makes women like dumb, violent men. So these women usually like to be raped and in such societies rape is defined by breaking female consent, which is nonsense and opens the path for feminist witch hunts of various sorts.

2. Modern Western women like rape, because women always want to mate with men who have most kids. Some Hollywood superstar can have a succession of wives and a good amount of kids but he's still being beaten reproductively by some Guato who has 12 kids and no job. Normal, decent men get nothing at all.

The all golden #fundie reddit.com

I don't quite get your point. You don't have to look much farther than our nation's immigration policies pre-1960s to see clearly that we favored white immigrants over non-white. Of course there would exist cultural differences between white Americans, we all had to have come from Europe, which has many diverse cultures, but the beauty of being racially homogeneous meant that these cultures co-existed rather peacefully and we were able to make some pretty amazing strides. This wasn't some complex structure, it was simply natural to want a country that's racially homogeneous, that's how all societies organize.

The U.S is at its core white, that's how its been for the vast majority of its history. I do accept the fact that we certainly can allow non-whites to live here, blacks have been here for as long as whites have and the U.S is as much their home as it is ours. I just want a return to sanity, there is a clear trend among the left that we can't have a majority white population, that we need less and less white people. This entire movement is a reaction against that trend, some are far more extreme than I am. I don't consider myself a fascist, a monarchist or any other form of authoritarian. I'm more of a centrist than anything and I think our political system is great, though corrupted and in need of a cleaning. At the very least, we need to end policies that favor non-whites over whites and start enforcing border security, at the most we need to restrict immigration to allow in only high skill specialists and start incentivizing whites to marry more and have more children.

Grace Van Berkum #conspiracy #wingnut henrymakow.com

Agenda 21, created in 1992, has been carried out by NGOs funded by foreign countries, and groups like the "Open Society Foundation" (George Soros) + Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

One major objective of the Agenda 21 initiative is that every local government should draw its own local Agenda 21. Since 2015, Sustainable Development Goals are included in the newer Agenda 2030.

Research this, too. The official name is the UN AGENDA 2030 FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...Insert the name of your city...

The World Economic Forum was created to support Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030. https://www.weforum.org/covid-action-platform

It was created in 1971. 50 years ago.

Bill Gates is attached to both parties, the UN and also The World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/bill-gates

In 2018, World Economic Forum states: "The multi-stakeholder approach defines the core of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals: "we are all in this together." (Wait a minute....sound familiar? Have we not heard this phrase being said over and over and over again since Covid started??" WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER??" This is not a coincidence.)

On the surface, the website looks amazing. Stunning! Beautiful! All the words and mission statements we want to hear!! It is an action plan to support & implement the UN AGENDA 2030 FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

Sign up to the site (all you have to do is put your email, takes 1 min). This way you can see the entire plan for GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. What does that mean? It means the New World Order where there are no borders, only 1 government, and only 1 world. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE ACTION PLAN AND SITE IS FOR. It is an extremely mind-blowing comprehensive plan to change our entire world as we know it.

When you click on one link, there are numerous tentacles for each topic. When you dig deeper there are more than 200 links PER tentacle. It is never-ending! It just keeps going and going! And everything is connected!! Why? Because it is an entire, comprehensive, meticulous plan for changing our ENTIRE world! No detail has not been addressed. I have literally already spent 24 hours on this site, researching, and have barely scratched the surface.

It all starts with the COVID page. The COVID page starts the journey of world globalization.

See for yourself PLEASE.

Once you go on the website, go to the actual COVID page. (not the intro page) https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006O6EHUA0?tab=publications

THIS IS THE PROOF YOU NEED. LOOK AT COVID. LOOK HOW MANY TOPICS THERE ARE. EACH TOPIC HAS OVER 200 SUB TOPICS. EACH TOPIC THEN RELATES TO EVERY SINGLE TOPIC & SECTOR YOU CAN THINK OF IN OUR WORLD.

It is impossible that this was made this year, or even last year for that matter. IMPOSSIBLE. "Global Governance" & "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" has been planned out for DECADES.

TimeToTurn #fundie #moonbat fstdt.com

Time for some takedowns:

[121: He very explicitly stated that people should not be free to practice their religion. He never mentioned removing special protection for religious practices that violate human rights.]

The people and groups and followers of them I mentioned certainly don't deserve to practice their religion. I've said it myself--the scariest people in any video of Steven Anderson's sermons isn't Pastor Steve, it's the congregation cheering and shouting "Amen!" at his statements.

[Mister Spak: Do you realize that makes you like the Wahabi?]

I'm right, and they're wrong. That's the difference. Basic philosophy--the ends justify the means. Very little can be done in the name of justice that leads to justice that is actually wrong.

[Doubting Thomas: Here's the major problem, TTT, if you legislate freedom of religion away, then the government is going to be in charge of your religious beliefs.]

Sounds good to me. Ideas like the French Cult of Reason or the Soviet concept (sadly never put in place) of God-Building sound like an ideal state religion.

[Anon-e-moose: And it's precisely because of their homophobia that DOMA was declared unconstitutional, Prop.8 was repealed, culminating in the 26th June SCOTUS decision. Thus fundies don't have a legal leg to stand on, re. LGBT people, any more.

And it's precisely because of their fundieness.

No WBC here in the UK. Section 5 of the Public Order Act may have something to do with that. And - in both 2012 London & more recently in 2016 Rio - why didn't the devout Muslim Mo Farah, after winning the 5,000 & 10,000 Metres in both Olympics, parade round the stadium with an IS flag...?]

But you took away their freedom. Since western society has such a huge basis in "no tolerance for intolerance", as evidenced by prohibitions on hate speech, etc., it's incredible that people haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion and started intolerated the hives of it like the individuals mentioned above.

[Psycho Tits (1): That's really dumb, TTT, and I'll tell you why in simple, blunt terms: When you fuck with fundamental freedoms such as religion (or speech or assembly, both of which are so tightly allied with freedom of conscience that to attack one is to attack all three) then that fuckery of yours WILL--count on this -- find its way back to you and it will devour your freedom along with the freedoms of the people you hate.]

[Psycho Tits (2): For fuck's sake, NeoMatrix - freedom of religion shouldn't - and really can't (ask the Soviets) - be "legislated away" at all. And if there ever comes a time when religion is 'too weak to resist,' why would you hit a minority - religious believers - with punitive actions when they pose no threat?]

It worked to a pretty big degree. The Russian Church was brought to its knees. The biggest flaw was not constructing a new religion to replace it. Religion is a great brainwashing tool, but it is true that many religious people have their actions checked and modified by their beliefs. Hence a system like the Russian God-Building would encourage positive beliefs even if the majority of people never thought of it.

[Salami: The problem with removing freedom of religion is that it eliminates the protections keeping minority religious groups from being systemically oppressed. Imagine if some fundie turned the repeal on Muslims or Jews, deciding that they aren't worthy of being tolerated anymore and passing laws that keep them from having a good quality of life. Or outlawed sane Christians and only tolerated the most intolerant of views. I don't think anybody here would like that very much, but it could very well be possible if the government doesn't go out of its way to set limits on actions against religions.]

That's why you don't define the action itself as evil. If I shoot a guy trying to a rape a woman, that would be pretty good, obviously different than if I shot the woman and thanked the rapist for cornering her. Persecuting Jews (besides some Jews like the Haredi) or whatever sane Muslims are out there (I know they exist) is therefore different than persecuting religious nuts. Even if the same techniques are being used.

[SpukiKitty: Haredis, Barabbans, Wahabbis, Hindutva, Saffrons....They're ALL THE SAME....Evil authoritarian jerks who use religion as a tool of Fascist control rather than a path of spiritual growth and humanitarian love. Screw them and send them to Inferno for a long (but finite) period of Pineapple-Butt purgatorial punishment purification!

The folks who want to ban religion/spiritual faith completely (like NeoMatrix) are just as stupid. Are you willing to ban my egalitarian, pro-freedom, pro-gender-equality, pro-LGBTAQ, pro-democracy, pro-sexuality NeoPaganism, too?

Look! Spiritual faith HELPS many people cope with life. It has helped me! You may say "It's a crutch" but I say, "Some people NEED crutches. Crutches are not evil!"

I believe that life continues after death. I see that as absolute truth! The spiritual is REAL & PLAUSIBLE to ME!

I respect an Atheist's right NOT to believe! I am all for an Atheist's right to be fully welcomed and respected in society! I feel that when Religion & Government mix, BOTH become perverted into something horrible! Religion is only bad when it gets Frummy and is combined with Government. Keep it out of Government and reject the Frums and Faith is great.

Anti-Theists, while well-meaning, are misguided and they're just as irritating as the Religious nuts! They're Frums on behalf of Atheism. Should they take over the government they would be just as bad as the Religionists!]

Ugh, American progressivism. Trump only exists because they spend all their time race baiting and engaging in identity politics instead of focusing on the issues.

The idea is phase religion out sooner or later--let it rot. But there are ideas for those who need religion as a crutch--Cult of Reason, God-Building, other such ideas. I've praised the Soviet anti-religious campaign before (the Russian church had spent centuries asking for it), but Lenin's emphasis on atheism (in opposition to worship of man) was pretty stupid, and they should've taken the church infrastructure and turned it to the worship of humanity. I'm not an atheist nor an anti-theist (I can't hate something that doesn't exist)--if there was position I would be, it would be the worship of humanity's possibility. But I suppose I have a bit of crusader spirit and am willing to unleash it on the injust in the best way I can--through words.

[Hasan Prishtina: Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania 1976, Article 55 banned religious freedom, just as Time to Turn wants. Ask the Albanian people how that legislated haters away and everything was peace and light thereafter. Ask them also why they got rid of this article the moment they could and why they hate authoritarian socialists.]

Now a few generations under that, what might happen? Seems like an interesting possibility. Lots of good ol' Abrahamic religions in Albania...

John Birch Society #conspiracy #wingnut jbs.org

America is based on the philosophy that our rights come from God and that governments are instituted to secure these rights. However, the globalists’ trade agenda to establish a UN world government by means of a series of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements is a direct threat to the security of our rights.

The deceptive, the transformation of 28 formerly independent European nations into a repressive European Union supranational government reveals how globalist schemers plan to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union on the way to a UN world government.

Although the globalist schemers have been trying to establish a North American Union through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), their progress has been stymied, largely due to the grassroots resistance of The John Birch Society and our allies.

The newly negotiated NAFTA, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), appears to further this NAU effort. USMCA has many provisions for “promoting further economic integration.” As we have learned from the example of the EU, economic integration leads to political integration.

In order to prevent the globalist schemers from erecting a North American Union on the foundation provided by the USMCA, we must convince Congress to vote against the USMCA.

The globalists in the office of the United States Trade Representative are working on many more trade agreements. While President Trump is indeed getting better deals that result in more American-made products, jobs, and a better economy, globalists in his administration are using each of these deals to further entangle the United States deeper into regional integrations. As the EU members have experienced, this will lead to a large loss in American sovereignty, including even our Constitution in the long run.

When President Trump was first elected, he sent shock waves through the globalist community that Americanism, not globalism, is our credo. Yet, those in the Deep State continue to do whatever they can to block “America First”.

davidnay #conspiracy forum.prisonplanet.com

So my wife loves this show, and unfortunately I am sometimes in the same room when this rubbish is on. I've never payed much attention until today when I sat down and started watching a bit with her, and all I can say is WTF! The episode she was watching is called "Extreme Makeover: World Edition". The original airdate was January 23, 2005. Let me first give you the episode synopsis as written on the dvd insert:
"With the impending doom of the Avatars' Utopian transformation of the world where all humans must be put to sleep, The Charmed Ones become victims of a paranoia spell that attracts and kills an Avatar."

Within the time span of just about 10 mins I caught more NWO, masses asleep/brainwashed innuendo than you could shake your fist at. They even threw in a random scene where some guy picks up a snowglobe of the WTC twin towers and just looks at it. I thought I must have missed the context so I asked my wife why he was looking at this snow globe of the WTCs and she had absolutely no idea. It HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORYLINE! The next several minutes following that scene were FULL of references to the masses literally being asleep(due to some spell), paranoia(the charmed ones were awake but paranoid due to the spell), conspiracy, transformation, Utopian society, good vs evil, etc. There was also a desire expressed by the Avatars(some mystic group aparantly with an agenda to create a utopian society) to move quickly before people could catch on. I only caught the last 10 minutes so some of the context was lost on me, but I was absolutey blown away by all of the NWO innuendo and undertones.

Does anyone watch this show? Is this episode indiciative of what the show is like?

Matt Forney #fundie returnofkings.com

In the days after Wikileaks released the emails, leftists went berserk, claiming that the Russians were behind the hack (with no proof whatsoever), accusing Vladimir Putin of trying to influence the presidential election, and even accusing Donald Trump of being a Manchurian candidate for Moscow. Curiously, none of them have taken note of the multitude of other countries who are also sticking their hands into the American cookie jar, most notably Mexico, whose government has been funding riots at Trump’s rallies.

It’s quite telling that the only country that leftists don’t want influencing the government is a white, traditionalist, Christian one. The left’s anti-Russian hysteria isn’t simply repugnant: it’s a throwback to the anti-communist fervor of the early 1950’s. The difference is that while Joseph McCarthy’s claims that communists had infiltrated the government had validity, the left’s hatred of Russia is rooted entirely in their paranoia and hatred of healthy, prosperous societies.

...

Before and during the Cold War, leftists were in love with Russia. The Soviet Union represented the end goal of leftism: total state control over every aspect life. Because of this—and also because the Soviets extensively funded efforts to infiltrate Western institutions—the American and European left sided with Russia at every opportunity. For example, during World War II, leftists promoted the idea of opening a second front in Europe with the goal of taking pressure off of the Soviet Union, when the militarily smart move would have been to let the Nazis and Soviets destroy each other. The Normandy invasion was completely unnecessary; all it did was enable the U.S.S.R. to colonize much of eastern Europe.

Similarly, in the 1950’s, leftists in the media and government smeared Senator Joseph McCarthy when he courageously pointed out that Soviet agents were deeply embedded in the State Department and other prominent federal agencies. The Venona Papers—a collection of decrypted messages from the Soviet Union’s intelligence agencies released in 1995—later vindicated many of McCarthy’s claims. Later, in the 1980’s, leftists vociferously opposed Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance towards the U.S.S.R., claiming it would lead to war; Ted Kennedy even begged the Russians to intervene in the 1984 presidential election and help defeat Reagan (irony).

The love between the Western left and Russia died when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has transformed itself from a failed socialist state into a patriarchal, traditionalist one, reasserting its place as a world power. Christianity has been revived and takes a central role in Russian life, open homosexuality is frowned upon, and George Soros-funded front groups have been banned from the country. The reason why Russian (and other eastern European) women are known for their femininity and beauty is because these nations resist the moral turpitude of the West.

All this naturally makes Russia an enemy of the degenerate left. Anti-Russian feelings among leftists exploded in 2012, when members of Pussy Riot, a Western-funded leftist agitator group, were arrested after they broke into an Orthodox church and disrupted a mass in process. Leftists began foaming at the mouth a year later when the Russian government formally banned homosexuals from distributing propaganda to minors. When Russia began attacking ISIS last year—and actually made progress towards dismantling the Islamic State—Barack Obama shit a brick and “moderate” Republicans such as John Kasich and Lindsey Graham began speaking of war with Russia.

The left’s fear of Russia is simply their fear of normality, of white heterosexual men taking back what’s theirs. They’re aided by clueless cuckservatives who still think the Cold War is on and Russia is the Red Menace. Additionally, a large number of Russian Jews in the American political establishment, such as neocon Max Boot (a prominent #NeverTrump Republican) and radical lesbian activist Masha Gessen, have spent their careers agitating for more conflict with Russia. (Ilya Sheyman, another Russian Jew, is the head of MoveOn.org, which was behind the riot that shut down Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago last March.)

...

Common Filth and other commentators have quipped in the past that the U.S. will start World War III with Russia over the issue of gay rights, and those predictions are disturbingly close to coming true. The left’s irrational hatred of Russia combined with our constant meddling in their internal affairs (for example, see Ukraine, where we helped instigate an anti-Russian coup right in their backyard) ensure that tensions with Putin will continue to escalate.

This is lunacy. Beyond the fact that Russian society is one that we should aspire to emulate, Russia is a superpower with a nuclear arsenal. Vladimir Putin is not some tinpot potentate of a third-world hellhole; he’s a crafty leader with a strong military and a nation of hundreds of millions behind him. Hillary Clinton will almost assuredly escalate tensions with Russia, possibly bringing us to war, destroying what is left of America with it.

The left hopes to distract Americans’ from the Democrats’ corruption and malfeasance by ginning up a Red Scare 2.0, and we can’t let them get away from it. Leftists’ hatred of Russia, combined with the apocalyptic ramifications of war with Putin, are too significant to ignore.

Conservapedia editor #fundie conservapedia.com

Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:

* believe that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that much inequality is the result of men oppressing women
* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking
* support affirmative action for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife, and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying

echopraxis #fundie echopraxis.tumblr.com


free speech fails

free speech is a tool that is supposed to allow the free exchange of ideas to have the best ideas, judged on its merits, win 

what is known by its proponents is that free speech rests on the rule of law to protect speech from those who wish to censor it 

but free speech fails because [list]speech is not judged on its usefulness to preserving diversity
[*]like in all “free markets,” monopolies form and their power ends up suppressing other, conflicting speech. fascists, for example, don’t care about free speech/liberal democracy will use their freedom of speech to gain power and then outlaw free speech
[*]similarly, western society is not one that automatically promotes diversity: it is deeply racist, antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ, xenophobic, patriarchal/sexist, etc. 
[*]law enforcement (police), the ones who enact the “rule of law,” overwhelmingly support fascist policies and many are members of fascist organizations https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/ (USA focused)
[*]the police originated as strike-breakers in Europe and in the USA they were developed side-by-side as strike-breakers and slave-catchers [*]the fraternal order of police (a large, national collective of most police officers) openly support Donald Trump, a fascist 
[*]police will be very selective in what they enforce, leading to some speech (such as racist speech, sexist speech, Islamophobic speech, etc.) and even violence being left alone or supported by police officers. in addition, other speech (such as anti-racist speech, anti-sexist speech, anti-Islamophobia speech, etc.) ends up being suppressed by the fascists and the police who support the fascists 

with these challenges, the tool of free speech becomes inept and, in fact, becomes counter to the aims of promoting diversity. 
but what are we to do if not promote free speech?


what has become clear is that we need to understand society as being in conflict with itself. there are the fascists and there are the anti-fascists. there are those who own the businesses and there are the workers at those businesses. 

their interests are at odds with each other. the fascists want fascism; the anti-fascists do not want fascism. the business owners want to make as much money as possible. the workers want a living wage, job security, healthcare, the air and water to not be poisoning them, etc. 

these are some examples but there are countless, such as with race ((ex. white people as a group want to protect their power and privileges (white supremacy). people of color as a group want to end white supremacy.))

with this model we can understand who has more power and how to protect people more effectively than free-speech can  

for example:
[*]business owners have more power than an individual worker, and often more than collectives of workers (unions)
[*]white people have more power than people of color 

power is what allows people to get away with doing terrible acts–such as poisoning the water in Flint, Michigan or a non-disabled parent killing their disabled child

instead of promoting free speech to stop these abuses, we should instead take away the imbalance of power so that no one has more power than anyone else. 

we do this with solidarity/mutual-aid (helping each other out) and collective organizing, such as in a self-advocacy group. a good, accessible, longer guide to this kind of organizing is this guide to building a “solidarity network”  

Baron Bodissey #wingnut #conspiracy gatesofvienna.net

The Storm Troopers of the New World Order — In Denver

We’ve been posting about European Antifa groups for more than ten years. “Antifa” (or “anti-fa”) is short for “anti-fascist”, and the Antifas are prominent in almost any European demonstration or riot against the right wing. If a politician expresses sentiments that are even mildly nationalistic, or talks about limiting immigration, he can expect an Antifa manifestation outside his offices, complete with black clothing, black masks and hoods, flags and banners featuring logos and slogans of the Antifa and affiliated groups, burning trash containers, flung paving stones, and violent confrontations with police.

I learned about the Antifa was when I was first delving into the Danish anti-fascist scene. Back then (2007) a local manifestation of the anarchists known as the Autonomer was more prominent in Copenhagen than the Antifa; I don’t know if that’s still true. But the Antifa groups were dominant in Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. With the help of El Inglés and our Flemish correspondent VH, we posted a couple of investigative reports on the anti-fascist scene in Northern and Western Europe.

Since then it has become clear that the Antifas act as the enforcement arm of the permanent bureaucratic state in Europe; that is, the establishment that remains in place and manages political, cultural, and economic affairs regardless of which party is in power in any given country — what we now know as the “Deep State” here in the USA. Such functions are particularly concentrated in the bureaucracy of the European Union, which has no democratic component whatsoever — the European Parliament is a figurehead body (and a gravy train for those elected to it), lacking any significant power.

When the Antifas hit the streets, they do so in the interests of the entrenched European power structure. However, their funding comes from private sources, often those associated with George Soros, so that Brussels and the national governments can maintain plausible deniability. In order to understand the true nature of what’s going on, just watch the behavior of the police and the courts: despite the armored riot cops and swinging batons and black Marias, the Antifas are not seriously constrained in their violence, and any who actually get charged and convicted are sentenced lightly. Compare this process with what happens to any “right-wing extremist” group that expresses nationalist sentiments or opposes immigration — it can expect to be violently suppressed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Remember the water cannons aimed at the anti-groping demonstrators in Cologne in early 2016? Did you ever see water cannons used against “anti-fascists” throwing bottles or paving stones? Me neither.

For all practical purposes, the Antifas are the Blackshirts of the European Union, even though the chain of command is occluded. It’s not like Germany in 1936 — Jean-Claude Juncker does not give orders to the commanders of the black-masked thugs who swarm the streets of Amsterdam or Stuttgart. By working through cutouts such as George Soros, the entrenched oligarchs of the EU can maintain their power without ever dirtying their virtual hands.

For the first decade of my work at Gates of Vienna I never saw any significant presence of Antifa in the United States. We had various flavors of communists and anarchists — Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, International ANSWER, Occupy Whatever, etc. — but not the Antifas. But then suddenly everything changed…


As soon as Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20, there they were, as if on cue — Antifa thugs breaking windows, burning vehicles, fighting with the police, and causing general mayhem. I recognized their banner immediately in the footage from the “protests” in D.C., Chicago, L.A., and elsewhere.

The photo at the top of this post was taken by Henrik Clausen yesterday at the pro-Trump rally in Denver, the same event at which Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff spoke. As you can see, they are identical to their European counterparts in appearance, including the logo on their flag. The Denver police — evidently not yet under the full control of the New World Order — kept the “anti-fascists” well back from the rally, and did not let them interfere with it.

There were similar rallies all over the country yesterday, and I’d bet money that identical-looking Antifa groups staged “counter-demonstrations” at most of them.

The inauguration of Donald Trump was the trigger that caused them to appear. Funds were released and the deployment of shock troops on the streets was ordered by someone at the highest levels of the Deep State.

For all practical purposes, the Antifas are the Storm Troopers of the New World Order.

And now they’re here in the USA, patrolling the mean streets of our cities, ready to squash anyone who dares to oppose the implementation of borderless multiculturalism in the Nation Formerly Known as the United States of America.

proph #fundie collapsetheblog.typepad.com

Christianity and Authority

Want to turn someone off to Christianity immediately? Explain to them that it is a foundationally authoritarian religion.

It is. Really. Christ did not say "Follow your conscience"; he said "Follow me."

The Bible bristles with commandments and instructions, often to excruciating detail and with elaborate (and frequently violent) punishments for infractions. And it is soaked through with authoritarian imagery: crowns (of thorns), yokes (Christ's gentle one vs. the heavy one of sin), thrones, kingdoms and kings, Fathers and mothers.

Modern man hates all order and authority and therefore cannot tolerate this. So when he does not reject Christianity outright (95% of the time) in favor of either atheism or something that appeals to his instinct for solipsistic self-worship (e.g., Buddhism), he will try to rationalize this business away through flimsy neo-Marcionite heresies, declaring Christ to be the completion and perfection of the mean old fuddy-duddy God of the Old Testament. (For why exactly this is a heresy, consult John 10:30).

So Christianity is necessarily and foundationally authoritarian, and the logical consequence of this is that Catholicism, which adheres most closely to this authoritarian ideal, is a very easy religion to comprehend. The rules are laid out: simply follow them. If you don't like it, if you have doubts, just shut up and follow them, anyway. And it's for this reason that the talk of conscience in the present Catechism strikes me as especially dangerous. Nearly everyone nowadays is pregnant with the spirit of Protestantism and so interprets conscience to mean "whatever I intuit the good to be," which of course has led us to the present catastrophic collapse in the moral integrity of the Church. How many contracepting Catholics have I argued with who have cloaked themselves in the armor of "conscience" and thereby rendered themselves invincible to every appeal to reason, tradition, Scripture, and Catechism? I've lost count. Conscience has become the dagger with which Catholic quislings backstab the bride of Christ. In practice it is not much more than the will to disbelieve.

When I try to explain this -- even to Catholics -- I'm invariably accused of conformity and blind submission. All of which is not only absolutely true but absolutely mandatory of all Christians, which has precisely been my point all along!

Submit to God's will completely and without reservation and be saved, or insist on your autonomy and rot in Hell. It shouldn't be a hard choice.

Rookh Kshatriya #sexist kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com

The Ineffable Mystery of Anglo Hypergamy

Because of the puritanical fictions that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become impossible to please by rational means. As with Christian morality (a behavioural system intimately associated with Anglo feminism), the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or, more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the male sex. Oddly, this bizarre paradox makes sense. If no male is good enough for the Anglobitch, then rational scales of differentiation no longer apply.

This is the problem with Game and its ‘Greek’ system of male classification. The specific nature of Anglo-American hypergamy derives from a puritanical archetype, removing it from all rational rules of hierarchical classification. Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated, priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.

And this explains why exponents of Game report no special mating success in the Anglo-American world. All their 'Alpha' striving is meaningless in a misandrist culture where male status has been downgraded to untermensch levels. While men believe in such classification systems, they have no meaning to Anglo women whatsoever. Similarly, if all women were facially mutilated at birth and forced to wear sackcloth and ashes, we would have no way to differentiate them: and with no woman higher than a four, no female hierarchy of sexual appeal could exist. Or course, most feminists would rather like that, too.

And this is what makes Game – so appealing to the logical male mind – so ineffective in the Anglosphere. Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes. And so all the Gamers’ striving for 'Alpha' status is pointless – they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and slouch the streets scratching their butts. Indeed, as many North American commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have a man, only the worst knave will do.

Gamers are wrong about Anglo women. Socons are, too. Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. That might make sense in less repressive cultural settings. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.

Go figure.

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

[A commentator called Price out for supporting patriarchy instead of egalitarianism]

I went through the same process of rejecting it, but sometimes you just have to accept the world as it is. As for the 50s, keep in mind that Americans had it better than anyone else on earth at that time. White Americans may have had it better, but they were 90% of the population. Does the unfortunate situation of 10%, which despite it all had it far, far better than the majority of the world – including ancestral populations in Africa, Latin America and Asia – really cancel out the enormous benefits to most Americans and the great contributions to humanity?

I’d also like to point out that rejecting patriarchy is not a move forward, but rather a move in the opposite direction. Humanity has only ever moved forward under patriarchal systems, and when it gives them up, as it does fairly frequently, there’s inevitably some regression toward savagery. What we call “progress” today is merely dissolution, which is an eternal problem, older than the written word.

woh kavi #fundie archive.today

Male fantasies allow us to escape into worlds that lie far away but remain curiously familiar. While Mordor and a galaxy far far away might superficially contrast with the world we live in, they still function on a set of rules and paradigms that are accessible to us in the real world. Whether it’s the expansionist nature of Mordor or the corrupt politics that would be the downfall of the Galactic Republic, these fantastical worlds are governed by the same general principles that govern our world. Similarly, one could immediately relate to the ethical dilemmas encountered by Captain Picard and his crew aboard the Enterprise, such as the question of when to break the Prime Directive.

The female fantasy is exactly the other way around. While the settings of these fantasies may seem familiar to us, these worlds are based on a set of rules that are illogical and improbable. What are the odds of anybody’s biography resembling Fifty Shades of Grey? Yet because the setting resembles the real world, the female mind has difficulty separating reality from fantasy.

This might possibly explain how women live through contradictions without reconciling them; because they are simply not aware of them. This possibly explains how women can live of a man’s charity (alimony, child support) while still declaring themselves “strong and independent.” This explains how women can have consensual sex and yet genuinely convince themselves that they were raped. This explains how women can think that single mothers are the greatest thing since sliced bread despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Women do not do these things out of malice, but rather, they are simply too self-absorbed to know any better.

Female solipsism prevents the fairer sex from adequately grasping the principles of justice and fairness. Some readers will be quick to point out a list of highly successful female rulers throughout history such as Queens Victoria, Elizabeth, Noor Jahan, and Laxmibai (a symbol of Indian resistance against the British). But it is worthwhile to point out that these women functioned within the bounds of patriarchal societies and did not attempt to overthrow the prevailing order. Queen Laxmibai resisted British imperialism in India and was slain on the battlefield. She didn’t fight against the “oppression of women,” but rather against the oppression of her kingdom and all subjects therein. This is why she is rightly revered as a true patriot all over India to this day. We know that feminists do not make good patriots.

Many readers would also bandy about the argument that “Men start all the wars!” This argument is bogus and invalid because it assumes that men are a class in the Marxist sense of the word. It assumes that everyone born with a Y chromosome, regardless of culture, race, and religion, belongs to this homogenous internationalist class. When viewed from this demented perspective, the largely peaceful men of Malaysia assume moral responsibility for the barbarism of warlike cultures like the Afghans and Aztecs.

Leftist nonsense generally aims to undermine race, family, religion, and nation; the pillars of an individual’s identity. Upon their ruin the liberal will assign individuals with a new Marxist class identity that comes with it’s own handy-dandy two-dimensional historical narrative which is anything but historical.

It’s been stated before that the true test of a group’s integrity is measured by how liberal-minded they are when they are the majority. As our corrupt elites continue to empower their pet classes (women, gays, immigrants), I wonder if said groups will display the same degree of tolerance towards the western men that sacrificed their self-interests on a matter of principle.

MrCappadocia #fundie reddit.com

The strength of the Social Justice Authoritarian message lies not in the message itself but in its delivery.

Social Justice Authoritarians deliver their ideology only via positions of power. They do so in college classrooms from Professors who can destroy students. They do so via Videos that are advertised widely with comments banned. They do so where they can control the moderation of the commentary. They do so via outlets that don't seem as though they are Social Justice Information Portals at first glance.

Consider the Cracked.Com model. They publish articles with a strong Social Justice Authoritarian bias. If you protest this bias (or their belief structure) in the forums they provide they ban you or sanction your comments. So this attracts an ever growing mass of people who think largely the same way.

But they don't ban people from the comments section so much. Here's why: A forum post, overall gets significantly more exposure than a single comment post. This means that the "mass" of SJA can target individual comments (as they are a group) and downvote and demoralize opposition thinkers who are never afforded the same kind of platform the Authoritarians themselves are.

All the while, Cracked, operating as a "humor" magazine isn't recognized as a platform for propaganda. It has a stable of writers that agree with the ideology, and it gives those writers a massive platform to disseminate that ideology under the guise of "humor".

They took their evil, hateful pill and coated it with sugar and innocuous jokes. Remember, these aren't simply "true believers". They're college educated, intelligent and they've had decades to refine their tools.

Cicero #conspiracy freerepublic.com

( that evil old British Museum is responsible for Communism )

Actually, Europe has been playing this game for a long time, and England has been playing it even longer.

France and Germany and the other EU countries have pretty much been saying that they will allow Islamic terrorists to base in their countries as long as they attack somebody else.

And that was British policy all the way back in the Victorian age, when Communists and anarchists were welcomed to London as long as they used it as a base to bomb other countries.

After the failure of the great revolution of 1848, the chief perpetrators fled to London, where they found shelter.

Karl Marx also fled to London, where he was given the facilities of the Britism Museum library to help him write Das Kapital.

Saudade #sexist incels.co

RE: [Blackpill] [Slavpill] Russia among has the highest rates of abortion in the world

Ukraine and Belarus are aslo at the top of the list

Extra degenerate slav foids are too busy riding a non-slavic man's massive thundercock that they are forget about contraceptions.People should stop seeing slavic foids as goddesses

Serbia too. Slavic countries are extremely matriarchal and feminist since times of communism. I actually go around foids forums and i look up the reasons why they kill their kids and its comical, they always say how they are good persons because she wouldn't have afforded a baby branded clothes or vacations every year (richest county in Serbia has lowest birth rate), she is busy with studying some useless shit, she is too young in her 20s to have a kid, world is overpopulated, i want child free life, some are already on their third of fourth abortions, some are so deluded they still call themselves Christian and they pray in Church before abortion and thank God that it all finished well and they know God will forgive them because she wasnt ready for a kid (LOL). Then the first thing they ask is can i have sex immediately after abortion or can i have kids in future (they wanna pop one kid in late 30s so it can take care of her when she gets old). Reality is that they are extremely materialistic, hedonistic and nihilistic and they see children as burden and investment that threatens their commodity and cock carousel, but they still want to push this bullshit about how noble they were for ending a life of a baby that would "suffer" because it would wear cheap clothes and have Chinese smartphone instead of Iphone, when they eventually pop one kid then they will act as greatest and most conservative mother ever ignoring their abortion counts. They are extremely uneducated about their bodies or anatomy, only 20% use protection, they also have tendencies to blame everything on men ignoring that they chose those same men, they all want to "experience life" aka party and ride cock carousels and then they want to be mothers in mid 30s (seriously i barely see any women in 20s with kids) but most of them cant find partners anymore due to low fertility and old age. If someone suggests that maybe you should watch with whom you sleep or dont be promiscuous or use protection then they will say that you are close minded, religious and patriarchal fanatic, backwards nut, my body my choice etc, they also get offended or insulted when Chadimir asks them about sex count or abortions count (past is past teehee). 16 year old girl can abort legally and parents will never know, doctors tell women here to hide their abortions from parents or partners so they can pretend to be religious and innocent until they lock up some naive betabuxxer. Mini lifefuel is that most of those foids when i read say that they cant forgive themselves for what they did, they want to go back in time and stop it, they cry when they see pregnant women and babies in public, they have nightmares, they become extremely depressed and suicidal, some become infertile, some start giving many births to compensate, some take radical feminist stances to hide their sorrow etc. By raw statistics on average every woman in this country aborted 3 times during her lifetime, and in same time people here are trying to present this shithole as "conservative", "traditional", "Christian" etc, 84% of people here declare themselves as """"""""Christian""""""""" which is laughable and insulting to real followers.

Briarwood Presbyterian Church #fundie salon.com

Donald Trump’s election didn’t just empower the alt-right troops with their #MAGA hats and Pepe the Frog avatars. The religious right is also more quietly making moves to consolidate power on a state and local level, aided by Trump’s promises to appoint conservative-friendly judges and to strike down legal limits on church-based politicking.

But even in the current environment, it’s startling to learn that the Alabama legislature is considering a bill to give a Birmingham-based church its own police force. The bill, SB 193, would specifically authorize the Briarwood Presbyterian Church, which has more than 4,000 members, to hire its own police force that would be “invested with all of the powers of law enforcement officers in this state.”

“The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests,” the church said in a memo sent to Salon after requests for comment. The memo also mentions the Sandy Hook shooting, claiming that they need “qualified first responders” in case such a thing would happen to them.

This particular church does not sit in some kind of lawless territory without access to the same law enforcement services available to other Alabama citizens. As NBC News notes, the church is serviced by the sheriff’s departments in both Jefferson County and Shelby County.

“This proposed legislation seems like a clear violation of church-state separation, and a clear violation of the Constitution,” said Alex Luchenitser, the associate director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a phone call. “Government bodies must not delegate official power to religious entities.”

[...]

Briarwood Presbyterian Church presents its request as a security measure, but, as Luchenitser notes, the church is already allowed by law to hire private security guards if it wishes. He worried that police who are invested with state powers but ultimately answerable to the religious institution that hired them could lead to all sorts of legal problems.

Having police that work directly for a church, he argued, could lead those police to feel they are there to “enforce the religious beliefs of this particular church.”

It’s not an idle concern. As Luchenitser noted, religious conservatives have gotten creative in recent years, in search of extra-governmental power to force obedience to their religious edicts on as many people as they can grab.

“The Christian right is pushing to allow businesses to discriminate against customers based on religious beliefs,” he pointed out, noting the various lawsuits from Christians who disapprove of legal same-sex marriage and are trying to carve out special rights to discriminate against couples whom the law no longer discriminates against.

[...]

Digging around the website for Briarwood Presbyterian Church reveals an authoritarian, theocratic bent. The pastor, Harry Reeder, puts out a regular podcast where he frequently defends Donald Trump and pushes back against the concept of secularism.

“There is no sacred-secular split in life,” Reeder argued in a March 21 podcast. “Everything in life comes under the sovereign claims of Christ.”

“That judgment if not by Divine edict is inevitable by Divinely ordained consequences for those who engage in high-handed rebellion against God’s law,” Reeder wrote in a blog post responding to the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage across the country. “Those nations who knowingly break God’s law will inevitably be broken by God’s law.”

[...]

atana #conspiracy dailykos.com

Educators as gender cops.

There is nothing new in that. The whole point of American education is to produce patriarchal robots: cannon fodder boys and cannon-fodder-maker girls. Compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory heteronormativity are part of the program.

Chaim Babad #fundie failedmessiah.typepad.com

(In response to an article about Women Of the Wall, a Jewish women's prayer group, not being able to use a Torah as part of their service, held at the Western Wall)

wow stands for wackow woman.these woman are all lesbian, i join my islamic brothers who detest these people,who's only goal is to destroy the moral fabric of society. i would rather live in a palestian state then under a country who are plauristic that filled with hate and contempt to all except there "MODERN PEOPLE" AGAIN STICK TO A BLOG ABOUT WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL CHAREDIM

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Bolter

Richard Panzer #fundie thehill.com

Pa. church plans blessing ceremony for AR-15s

A church in northeast Pennsylvania is telling couples to bring their semi-automatic rifles to a blessing ceremony next week.

The event is meant to give couples an opportunity "to show their willingness to defend their familiars, communities and nation," The Times-Tribune in Scranton reported.

It will take place at the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary in Newfoundland, Pa., on Wednesday.

“All of the weapons in the ceremony will be checked to make sure they are unloaded, with a zip tie so that no bullets can be inserted,” Sanctuary Church president Richard Panzer said in an email, according to the The Times-Tribune.

“We are inviting local and state police to be on the premises, so that everything goes safely.”

The blessing ceremony will be held just weeks after a gunman, using an AR-15, opened fire at a high school in Florida, killing 17 people.

Panzer noted the church has "no ill intent" and does not see any connection "since these firearms are for self-defense.”

He also addressed school shootings and raised the suggestion of arming teachers.

“Regarding the school shootings, if any of the teachers had been allowed to carry a firearm, many lives could have been saved," he added. "Several states have passed legislation to allow exactly that."

Since the Florida high school shooting, students across the country have been rallying for gun control.

They are demanding that lawmakers take action to prevent future mass shootings and to keep their schools safe.

Historical revisionists on Croatian Wikipedia #fundie balkaninsight.com

26 MAR 18

ANALYSIS

How Croatian Wikipedia Made a Concentration Camp Disappear

Unlike Wikipedia in other languages, the Croatian version refers to the WWII Jasenovac concentration camp as a “collection camp” - as well as playing down fascist crimes and ignoring right-wingers’ controversies.

Sven Milekic | BIRN | Zagreb

With its nationalist sentiments, factual mistakes, lack of academic references and omitted facts about World War II history, Croatian Wikipedia is not a reliable source, analysts have told BIRN.

Articles that refer to the Croatian WWII fascist Ustasa movement and its crimes are criticised as particularly unreliable, ideologically loaded and imprecise, thus downplaying the crimes.

The clearest example is the Ustasa’s biggest concentration camp, Jasenovac, which in the title of the Croatian Wikipedia article is referred to as “Jasenovac Collection Camp” - a term which does not have such negative connotations as ‘concentration camp’.

According to the Jasenovac Memorial Site, the Ustasa killed over 83,000 Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascists in the camp between 1941 and 1945.

The camp was used as a concentration camp as well as a labour camp – in terms of labour being used to physically debilitate inmates, causing their deaths – and a death camp, as many detainees were executed at various sites in the camp system immediately or soon after their arrival.

The Croatian far right often refers to Jasenovac as a “collection”, “labour” or “punishment” camp.

Wikimedia entries in other languages – English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Russian – refer to Jasenovac as a concentration or extermination camp in their titles.

But on Croatian Wikipedia, even the biggest Nazi death camp, Auschwitz, is referred to in the title of the entry as the “Auschwitz Collection Camp”.

image

Hrvoje Klasic, a historian at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies in Zagreb, told BIRN that “there is a large difference” between English-language and Croatian Wikipedia.

He explained how sometimes he tells his students to look something up on English-language Wikipedia if the article has plenty of academic and scientific references.

“However, I would never give Croatian Wikipedia to my students if they want to learn something about the Croatian history. I myself saw that a number of articles and topics are done in a completely revisionist manner, with highly emphasised nationalist and, I would dare to say, pro-Ustasa sentiment,” Klasic said, arguing that entries on World War II, socialist Yugoslavia and Croatia’s 1990s war.

While the article on the Jasenovac camp in English has 187 reference notes, along with 37 references to books and two to academic articles, the Croatian version has 57 reference notes - with a large number coming from right-wing media and private blogs - and only three books.

Klasic said that although Jasenovac was in part a labour camp, referring to it as that alone is misleading.

“It’s completely the same as if I wrote a book on the Third Reich and simply stated that during its time, employment and industrial production went up, saying that citizens’ living standard improved. That is all correct if you exclude all that happened to all the others who weren’t seen as part of the German nation,” he said.

He also argued that by referring to Jasenovac as simply a collection and labour camp is to use “the same language” as Ustasa propaganda, which did not publicly mention killings in the camp. All this downplays the crimes committed there, Klasic said.

BIRN asked Croatian Wikipedia’s administrators for a comment, but received no reply.

In the talk section of the entry on Jasenovac, where readers can put questions to the administrators, they were asked about the use of the term “collection camp” back in 2012.

An administrator using the alias SpeedyGonsales replied that the camp was officially called Jasenovac Collection Camp by the Ustasa and that the description ‘concentration camp’ was just a “colloquialism”.

“Without a valid explanation, I do not see a reason for doing factual and linguistic violence to the article for the benefit of a colloquialism. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, let’s respect the principles of an encyclopaedia,” SpeedyGonsales said.

image

Wikipedia in English labels Jasenovac as a "concentration camp", while German puts "KZ", an acronym for Konzentrationslager (concentration camp). Photo: Wikipedia screenshot.

Goran Hutinec, a historian at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies in Zagreb said the problem lies in the fact that the official name for Jasenovac “does not truly describe the function of the camp”.

“It looks as someone isn’t aware that the term used back then [collection camp] may not have same meaning now. I mean, it partly had that function… but clearly not only that function,” Hutinec told BIRN.

He said that Jasenovac was used for the temporary internment of political prisoners – like Croatian politician Vlatko Macek, who spent five months in Jasenovac before being released – as well as a place for the execution of people “who didn’t even enter the camp upon arrival, but were quickly transported to nearby killing sites”.

Hutinec argued that even Auschwitz had “ten different purposes for which it was used” – as a death camp and a labour camp, amongst other purposes. He added that the same could be said about Jasenovac and other WWII-era camps run by the Ustasa.

He further argued that the Croatian Wikipedia has “many shortcomings, factual mistakes and ideologically loaded language” compare to the English and German versions.

The Jasenovac entry on Croatian Wikipedia has yet more disputed sections.

Almost 40 per cent of the entry on Jasenovac is given over to allegations that the name-by-name list of the victims of the camp – compiled by Jasenovac Memorial Site – is false.

It highlight allegations that with the number of people killed has been manipulated, and also talks about a post-WWII Communist-run camp at the same site, although there is no valid historical proof that it ever existed.

In these passages, Croatian Wikipedia mostly focuses on a highly controversial Zagreb-based NGO called the Society for Research of the Threefold Jasenovac Camp. The NGO mostly involves people who are not professional historians, who estimate the death toll as low as 1,500 – significantly lower than any other historians.

In the entry on Jasenovac, Croatian Wikipedia gives Igor Vukic, the Society’s secretary, a professional journalist, the same credit as professional historians.

image

Spanish Wikipedia refers to Jasenovac as a "concentration camp", while French labels it an "extermination camp". Photo: Wikipedia screenshot.

The English version mentions disputes about camp’s death toll, offering figures which have been offered by many historians, demographers and others, but it does not state that the current numbers have manipulated, nor does it mentions the alleged post-war Communist camp which is claimed by the Society to have existed.

Instead, the English version gives a lot of space to describing the living conditions in the camp, the mass murders committed there, and how many people coming to Jasenovac were “scheduled for systematic extermination”.

In describing the conditions, crimes and killings at the camp, Croatian Wikipedia gives one quote from a former inmate and one additional sentence.

The distinct difference that Croatian Wikipedia displays when covering the Ustasa past can be seen in entries on the movement’s leader, Ante Pavelic.

“Ante Pavelic… was a Croatian fascist general and military dictator who founded and headed the fascist ultranationalist organisation known as the Ustase in 1929 and governed the Independent State of Croatia a fascist Nazi puppet state built out of Yugoslavia by the authorities of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy,” the first sentence of the article in English reads.

It mentions large-scale crimes against Serbs, Jews, Roma and anti-fascists in the second sentence.

Croatian Wikipedia describes Pavelic as “a Croatian politician, lawyer, leader and founder of the Ustasa regime and poglavnik [head] of the Independent State of Croatia”.

The English version gives several times more space to the crimes of Pavelic’s regime and its dictatorial nature.

Also related to the topic of the Ustasa, in its article on the Croatian film director Jakov Sedlar, Croatian Wikipedia leaves out all the controversies surrounding his documentary on the camp, ‘Jasenovac - The Truth’.

The film, which premiered in Zagreb in April 2016, has been strongly criticised for appearing to downplay the crimes committed at the camp.

While the Croatian Wikipedia entry does not mention the issue at all, the English version has an entire section headlined ‘Controversies’, as well as a whole separate article on the film, mentioning all the alleged evidence that Sedlar used which was disputed.

Croatian Wikipedia also does not scrutinise some other controversial public figures.

In its entry on former Culture Minister Zlatko Hasanbegovic, Croatian Wikipedia completely leaves out weekly newspaper Novosti’s discovery that he wrote an article for a pro-fascist bulletin called the Independent State of Croatia in 1996, in which he described the Ustasa as “heroes and martyrs”. The English-language Wikipedia mentions it, and offers links.

Public figures on the left are put under much more scrutiny by the Croatian Wikipedia.

In the entry on ‘Left Extremism in Croatia’, veteran peace activist Vesna Terselic, Croatian Serb leader Milorad Pupovac and some anti-fascist organisations are named as proponents of extremism who block attempts to deal with Communist-era crimes.

Sometimes certain contributors on the Croatian Wikipedia have gone too far and the administrators – who approve all the articles – have had to step in and make changes.

When Predrag Lucic, a journalist, editor, writer, and one of the founders of the legendary anti-establishment magazine Feral Tribune died in January, the initial Croatian Wikipedia entry offered a somewhat insulting description of his achievements.

“By mocking people with different political positions, he has achieved tremendous success among Yugonostalgics, admirers of communism and opponents of independent Croatia. There is not a single serious journalistic piece [by Lucic] that a cultural critic would give a passing grade,” it read.


Note:

Who owns Croatian Wikipedia?

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc, a US-based non-profit charitable NGO, is the owner of the Croatian version of Wikipedia.

However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not the founder of the Croatian version, nor does it accept that it is responsible for the accuracy of its articles. It insists that it does not have any power over Croatian-language Wikipedia entries.

All the administrators and associates on Croatian Wikipedia are volunteers.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Patriarchy most definitely did exist in the past and it will return again because all other things being equal patriarchy is much more powerful and much more desirable than feminism and out competes feminism easily. There was a kind of great disruption starting around 1850 in the Western World that disoriented people I would say and allowed for feminism to start to invade as a kind of parasite but a significant backlash against the disorder and family destruction that feminism brought started around 1995 at least in the United States (judging by social statistics) and today one can see religious revival happening quite clearly through the more conservative complementarian / patriarchal type churches. Religious revival is the mechanism by which I expect patriarchy to return again as the dominant cultural norm in the Western World.

What I advocate for here on this website is not fantasy that never existed; it was the cultural norm and the standard view of the world as expressed in secular terms up until feminism got started with its “new version” of gender relations and its “new definition” of what it meant to be a man and a woman. The results of feminism have been disastrous compared to the high functioning patriarchy that preceded feminism. This shows the patriarchal view of the world is correct and healthy while the feminist view of the world is wrong and unhealthy.

Feminism is what destroyed my ability to form relationships with women early on in my life; that is just a plain historical fact. My belief in and support for patriarchy is what makes me desirable to the women I want to be desirable to today. Patriarchy is also what makes me a good human being moving society in a positive direction for the future regardless of how women respond to me or not at the personal romantic level. Patriarchy is both spiritually good and romantically good for me at the same time.

A patriarchal society has much better relationships between men and women than what feminism has to offer. I’m sticking with patriarchy; it is the only sane choice.

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

[Remember when MRA's actually tried to maintain the pretense that they don't want to be paterfamilias? FSTDT remembers]

On our recent post concerning abortion, one of the commenters brought up one of the most common feminist arguments, which goes something like this:

Men oppose abortion, birth control, etc., because they really want control over women.

The same idea is applied to domestic violence, divorce, child custody, and just about everything else that might be disputed between a man and woman. Every time there is something that men and women don’t see eye to eye on, it’s an issue of the patriarchy wanting control.

This idea is very clearly reflected in domestic violence theory, perhaps best exemplified by the “power and control wheel” dreamed up in the fevered imagination of the creators of the Duluth Model domestic abuse program. Leaving aside the fact that many of the supposed controlling behaviors detailed on the wheel are probably more commonly practiced by wives than husbands, such as playing “mind games” and using the children to get what one wants, there is a catch in that denying being abusive makes one an abuser. So, according to the Duluth Model, if your wife calls you an abuser, you can deny it all you want, but that just confirms your status as an abuser, which subjects you to state control.

The New York Model for Batter Programs takes control a step farther, and imposes indoctrination sessions on those referred to the program. Additionally, it is a punitive rather than rehabilitative program, but cloaks this to some degree through a stated mission to change society. It is not only men that are subject to control through this particular program (and not all men ordered to attend are convicts, nor are all who have been convicted guilty), but all of society, which is clearly seen by directors as diseased and in need of change. To accomplish its goal, the NYMBP enlists the assistance of courts, the police, judges, social workers and others involved in coercive occupations. Clearly, this goes beyond the control that even the most criminally deranged husband could hope to impose on a wife.

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty clear that feminists are obsessed with the idea of control, and they’ve made great strides in controlling men. Simply living under the same roof with a woman puts a man at the mercy of an army of agents of the state, and with a simple phone call a woman can put him under scrutiny that could last for years and have consequences for his entire life. This goes far beyond anything men have ever practiced under so-called patriarchal society, which for all its faults never was comfortable with interfering in domestic matters. For example, in older American or European society, could a husband ever have called the police to force his wife into an indoctrination center? He would have met with laughter or disbelief. In fact, even if a wife had beaten or cuckolded her husband, this would have been considered outside the bounds of the state’s role. Only murder, wounding or possibly grand theft would have prompted any intervention on the part of the husband. In fact, as today, wives frequently absconded with the children, and men were left to their own devices to find them. Patriarchal “control” over women was mild indeed.

Contrast that to today’s reality, where if a man absconds without his children there are numerous state and federal agencies dedicated to tracking him down and forcing him to pay her. Lord help the man if he tries to take his children — he’ll be hunted down like a rabid dog.

The reluctance to actually control women carries over into even the most fervent supporters of what feminists would call the patriarchy. Anti-abortion activists kill an abortionist every few years, but has there ever been a case of one killing a woman who aborted her own child? Perhaps it is this aversion to controlling women that gives feminists such a sense of entitlement and contempt for men. They know in their heart of hearts that these so-called patriarchal men are actually simply their agents in controlling other men, and use them accordingly, hence the dark, hidden alliance between feminists and social conservatives that has emerged to clamp down on men from time to time.

The control impulse feminists ascribe to men is, like so many of their other issues, an example of projection. There is nothing feminists want more than to control every single aspect of their relationships and society. This is not a very masculine tendency, as men prefer a more dynamic rather than static environment. Men’s natural genius is is suppressed by heavy-handed control, which leads to stagnation, apathy and inaction. The economic failure of Communist societies demonstrates what happens to men under oppressive, controlling regimes: they tend to become depressed and sluggish, and engage in dissipation rather than constructive pursuits.

The patriarchal control impulse is a pure fabrication, and more accurately describes feminist psychology than masculine behavior. Men are generally less obsessed by control than women, and they don’t even come close to feminists, who would reverse Pinocchio and turn us all into puppets if they had their way.

...

[Bonus quote from the comments, hoo boy did this age poorly when he dropped the mask a few years down the line]

Yeah, it’s crazy how they imagine this control when it doesn’t exist.

I’m not controlling of women at all. The last thing I want to do is spend all my time riding herd on women. I simply don’t want the job. This has a lot to do with why my marriage failed — I just got tired of having to deal with things for my wife, who expected me to “take charge” in each and every situation, which is a hell of a lot of work for a husband. Me, I’d rather women handled things themselves most of the time, but I guess that’s expecting too much.

Conservapedia #wingnut #sexist #conspiracy conservapedia.com

Most modern feminists:

want to remove significant distinctions between how men and women dress, such as preferring that women wear pantsuits rather than dresses, even though many feminists also want women to dress immodestly. In some cases, most infamously during the Miss America protests in 1968, feminists have even gone as far as to indicate that female products such as makeup, bras, and heels were "instruments of oppression."
do not want gender equality; they want power for the female Left
in movies and television, portray the men, in particular, the white heterosexual men, as inherently evil, dumb or incompetent, and the women, in particular those that adhere to the feminist agenda, as inherently good, smart or competent (note that this conflicts with gender equality).
on that note, some movies and television programs, in addition to depicting men as inherently evil, dumb, or incompetent, can sometimes depict women who adhere to more traditional femininity, including promoting traditional family values and traditional marriage (see below), as well as expressing more traditional gender roles and natures, in an extremely demeaning manner, usually implying that they are at best brainless bimbos and at worst gold-diggers (women who only marry someone for their wealth), often with the implication that traditional femininity is considered inherently bad (which goes against the concept of women having free choices regarding how to pursue their life).
conveniently pretend that there are no meaningful differences between men and women when that advances liberal causes (e.g., women and men equally in military combat, to weaken the U.S. military), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., VAWA funding of women's groups).
oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
view traditional marriage as unacceptably "patriarchal".
belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family
shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.
support affirmative action for women.
advocate for women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.
believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy Bible.
object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey"; object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
support the homosexual agenda.
push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."
demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
criticize music such as heavy metal, rock and roll, and country for being "sexist".
object to anyone describing Northern and Western European women being demure or Southern and Eastern European women as seductive.
Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.
Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.

DO NOT GET VACCINATED Group #conspiracy facebook.com

3. Since vaccination breaks the skin, it is technically a surgery. All surgeries by law require informed consent. Informed consent is rarely attained before vaccines are administered.
*Doctors vaccinate the unwitting and uninformed. The vaccine manufacturers' package inserts which contain biased industry claims and the bare minimum required by law to reveal are not routinely made available to consumers so that they can make a more informed choice.

Elizabeth Minkel #sexist medium.com

Mary Sue
From self-inserts to imagines, how young women write themselves into the narrative
Illustration by the incredible Maia Kobabe

[This piece was written in conjunction with the most recent episode of the Fansplaining podcast. Follow us on Twitter or Tumblr, and if you’re interested in supporting our work—helping us commission more art and pieces like this—please consider donating to our Patreon.]

1.

Let’s start with the woman in question. She isn’t usually called Mary Sue—she has a less plausible, more fanciful name. Similarly, she has less plausible, more fanciful physical features than your average girl: purple eyes, or really extraordinary hair. You don’t know her, but you know the characters that surround her—she’s a new student at Hogwarts, an important ally you meet in Rivendell, the person on whom Holmes and Watson will rely to crack the case. She is notably smarter, stronger, and/or more beautiful than her peers. She’s going to save the day—and maybe a character you know will fall in love with her, too. She’s a wholly original character, though she might resemble an idealized version of the author. She’s a super-girl, bending beloved stories around her, heroism in a world mostly made up of heroes.

Oh, also: she is the ultimate object of scorn. She is the literal worst. She is embarrassing, self-indulgent trash; she ruins the story with her competence, her desirability, and the way all those characters you love seem to love her. She’s been described an endless number of colorful ways, including (via Fanlore’s meticulous and depressing entry on Mary Sues) the “literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself.” She is everything that’s wrong with fanfiction, with girls writing stories, with fangirls, period.

The most basic definition of “Mary Sue” is an original female character in fanfiction—which is largely about established characters and worlds—who is often close to perfect. Like, too perfect. Very good at her job, very desirable romantically or sexually, and sometimes very emotionally moving when she dies, tragically, and the other characters mourn her. The story usually centers around her, often warping established characterization in the process. She’s self-indulgent, to be sure, but she’s harmless, and framed this way, one might wonder why young girls writing themselves into their favorite worlds is the literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself. If you have to wonder that, though, you might not be familiar with the way the world treats young girls.

“Mary Sue” was coined by Paula Smith in 1970s Star Trek fandom, in a very short story that began, “‘Gee, golly gosh, gloriosky,’ thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. ‘Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet—only 15–1/2 years old.’” Lieutenant Mary Sue, object of affection of Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the men of Star Trek: TOS, was meant to be a parody of what Smith had observed in the fanzines of the day: “The term caught on because she’s very identifiable: Here it is, that same character, and isn’t it a shame because she’s just so tiresome,” she told an interviewer at Transformative Works and Cultures in 2011.

The conversation, conducted 40 years after Lieutenant Mary Sue first stepped onto the bridge, is an interesting one, not least because of the vague sense of disconnect between the literary analysis around the term (why bending a story around your original character might make for bad fiction, or at least not-terribly-enjoyable fiction if you aren’t the author) and the gendered morass that the term has sunk into (or, arguably, where it began).

Mary Sues weren’t born in Trek fandom—one researcher drew parallels between modern self-insert fic and stories that girls wrote about versions of themselves in the nineteenth century—but the term was born in an era of paper zines, a time of limited space for fanfiction, and arguably one with a different relationship between fic writers and their readers. When she first coined the term, Smith says, “In the letter columns, we started seeing the writers react: ‘What’s so wrong with my story? I’m just telling a story that I think is great.’” Even detractors admit Mary Sues are about young girls finding their power and agency in a world of fictional landscapes that rarely afford such journeys to women. After all, the original Mary Sue was the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet.

The days of limited space and resources in fic production are ancient history: there is always room for another story in the internet’s archives, and the general ethos of the broader fanfiction community has long been “don’t like, don’t read.” Many stories are self-indulgent, whether they feature a stand-in for the author or or not. But hatred of Mary Sues is embedded in the culture, self-perpetuating, and has seemingly ramped up since fic came online. In the early digital days, some archives banned Mary Sues outright; to this day, blogs exist solely to call peoples’ original characters Mary Sues, and to deconstruct and mock them accordingly.

Once the seed was planted in cultural discourse, Mary Sue accusations became impossible to stop—the toxicity surrounding the term has spread far beyond fanfiction self-inserts. Not long after it was coined, “Mary Sue” became any original female character in fanfiction; for decades, women have been reporting that they stopped writing original female characters, then female characters altogether, for fear of the “Mary Sue” label. Canonical female characters seen as threats to male/male romances in fic got the term, too—one notable (and incredibly troubling) example is the treatment of Nyota Uhura in fic about the rebooted Star Trek films. And over the years, the term has seeped across pop culture, to the point where “Mary Sue” becomes any female lead, anywhere. Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen, and Rey from Star Wars are just a few slapped with the label. It’s just so annoying that their respective plots center around them, they must be Mary Sues.

(There are male Mary Sues, in case you’re wondering: “Marty Stu,” “Gary Stu,” and other variations have shown up over the years. People try to counter, even undercut, the inherent misogyny in the Mary Sue conversation by naming too-competent, too-desirable leading men—Captain Kirk, Luke Skywalker, and James Bond are famous examples. There’s an old joke: “What do you call a male Mary Sue?” The answer? “A protagonist.” It’s…not a particularly funny joke.)

But just as fanfiction writers are fighting back against historical scorn towards the practice at large, in recent years fans have been standing up for Mary Sues, too. Critics of the term are working to excise it from discussions around professional works, where it disproportionally targets women writing novels about female characters. In an act of reclamation, one of the most popular female-led geek sites on the internet took the term for its name. And within fan writing communities, people are going to bat for even the most self-indulgent Mary Sues, questioning why we shame young fans for making themselves the heroes of their own stories. But is a long-embedded stigma that easy to shake?

2.

It feels like every other fanfiction writer you talk to has a tale of their own early Mary Sues. Not everyone got called out for them—plenty of people learned to self-censor when they saw others getting shamed. My podcast partner, Flourish, reports that her early original female character was a student who proved vital to a case that Mulder and Scully were investigating. My first fanfic was almost entirely original characters, sketched out on yellow legal pads—I took a minor character from a book series and gave him a diverse team of corporate executives (don’t ask, it’s a weirdly long explanation). But by age 14, when I fell in love with Buffy and learned about online fandom, I was writing stories featuring a banshee who was old friends with Rupert Giles named…Ophelia. (I swear to God, I had no idea about the implications at the time, I just thought “Ophelia” sounded pretty, just as I loved “Cecilia” until Simon & Garfunkel ruined it for me.)

But these days more women are pushing back against the original characters they once felt ashamed of. After all, why shouldn’t young girls write the most spectacular versions of themselves—and why shouldn’t they want to see themselves in a story? In recent years I’ve been especially interested in watching women, people of color, and queer people reclaim the self-insertion narrative from one of indulgence to one of vital representation. In a piece partly about her youthful love of Lord of the Rings, Ash Davis writes,

“Be the change you wish to see,” Gandhi said (sorta). So I wrote my change. I discovered fanfiction and wrote all the damn change. I went into the painfully white fandoms of the things I loved…and wrote black folk into every last one of them. If there were no black people, I made them. If they were tokens, I made them stars. Mary-sued the shit out of everything. It didn’t matter, you were gonna see me!

In another piece I love about reclaiming the Mary Sue (via a medieval mystic, Margery Kempe, who essentially Mary Sued her way into the Bible in her writing, chilling with Mary and romancing Jesus), Ana Wilson writes about placing the female body back into reading—and into writing.

Reading The Book of Margery Kempe alongside fanfiction makes it clear that physical, imaginative reading is still associated with women, still considered embarrassing, and still employed as a form of resistance to mainstream narratives. People, in short, are still using this style of reading to elbow their way into texts from which they are restricted, just as Kempe and other women did with religious texts.

I wish I had my own Mary Sues to claim, but on a personal level, I’m a little more ambivalent. When I talk about good old Ophelia the Banshee, both “female” and an “original character” (and pulling from a very specific strand of symbolic mythology, for that matter), it’s easy to assume that I must have been writing a Mary Sue. But I can’t remember any specific connection between myself and the character, beyond the connections I have with every character I write, from the weary narrator of much of my original fiction who, like me, works at a racetrack, all the way to a certain pansexual immortal time traveling man from the 51st century.

The relationship between a writer and the characters she both reads and writes is a varied and complicated one. Fanfiction adds a layer onto that—the original characters in question aside, most of the people we write about started out as someone else’s characters, at least before the original work went out in the world. In the hands of fans, individually or collectively, a character often becomes someone else in the process. I should clarify: I don’t mean that fans are likely to render them out-of-character. But with the space and care that fanfiction can afford, fan writers often draw a favorite world’s characters as richer, more complicated—more human.

So unless you’re writing self-inserts or original characters, fanfic is partly about getting into the headspace of a character you didn’t create. That, for me anyway, is one of fanfiction’s chief pleasures—I’ve written before that for most fans, fic isn’t about wacky plots, as people outside fandom often assume, but about understanding a character so well that the interesting part comes when you stick them in a wacky plot (sure, “there’s only one hotel room left” counts as wacky), apply pressure, and see how they react.

For me, in my post-Ophelia Banshee days, inhabiting other characters as I write fanfiction has been vitally important. I read and write fic for a simultaneous distance and closeness with these characters—I allow them into my head, but I’m not looking to project myself back onto them. Part of this is privilege: whiteness, and I’m especially thinking of the un-interrogated whiteness of my adolescence, often lets white people assume a “default” position. A disproportionate number of the characters on our pages and screens are white, and from that lens shared whiteness with characters feels less like commonality and more like a lack of difference. Part of it is the opposite of privilege: the minefield of my struggles with gender and sexuality—almost definitely a subject for a totally separate essay—have left me perpetually out of step with many characters I encounter on pages and screens. When I think about myself in relation to a story, I slip away—a bit ironic, I suppose, for someone fascinated by girls who write themselves into stories. Or maybe that’s the whole point.

But part of it’s not just me: I hesitate to get too reductive on the links between shaming girls out of their own stories and the kinds of things that dominate many corners of the fanfiction world, but one could draw a line from the embarrassment of the Mary Sue to the positioning of certain types of characters in fandom as “default.” In the vast landscape of popular media, at least in the Anglo-American context, we’re implicitly taught to view the white male character as neutral, blank, infinitely relatable. While media certainly can shoulder some blame, fans should be held responsible, too, and the way young fans are encouraged, gently or mockingly, to step out of their own perspectives, away from their own backgrounds, and into the perspective of certain types of characters is one of the lasting legacies of the Mary Sue construction.

3.

When we consider the Mary Sue and her position in fandom at large, those of us outside the real person fic space often tend to overlook the fact that as long as celebrity fandom has existed, fannish communities have been built on self-insert fic with female protagonists. For many readers, this kind of story is sought after, not an object of scorn. The self-inserts that populate a lot of boy band RPF, for example, are perspective characters that, just like Mary Sues, allow young women to gain narrative control of their relationships with the objects of their affection.

Perspective is important in fanfic. It’s obviously also important in all other fiction, ever, but fic can sometimes feel particularly preoccupied with it. After all, perspective shift is one of the bedrocks of the practice; fans love nudging the spotlight off a canonical protagonist. RPF is an interesting space to examine perspective, and the way the “default” (white, male) gaze gets shattered and refashioned. There’s the complicated sort of circular gaze of stories from the celebrity’s point of view, where the reader watches the celebrity watching a character who’s often a stand-in for the reader. And while second-person fic feels more prevalent in fanfiction at large than it does in the published fiction world, it often feels ubiquitous in RPF spaces. Lumped under a second-person umbrella stories that work very differently in form and function, from fleshed-out second person narrators to “x Reader” stories that eschew identifying details to “imagines,” short prompts that exist in a murky space between fiction and daydream fodder.

When you place those fleshed-out narrators side-by-side with Mary Sues, it’s an interesting study in contrasts: where a Mary Sue is too-perfect, the self-insert narrator is often fairly ordinary, beaten down in some way, frustrated with her situation, not quite aware of her own attractiveness or agency. (Part of the pleasure of the narrative arc is the realization, and reclamation of that agency.) These characters and this type of fic is wildly popular on Wattpad, so much so that the platform commissioned an entire anthology of second-person RPF entitled IMAGINES, released last year with a shiny silver mirror on its cover alongside the words “Celebrity encounters starring YOU.”

The imagines of the anthology are, a little confusingly, not quite the same thing as “imagines,” the prompts that are increasingly popular on Tumblr and Wattpad. The anthology’s stories, about chance encounters with celebrities, are narrated by women of various ages and backgrounds with clear characterization and perspective. They’re not all romantic: in one story, a mother embarrasses her teenage daughter when she brings home Nicholas Hoult for dinner, the “you” full of maternal affection for the actor; in another, “you” are on the run with Kim Kardashian, a freedom fighter in an America where the government has outlawed selfies (Kim is on the run because she keeps taking them, obviously). The “yous” are unremarkable, but there’s a bit of knowing space between the reader and the narrator: we can tell you’re selling yourself short, and we’re waiting for you to realize it.

Actual imagines, in contrast, leave you to do most of the work of constructing a protagonist. They are short, sometimes a single sentence: “Imagine: You and Ed take a camping trip to get away from the media,” reads one on a popular Tumblr devoted to imagines, accompanied by a gif of Ed Sheeran looking sort of bashful. How you met, the state of your relationship, literally everything about “you” is up in the air—whether the reader even feels compelled to fill those gaps is a matter of preference. The “you” in an imagine isn’t necessarily average-looking or untalented—the same blog offers you a gif of Sebastian Stan looking charmed accompanied by, “Imagine: When Sebastian first meets you he is speechless and stunned by your beauty.” Imagines are interesting often not because of what they contain, but what they lack—the wide-open spaces they leave, utterly customizable, whether you spin a single-sentence prompt into a 60,000-word story or just imagine you and Ed Sheeran sitting in a tent. As a self-insert narrator, you are as present or as absent as you want.

The protagonists of “x Reader” stories are similarly blank: often called “y/n,” short for “your name,” these stories are the most literal expression of “self-insert” imaginable, since the pairing is you, the reader, and the celebrity of the title. These stories vary, but sometimes they tread so lightly in an attempt to leave “y/n” as neutral as possible that they wind up feeling a bit like Mad Libs, instructing you to fill in, say, your favorite book rather than just name one the narrator might like. Sometimes x Reader stories follow a full narrative arc; other times they feel like a collected set of imagines. When I got sucked in researching, I wound up in a story where in each chapter, you successively date, then marry, each of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

The prevalence and growing popularity of images and x Reader stories amongst younger fans is a fascinating shift when I think of the self-inserts of previous generations. If a Mary Sue is a projection, a young woman’s ideal self on the page, then an imagine is more likely to be a reflection: exactly who you are, at the center of the story. Mary Sues are aspirational, but in a way, so are these other self-insert forms: they construct worlds in which your fictional self, going about your incredibly ordinary life, is just as important as Lieutenant Mary Sue. The story still bends around you.

The overwhelming popularity of self-inserts on Wattpad, a fanfiction hub with a younger demographic than other archives, leaves me both curious and hopeful about young girls right now, writing themselves into stories. I know that reader x boy-band-star-of-the-moment isn’t exactly a new construction; while I was working on my weird diverse corporate team and Flourish was helping the FBI catch aliens, my contemporaries were writing themselves into Hanson’s green room and *NSYNC’s tour bus, stories they’d later disavow (and, haltingly, reclaim).

Today’s social media is restructuring our conceptions of personal identity—we increasingly center ourselves in our own narratives. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go on some “narcissistic millennial” rant. Quite the opposite: it’s heartening to see young women, young queer people, young people of color, center themselves in narratives when our screens and pages are still lacking. In the fanfiction world, just like in the rest of the world, we still hold marginalized characters, original or otherwise, to impossible standards. But perhaps our embrace of Mary Sues—even if they’re the most achingly perfect young woman to ever command a ship in the Fleet—will help change things for the better.

Sumantra Maitra #wingnut thefederalist.com

Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism
We're seeing sexualized dances, hallucinogens, worshiping nature, confessing sins in pagan animism, worshiping purified teen saints, all to promote a supposedly greater cause.

Lynn Townsend White Jr., an American historian from Princeton, wrote an influential essay in 1967, at the height of the cultural revolution in Western campuses, arguing that Christianity and Judeo-Christian values are responsible for ecological disaster and climate change. The essay, naturally, was adapted by generations after, ironically almost like a document of faith.

The central argument went like this. White argued, “The victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture. … By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.”

If nothing else, the last few days should be enough to prove that Western civilization, a product of more than 1,500 years of Judeo-Christian values, is facing its most significant and sustained challenge in centuries from tribalistic paganism, a force that seeks not only to turn back time but essentially to destroy the entire current edifice.

Greta Thunberg and the Church of Mother Earth
As secular liberalism destroyed the fundamental ties that bind society — faith, flag, and family — the human instincts for faith — to believe, worship, submit, and fear — didn’t just go away but manifested in various other pre-civilized tribal ways. For example, a liberal seminary encouraged its students to skip classes to pray and confess sins in front of potted plants. In Switzerland, 250 people in full funereal garb mourned the apparent approaching death of a glacier.

That is why members of “Extinction Rebellion” do what they do. Extinction Rebellion is an apocalyptic cult that wants to radically end every thing around you, from your private cars to the burgers you eat and the plastic chairs in your yard. It is a cult that was formed after its founder took psychedelic drugs and prayed for “social change.” Members have blocked D.C. and London intersections, “twerking” the way people in a pre-civilized era would perform a fertility dance to pray to Gaia.

And then there’s Saint Greta, our perpetual teen of sorrow. I have been comparing her worship to Joan of Arc ever since she was invited to the British Parliament, the birthplace of modern democracy. She was surrounded by buffoons nodding their heads like they were listening to gospel truth.

Lads, I hesitate to take credit for my predictions…I am magnanimous and noble like that…but this entire Joan of Arc thingy…you guys read it here, first.

"Climate Apocalypticism" is simply a paganist religion, with its own saints, sinners, and providential end. pic.twitter.com/YF5VmGfGVl

— Mr Maitra (@MrMaitra) September 22, 2019

I wrote about her long before the new woke-capital fanatics adopted her as a pawn. In a recent speech to the U.N., while clearly having an emotional meltdown, she told assorted leaders, voice trembling, that they have failed the children and history wouldn’t be kind. The “gatekeepers” immediately hailed her as a brave savior as well as a vulnerable, autistic teen who shouldn’t be bullied.

So, there you have it. Sexualized dances, psychedelic hallucinogens, worshiping nature, confessing sins in pagan animism, worshiping purified teen saints, and throwing them up on an altar, bereft of their childhood, to promote a greater cause. Add to that witches hexing Brett Kavanaugh, and having an Ouija board to invoke the spirit of Karl Marx, and everything old is new again.

The reality is, of course, completely different. Much less than destroying the planet, climate change isn’t even a settled science. Conservatives don’t disagree that climate is changing. That is a straw man. Conservatives, however, are opposed to hysteria, have skepticism about the rate of the climate change, and would like to see an actual cost-benefit analysis of the radical changes being demanded.

More important than that, conservatives understand that climate change is cynically used by a certain section of people to justify their political goals of steering the West away from its way of life, a way they perceive to be evil and harmful, hetero-patriarchal, and capitalist. How? Appealing to the faith-based part of human brains, the need for subservience, and propping up children as human shields.

The Left Created a Climate Crisis and Worships It
Consider a new letter by more than 500 scientists, which the mainstream media completely ignored. It urges the United Nations to have an open debate between scientists from both sides of the argument and states there’s “no climate emergency.” The report goes on to say, among other things:

The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate; Climate policy relies on inadequate models; More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent; There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.

In short, everything you’re being told is wrong or flawed, and you’re a chump who is being taken for a ride.

For all the Marxists’ faults, the old left at least wanted to conquer nature instead of turning subservient to it. Of course, that went to its own extremes, but one can imagine Joseph Stalin putting all twerking climate fanatics as mentally ill people in a forced labor camp to build railroads in Siberia. The current Chinese government, likewise, gives two hoots about climate change, and for all the bravery of Green Peace and St. Greta, there’s nothing they can do about China burning more coal than the rest of humanity combined.

The modern left is a combination of two of the worst impulses in human history. First are the ultra-privileged bourgeoisie, which, having lost their old Judeo-Christian faith, are instinctively attracted to pre-civilized rituals, from overt sexuality to fewer familial ties. Consider Late Roman public orgies, and you get an idea. At the same time, human minds feel a gaping void that still needs to be filled by an alternate faith. It is in that intersection where this occultist, apocalyptic climate paganism comes from. It gives some privileged people a noble purpose.

As French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote in his book “The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings,” the current movement has all the trappings of a religion: saints, sinners, a providential end, apocalyptic fear, punishment, and penance. It appears Emperor Constantine’s children clearly failed to civilize their future generations. The pagan barbarians from the north are back circling outside the citadel.

Patriarch Verlch #fundie

despite trillions of life forms on the earth, you have yet to observe one species transform into another. You guys have alot of explaining to do. You honestly believe dirt, grass, trees, and herb yielding plants, all happened by accident and void of design?

Zod #fundie incels.co

The ultimate truth about time

This is your one and only chance of experiencing this reality. There is no "God", there is no afterlife. Nothing you do matters in the grand scale of things. Nothing can escape the heat death of the universe.

Your goal is to make the most out of this one chance to experience reality. The average lifespan is 80 years of life for a male in developed countries. Take away 8 hours of sleep per day, take away the last 10 years for being too old to have sex (low test, limp dick, etc), take away your current age which is around 25 (average user age on this forum), and if you work take away another 8 hours per day. You are left with ~ 120.000 hours (depending on your current age, employment, etc.) of free time to experience this reality before you perish into nothingness. Do the math. That is 13 years of woke life left (120k / 24h). That is a very short time. You probably clocked over 10 thousand hours just on playing WoW. Now consider all the other games you played, all the TV shows and stuff you watched, all the forums and websites you browsed, etc. basically that IS where ALL your time goes and WILL continue to go. Now think about how much time you spent enjoying with your girlfriend, going with her to places, kissing her, having her stroke your penis, inserting your penis into her, etc. - that's right, NONE. Nothing. Nada. Just imagine, out of those 120 thousand hours you have, not one single hour will be spent on experiencing the greatest pleasure a human can experience. Just let that sink in.

Those 120 thousand hours is all you get. That's it. This is your one and only chance to experience reality. You will never have that chance again. Think deeply about that and realize that another hour just passed. One hour is all it takes to have an experience with 2 girls, them making out and sucking your cock and fucking you - just one hour. That one hour would be enough to fuel all your future masturbations just remembering it. Yep, that's the kind of shit Chad experiences on a daily basis. While you literally waste you 120k hours on stupid shit, he spends them enjoymaxxing. Even if Chad stopped now, he would have enough experiences in his memory to fuel masturbation for the rest of his life without needing to watch porn to get off.

TLDR; You have 120 thousand hours to experience life, but you spend them being a pathetic subhuman loser virgin sitting alone in your room, while Chad fucks jailbaits

Cretus clawfinger #racist reddit.com

Libertarianism proper may be falling out of favor, and will die completely if it doesn't give up open borders advocacy and SJW culture rot, but basic libertarian values rooted in traditional American mythology are as strong as ever. Most Americans don't want to live under an authoritarian government that micromanages their lives, whether in a centrally planned economy sucking off the productive classes, or a fascist ethnostate enforcing racial purity laws. Basedstickman himself was battling next to a guy with an Ancap black and yellow flag at Berkeley. I suppose though you'd prefer to see him deported for race traiting, along with his asian wife and child, because alienating allies on the right to assuage the ressentiment of keyboard warrior autists obsessed with racial purity is a good way to build a movement that can fight the leftist monolith.

White advocacy in and of itself needs no apology or further justification, I'm with you there, but forming a white ethnostate on the North American continent is an entirely different story. There just isn't the numbers to do this democratically and the demographic goose is already cooked via non white births. It's going to take more than just asserting that you want this to convince enough white people that this is even desirable, let alone make the monumental sacrifices necessary to achieve it. If you can tie the demographic changes to the permanent death of the American dream and the unfettered increase in state control of every aspect of life in a dysfunctional, corrupt, and hollow system that hates whites while sponging off them parasitically, now you have something powerful. Developing a clear plan to achieve this in a way that would preserve and protect the white majority in this territory, without being absolutely exclusionary, violent, or even adversarial towards non-whites who buy in to these values, would frame this in a way that would at least be somewhat palatable to the 99% of modern whites who are not willing to just blow the heads off random brown people just to not have them as neighbors.

Abdul Raof Nurin and Baharuddin Ahmad #fundie themalaymailonline.com

Islam allegedly forbids Muslims from playing musical instruments like guitar, piano or trumpets as they go against the hadiths, a religious scholar said today.

In his paper on Islam and entertainment presented at a national forum here, Abdul Raof Nurin said the Shafie stream of Islam only allows Muslims to listen to music that touches on love for the religion, and urged those who want to play musical instruments to preferably stick to the gong or kompang.

He added that the Shafie school, however, will make an exception for the "gabus", a stringed instrument similar to the guitar, only if they are played according to Islamic laws.

"To listen to music that has nothing to do with religion that includes instruments that is prohibited in Islam, coupled with concerts that allow mixed socialisation, this distracts you from praying.

"Majority of ulama forbid the use of musical instruments except for those drummed like the kompang, percussions even those with bells," he said.

The forum was organised by the Malaysian Muslim Consumer Group (PPIM) and the Human Development and Investigation Bureau.

Professor at the National Art and Heritage Academy (Aswara) Datuk Baharudin Ahmad, however, said the instruments alone are not “haram” or forbidden, but the sounds they make are, since they are often used to play music that encourages immoral activities like free mingling of the genders.

"Instruments like the trumpet, the trumpet is not a problem, the sound that comes out of it [is]," Baharudin told the forum.

Both the scholars in their presentations said entertainment in Malaysia is too influenced by the West, which often insert messages of total freedom and blind consumerism.

As example, Abdul Raof cited the many singing competitions, which he said provided for lucrative awards.

He said such events inculcate materialism among the young.

"Entertainment today is about ringgit and materialism. That is why today we see humans racing to elevate their economic status, add more materials and collect more money".

The Muslim religious scholar added the high suicide rates in the west proved the detriments of such lifestyle.

"We just look at the experiences of those who have gone through this. In the US and other rich countries many of those with wealth, stature, smart have committed suicide," he added.

Baharuddin on the other hand said materialistic entertainment was so ingrained in today's society that households spend a huge chunk of their salaries on entertainment like football jerseys and branded clothings.

"Such indulgence have made household spending imbalanced," he said.

Baharuddin said much of the blame goes to "low quality" urbanisation, and urged the government to help promote a more "traditional life".

Hardline Islamic groups have long called for Putrajaya to rein in its entertainment industry, claiming it was too western-centric.

However, other civil rights advocates said such demands underscored the creeping Islamisation in Malaysia and has tarnished its moderate image, affecting investments and driving the country's young away.

Kevin MacDonald #racist caesartort.blogspot.com

[Chechar quotes white nationalist author Kevin MacDonald on Jews]

TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS.

….......…....... …..........European Cultural Origins......Jewish Cultural Origins

Evolutionary History ...Northern Hunter-Gatherers.....Middle Old World Pastoralists
..................................................................................….............(Herders)

?Kinship System …..........Bilateral....................…..............Unilineal
…..........................................Weakly Patricentric…...............Strongly Patricentric

Family System …......…...Simple Household…..............Extended Family;
…......…......…..... .…......…......…..... .…......…......…......….…...Joint Household

Marriage Practices …...Exogamous…........................Endogamous,
…..........................................Monogamous….................Consanguineous,
…......................................................................................Polygynous

Marriage Psychology …..Companionate;…............Utilitarian; Based on Family
….........................................Based on Mutual…............Strategizing and Control of
….........................................Consent and Affection…........Kinship Group

Position of Women ….......Relatively High….....….......Relatively Low

Social Structure ….......Individualistic, ….....….......Collectivistic
…............................................ Republican ……............ Authoritarian
…............................................ Democratic….....….......Charismatic Leaders

Ethnocentrism ….......Relatively Low …..... ........... Relatively High; ….......
…............................................................................"Hyper-ethnocentrism"

Xenophobia ….......Relatively Low …....…....…......Relatively High….......
…............................................................................"Hyper-xenophobia"

Socialization ….......Stresses Independence, ….......Stresses Ingroup
…..........................................Self-Reliance…..................Identification and
…............................................................................obligations to Kinship Group

Intellectual Stance …....…....Reason;….......….......Dogmatism;
…...............................................Science…..................Charismatic Leaders
….............................................................................. (e.g., Freud, Boas);
…............................................................................Submission to Ingroup Authority

Moral Stance ….......Moral Universalism: …..............Moral Particularism:
….......….......…............…...........Morality is ….......
….......….......….......…............…Independent of…..............Ingroup/Outgroup Morality
….......….....…............….............Group Affiliation…...........("Is it good for the Jews?")


Whereas individualist cultures are biased toward separation from the wider group, individuals in collectivist societies have a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries based on genetic relatedness as a result of the greater importance of group conflict during their evolutionary history. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups (e.g., Coon 1958, 153; Eickelman 1981, 157-174). Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. [...]

[...]

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hyper-collectivism and hyper-ethnocentrism—a phenomenon that goes a long way toward explaining the chronic hostilities in the area. I give many examples of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 8; 1998a, Ch. 1). It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard, it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany.(14) The Israeli infants were much more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite—findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

I provide many examples of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism. Recently, I have been much impressed with the theme of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in the writings of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (Shahak & Mezvinsky 1999). In their examination of current Jewish fundamentalists and their influence in Israel, Shahak and Mezvinsky argue that present-day fundamentalists attempt to recreate the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in Cabbala—Jewish mysticism. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Cabbala by using words like “men”, “human beings”, and “cosmic” to suggest the Cabbala has a universalist message. The actual text says salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls” (p. 58).

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

Then wonder no longer, because I will tell you right now: no larger nor more evil scum exists in this world than does the legion of baby-murdering feminists, and every time I declare the facts of God's statuses as King, Father, Patriarch, Male, Masculine and with His Almighty Holy Righteous Penis...those baby-murdering feminists boil with rage! That alone warrants frequent and jubilant declarations of the facts of God's Penis!

And the even bigger benefit is yet to come: those same baby-murdering feminists will have to kneel before Him and His Glorious Penis while they face Him at His Judgement Seat and have to account to Him for their evils, right before His Holy, Righteous Penis smacks them upside their heads and knock them into the lake of fire in Hell!

To summarize that more shortly, I love talking about God's Penis mainly because evildoers hate hearing about God's Penis! And also because I love justice, and It is the Tool of Deliverance for said justice to the most evil scum who has ever defaced the face of the earth, namely, baby-murdering feminists! Praise God! Amen!

In addition, I also have to talk about God's Penis a lot to pick up the slack of everyone else who neglects to talk about It because they are afraid of offending feminist monsters! I have to do my own work, and also the work that they should be doing, but aren't!

By the way Nat, you yourself corroborate everything I say, every time your new posts fail to acknowledge the fact of God's Penis, and instead your new posts continue to spout the she-god strawmen and/or the he/she god strawman. That makes me think you are terrified of God's Penis for the same reasons I've outlined above! If you want to prove me wrong, then do so in your next post by admitting the fact that God is a He with a Holy, Righteous Penis!

Prove

Donald Trump #fundie dailymail.co.uk

'In a couple of years, I'll be dating you': What a 46-year-old Donald Trump told two 14-year-old choirgirls as they performed for him outside the Plaza

Donald Trump told a group of 14-year-old girls he would be 'dating' them in 'a couple of years' in 1992, the latest in a stream of decades-old comments to have emerged as he battles for his spot in the presidential race.

Then 46, the businessman watched the choir girls perform at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, New York, before reportedly making the questionable comment.

It was reported in a Chicago Tribune newspaper article at the time under the headline: 'Such a comedian'.

'Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan's Plaza Hotel.

'He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said: 'Wow. Just think - in a couple of years I'll be dating you,' the report, from a December 1992 wire brief said.

It was published by The Los Angeles Times on Friday morning, hours after footage in which he agreed jokingly that he was a 'sexual predator' emerged.

In the 2006 video, he shrugged and laughed as the label was given to him by radio host Robin Quivers. Trump's 24-year-old daughter, who would have been 10 in 1992, was present.

On Thursday, other footage in which he boasted he would be dating a '10-year-old girl in 10 years' surfaced.

In the 1992 Entertainment Tonight tape, Trump, who was 46 at the time, allowed the girl on to the escalator at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York.

As she rode up it with a group of others, he was caught on microphone boasting: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?'.

The video, which was released by CBS News on Wednesday, is the latest in which the Republican presidential candidate has made questionable comments towards women.

At the time Trump had been divorced from his first wife, Ivanka, for a year and was dating his second wife, Marla Maples.

The footage showed Trump asking the girl: 'Are you going up the escalator?' while both are out of view.

'Yeah,' she replies, before stepping on to it.

Still out of frame, he then boasted: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it.'

The unknown girl was 10 at the time, CBS, which owns Entertainment Tonight, claimed, and was in a group of other children.

Teutoburg Weald #racist englisc-gateway.com

[Members of this forum call non-white people 'orcs']

English women/girls who go with anyone who is not English, is lost to us and their country, they are as much apart of the treason infesting England as the British Political Establishment, and the liberal/socialist minions who push such treason..

I have no Orc friends or need any, and i detest the likes of Billy Brag and his inclusive dreams/agendas if these views makes me an ist/ism in the twisted sick minds of the politically fashionable then so be it, but then I like you, am a creation of the warped, sick, twisted agenda of the likes of Billy Brag and the rest of em, we are the monster that haunts their fluffy minds, we are the shadow walkers that they fear, and they made us, and they know, its us that will destroy them...........

And I long for Pay Back!!

Andrew Anglin #sexist #psycho dailystormer.name

[From "British Slut Who Died During Tinder Date Belonged to Several BDSM Sites, Claims Man Accused of Her Murder"]

Women like to be tied, slapped and choked during sex because men beating and raping women is a natural part of the human experience.

For a similar reason, women enjoy domestic abuse and stay in abusive relationships for ridiculous amounts of time, only coming out to talk about how they “suffered” after they’ve stopped being attracted to the “abusive” man for whatever reason.

Women are known to do this kind of rewriting of history after a breakup.

They then go do the same thing again with similarly “abusive” men, over and over again, for their entire lives.

The popularity of these desires and practices speak of a repressed but necessary part of heterosexual relationships.

Metro

The defence in the trial of a man accused of murdering British backpacker Grace Millane has begun its case in New Zealand.

The defendant, a 27-year-old New Zealander who cannot be named for legal reasons, claims Grace died accidentally during sex at the end of a Tinder date in December last year.

Today the court was told that British backpacker Grace belonged to BDSM dating sites and allowed a former partner to choke her during sex.

[...]

For women, sex has a much stronger psychological component than for men, and the modern slut has numbed herself of emotional connections through the gooeying of uncountable penises, which often prompts them to search for even more penises to cover in goo in a sick quest to feel something.

This Quest For Feels often results in them asking to be asphyxiated and other stuff that would normally be considered extreme.

[...]

If he’s found innocent, that may or may not be considered the same as greenlighting men to start asphyxiating sluts to death during sex and stuffing their bodies in suitcases, which would be pretty hilarious.

[...]

They’re going to fry this guy, but he literally did nothing wrong and should actually be put in charge of some kind of department or something.

bibleberean #fundie christianforums.net

What do the RCC [Roman Catholic Church], Orthodox [a Roman Catholic forum member] and Muslims hereticks have in common?

<p>They are all under the spell of the "Queen of Heaven" [The Virgin Mary].

<p>[Insert bible verses here] You see! There is a queen of heaven in the bible. God is not pleased when His people worship this devil!

Deborah Peterson #fundie sltrib.com

[Letter to the Editor in the Salt Lake Tribune after LDS Church leaders instructed members in California to vote for a constitutional amendment supporting "traditional" marriage.]

Letter: Strengthen families
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 06/27/2008 10:50:00 AM MDT

I am so grateful that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are weighing in on the proposal to amend California's constitution to prohibit gay marriage. These men are quiet about so much, but there comes a time when we all must take a stand, and it's time for me to follow their lead.
As I think about the gay marriage battle, I can't help but realize how ridiculous it is. Marriages in this country are ending faster than they begin, and it only seems to be getting worse. With marriage rates at an all-time low, do we really want to allow even more people to get married? Why not legalize marriage for 14-year-olds while we're at it?
California, and every state for that matter, needs to focus on legislation designed to strengthen existing family units rather than creating more family units, which seem destined to fail. If we could all focus our energy on building lasting marriages, we could create change rather than controversy. Maybe then, when more people are staying married than getting divorced, we could think about extending marriage rights!

Deborah Peterson
Provo

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde #conspiracy conspiracyarchive.com

The first brain implants were surgically inserted in 1974 in the state of Ohio, USA and also in Stockholm, Sweden. Brain electrodes were inserted into the skulls of babies in 1946 without the knowledge of their parents. In the 1950s and 60s, electrical implants were inserted into the brains of animals and humans, especially in the U.S., during research into behavior modification, and brain and body functioning. Mind control (MC) methods were used in attempts to change human behavior and attitudes. Influencing brain functions became an important goal of military and intelligence services.

Thirty years ago brain implants showed up in X-rays the size of one centimeter. Subsequent implants shrunk to the size of a grain of rice. They were made of silicon, later still of gallium arsenide. Today they are small enough to be inserted into the neck or back, and also intravenously in different parts of the body during surgical operations, with or without the consent of the subject. It is now almost impossible to detect or remove them.

It is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved. In Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection's ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid-1980s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, Statens Officiella Utradninger (SOU).

Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies. Guinea pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients, handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children, and any group of people considered "marginal" by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.

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

The mainstream newsmedia reported this week that Satanists have unveiled a statue of Satan in Detroit, Michigan, but that is not the main thing I see as a Christian. I see a statue displaying two innocent little children admiring Satan. Please don't miss that! This vile display speaks volumes of the intentions of Satan and his sick followers. Satanists want our children! Satan has a bid for your child mom and dad. Look how the Satanic music industry is pushing sexual perversion and blood sacrifices (Satanism) upon tweens and teens today. Even Taylor Swift, who began her career in Cinderella-like modesty and charm, has now sold her soul to do evil, becoming a slutty whore, stripping her clothes off, and behaving like an animal for the Illuminati who've made her filthy rich (as of 2015 Miss Swift's net worth is $200,000,000).

The New York-based Satanic Temple said they picked Detroit because they have a “good community” of 200 followers there. I don't but that story for a second! I think the real reason is because Detroit is so economically depraved and full of crime that no one cares. Detroit is the direction the whole country is headed! Why do you think the Illuminati are relentlessly working to economically destroy America and demoralize our youth? It's so that the whole country will become like Detroit (dead, dirty, decadent and depressed). The residents of Detroit are repressed, depressed and suppressed! About 700 people showed up for the unveiling of the Satanic statue, some critics and others supporters. The Satanists publicly called their event “a night of chaos, noise, and debauchery.” The group was heard chanting the blasphemous words, “Hail Satan! Hail Satan!”

Also, notice the multiethnicity of the children. One is African American, wearing an afro hairstyle, with distinguishing black facial features. And the girl is clearly white Caucasian. The implied message is that Satanism accepts anybody. I am reminded of the children's song, “Jesus Loves The Little Children.” You know... “all the children of the world, red or yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world!” AND JESUS SURE DOES LOVE THE LITTLE CHILDREN!!! The very image which suggests that Satan loves children is a disgusting bold-faced lie!!! SATAN HATES EVERYONE!!!

...

There is a darker side to the Satanic image, if you understand the sexually perverted nature of Freemasonry, Judaism, Mormonism, the Talmud, Occultism and Satanism (all related). Don't miss something very telling that the Satanists did immediately after unveiling the statues... two Sodomites began kissing in front of Baphomet! How much clearer could it be that Satan and his followers want to Sodomize children!!! Think about that! Two queers are making-out, sucking each other's faces, in front of children, per se. Satan is a master liar, who deceived people into thinking they are free, able to do anything they so choose, just as long as you don't hurt anyone (and that's their lame excuse). In sharp contrast, God warns all mankind in Ecclesiastes 12:14 that He will hold all men accountable for every deed, whether good or bad. Amen! God will judge us by His holy Commandments and not ours. It's not ok to fornicate as Satan teaches. There are many sinister ideals that are conveyed through the new statue of children admiring Baphomet (Satan). There is truly NOTHING to admire!!! Can you think of a statue where some children are admiring a pastor?

Conservapedia #wingnut #conspiracy #pratt conservapedia.com

The Proud Boys are an international conservative or paleoconservative fraternal organization formerly led by Rebel News personality and Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. Proud Boys describe themselves as "western chauvinists" and espouse pro-second amendment, pro-free speech, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-racist views. Proud Boys tend to gather among themselves to hang out at restaurants or bars, and also attend political events either in support of or in opposition to other groups. They can typically be identified by their black and yellow Polo shirts.

Proud Boys have been vehemently mischaracterized and slandered by the liberal mainstream media, perhaps more so than any other single conservative organization in recent times. Most news outlets characterize the Proud Boys as white supremacist, alt-right, and fascist, as well as accusing them of promoting political violence. Wikipedia holds strongly to this warped view,while hypocritically characterizing Antifa, an anarchist terrorist faction, as mere "political activists".It is likely Wikipedia holds this view as a result of parroting the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, a notoriously dishonest organization which Wikipedia tends to use as a source.

In actuality, the Proud Boys are a multiracial group (which even some liberal outlets have noted) and have continually denounced the Alt-Right, to the point that actual Alt-Right groups often attack them and their founder as well. The FBI has declared the Proud Boys are not extremist or terroristic.

FR #sexist feminist-reprise.org

I get to thinking how, for more than 30 years now, feminists have been talking about the fallout of male violence that we live with. For more than 30 years we’ve been detailing the abuse that men have heaped upon us, in every fashion they’ve been able to imagine. More recently, we’ve been locating oppressions and decontextualizing sexualities and situating ourselves within our positionalities, and you know what? The stories keep coming.

None of this is women’s fault, but it seems to me we’ve managed to identify damn few alternatives. Men ought to change, clearly. Their behavior is inhuman and unjust and unacceptable. Rape, battering, war, capitalist exploitation–they should stop doing all of this immediately.

But it doesn’t seem to me that we’re getting very far by saying, “Stop raping us! Stop it! I mean it! Stop raping us!” We know that most women and children are abused by men they know, but we still befriend males, we still drink with them, we still let our teenagers date them, we still leave our toddlers alone with them. Anytime any feminist suggests letting young women know the real odds, to give them a chance to learn from other women’s experience when making decisions about their own safety, she gets jumped all over by just about everyone, from MRAs and libfems screeching #NotAllMen to radical feminists accusing her of blaming women for being raped.

Of course men’s violence isn’t our fault, of course they should change, of course we deserve autonomy without sacrificing our safety — but has the sex class man shown any indication that they’re going to change anytime soon?

I’ve never been the kind of person to sit around and wait for other people to do what I want them to, particularly after I learned, at a fairly tender age, the new-agey sounding but no less true adage that the only person one can change is oneself.

I still see a lot of feminists writing and talking and acting as if we really can’t get on without the men. I understand perfectly well that they want the men; that lots of women, lots of feminists, enjoy social and sexual relationships with men despite the dangers attendant on those relationships. I also understand perfectly well that women who can attach themselves to a man, whether by finding one who’s halfway decent or by learning to somehow live with varying degrees of sexism and abuse, often do better materially for themselves and their children than they would have on their own. That’s not an accident–that’s part of how male supremacy makes individual women dependent on individual men.

And yet–how to account for those of us who are managing to muddle through, somehow, without men’s money or their penises?

Which brings me back to the historical arguments for lesbian-feminism/separatism.

There were some women who thought about the fact that patriarchy is built upon the usurpation and direction of women’s emotional energy, sexuality, and labor into the support of men’s interests; they stood back and scratched their heads and said, “Hey, what would happen if we, being women, directed our emotional energy, sexuality and labor to the support of women’s interests?”

(..)

Nevertheless, there are lots of ways of prioritizing relationships with women, without involving sexuality. As just one example, what about creating a cooperative arrangement with another woman or women –neighbors? roommates? — to live more cheaply and have help with household chores and childcare, as well as companionship? Why don’t more women do this? It’s a question I, as a childless lesbian-feminist, cannot answer, but I sure think straight feminists ought to be doing more to encourage their sisters to take care of themselves and each other in these ways.

With that said, I will also opine that the belief that sexual orientation is innate and inborn is a big patriarchal lie. Patriarchy’s convinced many women that the only alternatives to an unsatisfying heterosexual relationship are a worse one, or being “alone.” It’s patriarchy that tells us that sisters doin’ it for themselves is nothing but a joke or a male fantasy. If sexual proclivity is inborn and unchanging, how do we account for the hundreds or thousands of women who came out as lesbians after entering the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s? How do we explain the fact that women leave heterosexual marriages for other women every day, well into the new millenium?

(...)

Some feminists seem to think men will stop raping and battering and killing just because we ask them to, as though it’s simply a misunderstanding that keeps patriarchy on its feet. Some want the lovely pink cinderella fantasy to be real, rather than seeing it for patriarchal brainwashing. Some of us don’t want to understand that men are not going to hand over their privilege, that the transformation of happy heterosexuality into something real and egalitarian won’t begin until women refuse to participate in the institution as it currently exists.

Think about it: Did labor unions say to workers, “Well, we know that some of you have really good jobs with employers who only exploit you a little, and you have a great relationship with your boss, so you all keep on working. The rest of us will go on strike to try to get better wages for everybody.” Of course not. They knew that some workers’ positive experiences or fair treatment didn’t negate the analysis that the system is exploitive and only collective action in the form of refusal to participate by all will change it.

(...)

If we really want that safe feminist world, women are going to have to let go of desires for male approval and male love and start to build something with other women–not because rape is our fault or because justice is our responsibility but because men like raping women and they like hitting women and they like controlling women and they’re not going to stop until they have to. All that rhetoric about “giving up heterosexual privilege” wasn’t about being politically correct or cool or cutting edge; it was about the recognition that justice can’t exist within the system that created the injustice in the first place.

(...)

Don’t think I’m saying it will be easy. Men will probably freak out if they see lots of “their” women (not just those throwaway hairy fat dyke freaks) actually making real attempts at solidarity; look how much just the ideas of feminism put forward on blogs and internet bulletin boards scare the shit out of them. So they’re going to put up a fuss.

But I believe we can make a start, because I’ve seen it done by just a few women who are willing to dedicate the bulk of their time, energy and resources to it, and who are willing to give up a lot of the comforts and conveniences most of us think we can’t live without. I know I can’t do it by myself, and I’m as scared as any of you. But I just keep thinking, what if there were 10 or 50 or 1000 of us and we were holding out our hands to each other and saying, “I’m scared, but I’m ready to make other women my priority so that we can start to build the world we want, together.” What if?

Ricardo Duchesne #fundie eurocanadian.ca

It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada's population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the "exceptionally high" fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada's origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

Another Misleading Text about Canada's "Diverse" History

Don't you believe current historians who tell you that "New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community". This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over "the older texts", not only in incorporating "new historical research", but in showing that "anyone seeking to understand our diversity today must first examine the pre-Confederation era" (Origins, pp. 108, viii, fourth edition).

The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as "diverse" and "multicultural" from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as "Canada" only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the "first peoples", the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of "Canada" before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

Amerindian cultural areas

European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, "Northwest Coast", "Plateau", "Plains", "Subarctic", "Arctic", and "Northeast". Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a "multicultural Canada" as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that "in 1867" the Natives peoples were one of the three "major groups" that made up "Canada's multicultural society" (Destinies, third edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in "lands reserved for Indians" — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a "major" cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 92 percent of the population?

The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that "decimated" the Natives through diseases, and an image of "First Nations" as co-partners in the creation of Canada's parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the "first peoples", followed by the French and English, as the next two "major groups", followed by the arrival of "non-British and non-French immigrants", as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining "non-British and non-French immigrants" about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

Origins: Canadian History to Confederation

There was no "considerable" African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that "from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population".

The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were "immigrants". In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants "by decade" from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p. 93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behooves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, "most of them born in North America" (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the "average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood" (p. 140).

Without any more French immigration, "the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755". By 1750, "there were more than 10,000", and "in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg" (Origins, pp. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg's Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1749 some 2500 British Americans were recruited, and then in 1750-51 about 1500 German Protestants settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a "result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles" (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy's strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a "far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants", coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, and Somalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

Electra Cute #sexist reddit.com

Well, I have personally been in situations where I did not know that the male had sexual interest in me and I thought he was only interested in being friends, then they attempted to make a sexual advance that was quickly shut down. I simply expressed clearly that I was not interested in sexual intercourse with that particular individual, this however does not mean that I was not afraid in doing so, because it is a frightening situation saying no to someone who can overpower you physically.

I would surmise that a large number of females are not as brave. Just because I was afraid to say no, if the sex did happen, it was not "rape", it was just unwanted sex, which is not the same. "Rape" is a criminal act that has an intention.

I have learned, from experience that explicitly detesting sexual advances is the only consistent means of letting a male know that you are not having sex, even one action implying consent is enough for the majority of males to keep going.

It is far more optimal, to teach both genders about consent to avoid women cry wolfing "rape" because they had unwanted sex and to stop women from having the unwanted sex, additionally it is optimal for people not to put themselves in any dangerous situation.

Anonymous #fundie washingtonpost.com

SAN DIEGO — The Sunday bulletin of San Diego’s Immaculate Conception Catholic Church on Oct. 16 wasn’t very different from all the others.

Seven pages. A welcome to newcomers. A Mass schedule.

But there, between the prayers of healing for the ill and the deployed and a reminder about a parent-child chastity luncheon for ages 11 and up, was an extra flier.

On it was printed a memo, written in Spanish and English, and titled, in part, “How to vote like a Catholic.”

“It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat . . . immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,” the flier said, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The flier listed five political topics that will guarantee damnation for anyone who endorses them, the newspaper reported.

What are those mortal issues? Abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research.

Warnings from the church, which is in Old Town, the city’s historic district, escalated Oct. 30.

The message that day specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton, linking her to the famed late community organizer Saul David Alinsky, whom it described as a tool of “Satan” and “the devil.”

The Alinsky-Hillary Clinton-Satan connection (as a student at Wellesley, she wrote a thesis on Alinsky, who had a following of young activists in the 1960s and ’70s) is an old conservative rap on Clinton, most recently resurrected by Ben Carson at the Republican National Convention.

That Sunday’s bulletin, which was printed on page 3 and not inserted as a flier, listed 10 key issues through which elected officials “impose sin upon us.”

On that expanded list: accepting immigrants whose “religious values are to eradicate every belief except those of their own prophet and god,” supporting immigrants monetarily while the national debt grows, “playing policeman for the world” and supporting gun control.

A spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego told the Union-Tribune that the pastor didn’t approve the initial flier.

“For all I know someone thought that they were doing a service” by inserting the message into the bulletin, diocese spokesman Kevin Eckery said. “The pastor said it was not something he had reviewed or approved.”

Eckery said the messages in the flier and bulletin were wrong.

“It’s not a mortal sin to vote for Democrats, number one. And number two, the church doesn’t take positions on this, and we’re not going to.”

Traditional Catholic Femininity #fundie #wingnut #sexist tradcatfem.com

ST. JOSEPH

The month of March is traditionally dedicated to St. Joseph, Spouse of our Lady, Protector of our Lord, and model of manhood, masculinity and fatherhood.

St Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care.

Chosen by God as trustworthy guardian & protector of Jesus & Mary & his leadership of the Holy Family, St. Joseph is declared as the protector & patron of the universal Catholic Church.

Sure, there are little to no quotes of St. Joseph, and it can almost seem like he plays an insignificant role in Church history, but nothing could be further from the truth.

-Solace of the wretched
-Terror of demons
-Guardian of virgins
-Pillar of families (my personal favourite)
-Mirror of patience
-Light among patriarchs
-Prince and Patron of the Universal Church

These are just a few of his titles and, boy, do they pack a punch! Wow!!

“Behold a faithful and prudent steward, whom the Lord set over His household”
– (Votive Mass of St. Joseph, Entrance Antiphon, Cf. Lk 12:42).

In addition, St. Joseph is also the patron of men, fathers, husbands, unborn children, workers, travellers, families, immigrants and more.

Teutonic Knight #sexist incels.co

[Historypill] Why the Western white men have become such cucks

It's a bit long text but I can't put it any shorter.

The men that I have in mind: White heterosexual middle class and working class men from Western Europe and Northern America. Why have they become such cucks?

These men have had a very specific cultural and social history. They have been conditioned through centuries to obey their elite and to respect the hierarchy. First during the medieval and post-medieval feudal system. Then in the 19th century, these feudal states transformed into secular nations. The non-aristocratic men of all classes were technically given liberty but at the same time, they now had to follow a new religion of being loyal to the nation and its institutions, its symbols, its cultural and industrial elite. This was furthered by secularism which removed the power religion to a large extent and separated it from the state, so the state became THE religion.

These regular white men had to work hard in factory, support their families, go to wars for their nations and were expected to be blindly loyal to the Institutions of the State and its Law. A modern ideal of manliness was born out of this that among other things included the idea that you should accept all the hardships ("men don't cry", men aren't supposed to show emotions etc.) and that you should always blame yourself for your failures, because you live in this wonderful nation that provides you with everything. This is the mentality from which the incels are judged today (basically as a man, you should never complain, and if you have a problem, it's your own fault).

During the 19th century, these Western European nation-states became the dominant superpowers and controlled almost the entire world. The white Western men suddenly became an aristocracy of their own in the global perspective, fueled by the ideas of the white racial superiority, and they started to see themselves as such. The white race as a whole adopted the aristocratic mentality that they are the noble men who have to spread civilization all over the planet (the idea of the white man's burden). The white men now became the gentlemen, the white knights, the nobility of the world.

Meanwhile, the Western society started "liberating" all kinds of "vulnerable" groups from the supposed "oppression". After the WW2, this process was intensified and was systematically directed by the institutions of the Western states. The Western white men were expected not only to continue to respect their regime and its institutions and its new ideology, but also to stoically accept all the insults and provocations from all the feminists, gays, degenerate "artists" and other groups dedicated to shame the white men and their past. The white men were expected to bear all this and they did because they still saw themselves as some sort of gentlemen and aristocracy that is "above this". It's basically like the concept of noblesse oblige where the nobility is expected to be held to a different code of conduct than the rest of society and to be generous and benevolent, not lowering itself to the conduct of the plebeian lower classes. This is basically what you have in the society today, one code of conduct for the white men (you have to be liberal, respectful, humble, work hard, don't complain) and another for everyone else (you can complain, be loud, insult). White men were raised with this code of chivalry for a long time and have integrated these ideas about protecting the weak. They repressed their manly impulses which would mandate them to lash out and respond aggressively.

This is why the middle class and working class white men allowed all of this post-WWII feminism, LGBT, sexual liberation and other degeneracy to flourish. They believed that they still held a position of power and that they have a responsibility to serve the Western civilization (which became synonymous with liberalism, capitalism, feminism and 'freedom'). So they not only accepted all the degeneracy and all the insults, but even became proud of it and bragged to the entire world about what kind of freedom they have. They were doing it from a position of power, feeling as if it's their duty to protect the weak. This why you have all these manly men in Western armies bragging about fighting against the Muslims or other non-Westerners for "muh Western freedom" while their Western women are whoring themselves out at home. They're actually proud of this degeneracy. They see it as a sign of power and progress. Ever wondered why the American army doesn't have any equivalent to Muslim nasheeds? Because for the Western men, listening to some degenerate rap is their nasheed as it symbolizes the alleged power of Western liberation and global supremacy.

The thing is, all these vulnerable groups that the regular white men are supposed to protect and bow down to in fact aren't weak at all. They have been systematically protected by the increasingly more powerful State and its Institutions (that the white men are blindly loyal to) for decades. The West gives this groups like women, LGBT, immigrants etc. special privileges like the old feudal kings used to do in the past, so that in turn, they can expect their support and loyalty. This is basically what we have in the West right now, these "weak" "vulnerable" groups serve the system, they endorse it, they want stronger state, stronger institutions, stronger police repression (at the excuse of protect this vulnerable groups) etc. And the system gladly accepts their demands.

It's very interesting to note that the feminists never really opposed the white-knightism and chivalry of the patriarchical Western culture. They're perfectly fine with the middle class and working class white men thinking that they hold this alleged position of power where they have to help women. They don't want to convince them into true equality because if there was true equality, they wouldn't need these white knights, and the white knights would no longer help them. The feminists are just promoting a specific type of ideology that tries to strengthen the system and its ideological norms and which tries to humiliate the white men while at the same time giving them a false impression to these men that they're actually being noble and strong.

The white Western men are still too blind to see all of this. They still believe in the old conduct of chivalry, either in the form of being a left wing cuck, or a right wing cuck. They both very similar in mentality when it comes to protecting "muh freedom" (which in reality just means giving more power to the state which gives you this "freedom" and protects it). Both left and right wing cucks are blindly loyal to the West and see it as the peak of all human civilization and progress.

The attitude towards racism is very similar in the West too in terms of white-knightism. As a white male you're supposed to formally criticize every form of white racism, but this comes from a specific position of power as well. As a white male, you're also expected to be much more liberal than a non-white male. Non-whites can get away with certain anti-liberal ideas but the whites can't (eg. Muslims can be much more radical than the white Christians who get persecuted for the slightest offense). This is because as a white man, you're supposed to be a gentleman and protect the "weaker" races. This is literally what this so-called liberal "anti-racism" is all about. It's not about equality of the races, it's about white men being expected to be cucks and white knights for other races. So it's essentially racist in itself, although it doesn't really benefit the majority of the white race (and arguably it doesn't help the non-white races either).

Note, I'm talking about middle class and lower class white men here. There are whites who do perfectly fine in the West now, the rich oligarchic elite which holds the power, the politicians, judges etc. They hold a similar position to the aristocracy and clergy in the feudal systems, they're the ones who are actually above all of those things and laugh at the pathetic white peasants who work like idiots for this system while being humiliated and insulted by all the privileged "weak and vulnerable" groups at the same time.

What keeps the regular white men going? Four things: 1) century-long blind loyalty to the state, the church (the churches have unfortunately become too westernized and weakened to stand up to the anti-Christian secular states), the institutions, the legal system, the hierarchy etc. 2) an utopian belief that they can ascend to being the elite themselves. No matter how bad the situation is for them, they still have some weird hope that they can get a normal family, earn big money etc. This comes from the American capitalist mentality of pursuit of happiness, American dream (this mentality is now prevalent all over the West). 3) Relative economic prosperity which still enables all kinds of copes. The illusion of the mighty West that will continue to dominate the world through science and technology and solve everything. Addiction to the materialistic world and hedonism. 4) Fear of going against the Western idea of manliness where as a man, you're not supposed to cry and complain. This is further fueled by the secular humanism which promotes the idea that you are the master of your own destiny and if you have a personal problem, you have to find a solution yourself and solve it.

Incels are a problem for the regime because they have opted out of all this and don't share this mentality (other than maybe what I described under the number 3). This is also where this obsession with painting incels as "frustrated white men" (when there are in fact plenty of non-white incels) comes from. The regime fears that the white men will abandon it and stopped being the obeying little peasants. They want the white men to continue thinking that they're the gentlemen and noble white knights of this system because once the local Western white men stop being productive, it's pretty much the end for the West as we know it. That's why they want to shame the white men who turn incel.

The end of the West will come either way. This society has nothing more to offer (culturally, philosophically), it has clearly degenerated way beyond the point of no return. While not necessarily blackpilled, people are more and more cynical, they don't want to serve their nations as much as they used to (harder and harder to find people who want to serve in the army), this whole nihilism that the West promoted in regards to religion and traditionalism is now backfiring and is starting to question their own liberal ideology as well. Incels are simply a sign of things that are about to come as the men abandon the Western ideals of manliness.

radfem hub #sexist radicalhub.com

Necrophilia

In real life, and as mirrored in media images, boys and men are obsessed with death. Mary Daly referred to this obvious male preoccupation with death as “necrophilia,” meaning the love of death. Men’s necrophilic tendencies are not limited to literally sticking their dicks into corpses, although it includes that; necrophilia refers to men’s obsession with death and all things related to death and antithetical to life, including neglect and abuse, causing reproductive harm, rape, murder, torture, war, inflicting physical and emotional pain generally, and placing themselves and others in harm’s way in every way. Where women are interested in and indeed heavily invested in preserving and nurturing life, often because they have to, or face legal or social consequences if they fail, men are working very hard to undermine women’s efforts to nurture life at every turn.

Why? Because…

Necrophilia supports male power. Obviously, the power to take life or to cause extreme suffering is a form of power, and men embrace this power fully when they torture and kill animals, girls and women, and each other. Where boys and men are obsessed with death and creating destruction, women are left to perform damage control, utilizing all their time, energy and resources on mitigating the harm that men inflict; women are then left with few or no resources to use towards building a female-centered culture or to support our own interests. This diversion of women’s resources away from woman-centered and non-patriarchal ends is deliberate. The unusual man who is even slightly interested in nurturing or preserving life is the beneficiary of enormous false gratitude, but when women make a mistake or are unable to perform caretaking duties at a high level for any reason, we are severely punished by patriarchal institutions which place extreme controls on women’s lives and enforce our caretaking role with institutional violence, including incarceration. Of course, it is frequently men’s necrophilic actions such as PIV-centric sexuality creating unwanted or ambivalent children, or men harming themselves and others, that create the need for women’s usually unpaid, institutionally-unsupported caretaking labor in the first place, and opening the door to patriarchal institutional control over women’s lives. Granting men the power to open the door to institutional patriarchal control over women is critically important to and supportive of male power.

RadFHarva #sexist reddit.com

As long as there is a systematic oppression on women by men and a mental conditioning on women from their birth, I don't believe there's real consent in heterosexual acts. And I do believe that women identified women (aka women living for themselves according to their own codes, free from patriarchal conditioning, nothing to do with identity politic and trans bs) should avoid having hetero intercourses, as long as the oppression is here.

Wich does'nt necessarily mean a complete separation from males of course, just no sexual or romance stuff. And it doesnt mean not having kids either. But that's just pure theory of course, if a woman wants to have sex with a male i'm not going to prevent her. I just don't believe in the reality of «choice», there's too much factors. But there is a moral difference between things that should be banned and things we should just criticize.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #conspiracy #quack #wingnut naturalnews.com

Who’s worse? LGBTQP pushers who want to mutilate the genitals of children, or vaccine pushers who want to cause brain damage and death?

In case you missed it, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently sat down with the producers of the new Vaxxed2: The People’s Truth vaccine documentary to talk about the epidemic of vaccine injuries that’s sweeping our nation. And after watching or listening to what they have to say, you might ask yourself, Who’s worse for society, LGBTQP lunatics who want to turn all of our children “trans,” or vaccine industry propagandists who want to force chemical syringes on our precious little ones essentially at gunpoint?

As the official narrative goes, vaccines are the most awesome public health invention pretty much ever, which somehow means that everyone must be forced by the government to get them because they’re simply wonderful. The science is settled, we’re all repeatedly told, so there’s no room for “my body, my choice” when it comes to vaccination programs that aim for total societal compliance.

But the truth of the matter is that vaccines are risky, to say the least. Not only that, but they don’t actually work, in many cases, and cause more harm than good. Vaccines are also responsible for causing many of the recent outbreaks of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) that we’ve been hearing about in the news, further demonstrating that vaccines are not the “miracle” medicine that the pharmaceutical lobby claims them to be.

This is why Vaxxed2 was created, by the way: To tell those with ears to hear the ugly truth about vaccines that health “authorities” refuse to disclose. Vaccines are not safe and effective, nor are they miraculous at accomplishing anything other than furthering the eugenics agenda of harming and destroying the next generation of youth.

“I have never seen so much death,” says Polly Tommey, the executive producer of Vaxxed2, about the tragedies she’s encountered while touring America as part of the film’s production.

“At every single stop we had at least one dead baby, a Gardasil death, paralysis from the waist downwards, untold damage. Vaccines are killing of America, that is what the people of America will tell you that vaccinated” themselves or their children, she adds.

“When you look into the eyes of parents whose children are brain-damaged like mine, or dead from a vaccine, their soul is broken, it’s ripped from them, it is the most painful – you can feel it as they come towards you – the pain. But when an unvaccinated family with beautiful, healthy children come towards you, you see joy and light and love, everything is great in their eyes.”
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to vaccination is the fact that vaccines are untested chemical cocktails that, if you read the fine print in vaccine inserts, are really no different than the cross-sex and gender-bender hormone drugs routinely administered to today’s LGBTQP-confused youth.

“If you look across the whole range, you’ve got 72 shots given to a child up until the age of 18 … you’ve got multiple shots going in at their well-baby clinic visit, so you’ve got multiple shots, none of which have had a safety study on this whole group going into a child at the same child at the same time, not one single safety study,” warns Jonathan Tommey, another of Vaxxed2‘s creators.

“So, this 1986 Act (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) that was passed by (Ronald) Reagan in government giving no liability to the manufacturer of vaccines is a criminal offense to the American public,” he adds.

sergeantdave #fundie freerepublic.com

[On global warming.]

Lord Monckton lays out the facts.

Gore, Soros and others must be charged with crimes against humanity and hanged. I also include every eco-fascist fraud in America.

We need a second American-style Nuremberg trial to expose the Nazis in America and hang them. Then take the tribunal around the world and rid ourselves of these Nazis once and for all. No prison. Summary execution.

Feminist Scum #sexist #psycho feministscum.blogspot.com

Wow, it's been a while since I last posted on my blog. I guess it's because I usually air all of my opinions on forums these days, or at least I did until I left one.

Anyways, I'm going to post a short article, or list if you will, about something I believe. You may not like them, and I'm willing to accept they may not be accurate. I am not married to these opinions, and they will most likely change over time.

- I believe men are better than women. I believe they are better because they are bigger, stronger, faster, are 4 iq points more intelligent than average, and continue to out perform women at so many different things.

- I believe that if a woman threatens your freedom by setting state thugs after you to kidnap you from your home, and throw you behind bars, then you have every moral right to make that woman fear for her own life to protect your self.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

- I believe women should not be allowed to vote. Women never earned the right to vote like men, they simply bitched for it. Manginas seeing a way to keep power, gave them the right. It should be taken away from them until they can earn it properly

Partrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

Like President Lincoln, James Garfield was born in a log cabin. He was also a general during the Civil War.

He was inaugurated as President on March 4, 1881 and was sworn in by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.

After less than 4 months in office, President Garfield was shot by a British Secret Service agent named Charles Guiteau.

For some strange reason, the British Secret Service decided to eliminate the President by shooting . . . instead of their normal method of poisoning.

British Secret Service agent Charles Guiteau shot President Garfield on July 2, 1881.

The President struggled heroically to survive, but finally his doctors killed him on Sept. 19, 1881.

Vice President Chester A. Arthur was immediately sworn in by Chief Justice Waite.

The assassination of President Garfield, and the usurpation of Chester A. Arthur, were severe blows to the nation politically. Chester A. Arthur was one of the most corrupt lawyers than ever lived and he was sent to meet his Maker at the young age of 57.

Teddy Roosevelt was the fifth "Accidental President"

Teddy Roosevelt was the fifth usurper or "Accidental President."

Civil War hero William Mckinley was inaugurated for his 1st term as President on March 4, 1897.

He was sworn in by Chief Justice Melville Fuller.

His Vice President was named Garret Augustus Hobart

President McKinley was a patriotic President and thus incurred the enmity of the British from the very beginning of his term. However, his Vice President, Garret Hobart was also patriotic, and his replacement of McKinley would not change the political situation in the country.

The Spanish-American war of 1898 was started to make a war hero of Teddy Roosevelt and place him in a position to seize the Presidency.

"Plastic" man Teddy Roosevelt became a "war hero" during the Spanish-American War.

He supposedly led a charge up San Juan Hill in 1898.

He did receive a barrage of publicity, and that was enough for him to be appointed "Republican" governor of New York.

Absolutely nobody expected "plastic" man Teddy Roosevelt to replace Garret Hobart as Vice President. The impossible did happen when Hobart died suddenly of poisoning.

Amazingly, Vice President Hobart died suddenly and Teddy Roosevelt became McKinley's "running mate."

The stage was set for McKinley's assassination and replacement with Roosevelt.

In early 1898, Secretary of the Treasury Lyman J. Gage appointed John E. Wilkie to the position of Chief of the Secret Service. Wilkie was a crime reporter for the Chicago Tribune and had just spent 5 years in London learning the tricks of the spying trade.

The assassination of President McKinley was carried out by a British Secret Service agent named Leon Czolgosz.

Roosevelt quickly grabbed a federal judge named John Havel to perform a "swearing-in" ceremony.

Roosevelt didn't even bother to repeat the performance for the Supreme Court when he returned to Washington City.

Roosevelt didn't even bother to legitimize his illegal power grab when he returned to Washington City as "Acting President." No judge of the Supreme Court bothered to meet him for another swearing-in ceremony

Pastor Ralph Ovadal #fundie pccmonroe.org

Already Christians in many countries are being arrested for preaching what the Bible teaches concerning homosexual acts. In some cases, special tribunals have been set up to punish such individuals. In America, the machinery of tyranny is likewise being put into place.

The purpose of Homo-Fascist Watch is to act as a firebell in the night, alerting and reminding all lovers of true liberty bounded by God's immutable laws of the relentless advance of a form of fascism which tolerates every sort of sexual deviation but no deviation from the party line of a totalitarian, sexually perverse elite. It is not the intention of Pilgrims Covenant Church to provoke mindless hatred or violence against the sodomites. Hatred is a fearful master which destroys its subjects; and those who live by the sword will die by the sword. We urge you to pray for the sodomites with a compassionate heart that those who are not yet reprobate will become adopted into the family of God as forgiven, blood-washed followers of Jesus Christ. Pray for the sodomites, but do not underestimate the ferociousness of their commitment to crush all resistance to their cherished goals and do not neglect your duty to resist such an evil force.

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

(final batch of comments from that motherf*cking thread (mostly to wrap up))

(fuckthislyfe)
hearing your mom get dicked by chad

(ForceFetusKing)
Have you called your mom out on it? Have you told your dad? Man thats fucking shitty. Women have no shame.

(noneofthemisvalid)
In Middle East, you should have had to kill your mother and that Chad to clean your honour. This is why you Western men are socially oppressed. You even can't listen your instincts.

(CatSniff)
Cheating with evidence is instant death if she was married but lashes for the guy if he was unmarried but if both were married then both need death.
Edit: also if both were unmarried then both get lashes if there is evidence.

(noneofthemisvalid)
Dude I'm from Turkey, Eastern Turks aka Kurds would kill that degenerate cunt in such a case very very most probably. I like their sharp patriarchal traditions. It's not totally Islamic, it's a social rule existing before Islam too.

(unmasculineloser)
Even for a normie this shit would be fucking repressed memory material, for incels it's even worse. It's one thing to cheat on someone, it's another to involve your own kid in it against their will. Can't imagine what you're going through, friend.

(Mentalcel)
Jesus fucking Christ. One of the few positives of being middle eastern is not having a slut for a mom.

(fuckthislyfe)
Hhahahah. here is a blackpill: i'm from a conservative middle eastern country

(degesodegeso)
What the fuck? I am from a conservative middle eastern country as well so I'd like to know what country it is. I am genuinely baffled.

(fuckthislyfe)
levantine raised in ksa

(degesodegeso)
This is so fucked...
But I am glad I am blackpilled, I used to be a naive idiot that would have never suspected something like this. That said this is still surprising for me, the ride never ends.

(St-ElliotsSecAscent)
What the fuck. How can you still respect your mother?

(fuckthislyfe)
that is the least of it

(loiterturd)
please elaborate story.

(fuckthislyfe)
too many stories and they're long, but she would go on vacation on my beta dad's dime and take me with her, she would introduce me to new guys there telling me they are family or family friends. she would book two rooms and hide that she booked a second one. she would go and fuck chad and then come into our room sweaty in her bath robe when done.

(loiterturd)
thats fucked up, i don't think i could look her in the eye again if she was my mom. wtf and ur father he is clueless as fuck. the fate of the beta cuck what pointless existence. just pain and humiliation.

(MashedPotatoFace)
This, also how recent was this and are your parents look-matched?

(fuckthislyfe)
dad is ugly, mom is hot

(fuckthislyfe)
i was younger, but fully capable of understanding what was going on

sergeantdave #fundie freerepublic.com

These black-robe fascists don’t run the military; the president does.

I’d prefer that Trump arrest this judge for treason and make him stand before a military tribunal on those charges. Barring that, ignore that judge.

(I can’t wait for FR’s hand-wringers and weenies to show up and tell us that ignoring an out-of-control judge would upset the propaganda media, and we can’t do that.)

Anti ZionistLeague #racist youtube.com

Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (30th November 1874 – 24th January 1965) was a homosexual Freemason of questionable heritage who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. Born into the compromised family of the Dukes of Marlborough, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough received from the Jew Solomon de Medina a yearly payment of £6,000 (1702-14).

The receipt of ‘Jewish’ money must be something of a tradition as the Jew Henry Strakosch advanced Churchill £150,000 to solve his financial difficulties and was one of the beneficiaries of Strakosch’s will when he died in 1943. Charles Henry Churchill, a descendant of General Charles Churchill (1656–1714) a brother of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough corresponded with Moses Montefiore, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews in 1841–42 on the first recorded plan proposed for political Zionism. Churchill himself was the son of Randolph Henry Spencer-Churchill (13th February 1849 – 24th January 1895) who was treated for syphilis only a month after his son’s birth a condition he would later die of.

After leaving Harrow School in 1893 Churchill applied to attend the Royal Military College, Sandhurst and failed three times before eventually passing the entrance exam. He trained for the cavalry rather than the infantry because the required grade was lower. In February 1896 A. C. Bruce- Pryce, accused Churchill of homosexuality committing “acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type” at Sandhurst; an act necessary to bring him into line just in time for the first Zionist Congress in 1897. While Churchill sued for libel his solicitors advised him to settle out-of-court due to the recent imprisonment of known homosexual Oscar Wilde.

Nevertheless, even with a somewhat official apology it was clear that Churchill’s sexual deviance was a tool by which his Jewish handlers governed his policy making. This is evidenced by Churchill’s demand for known homosexual Edward Marsh as his private secretary, an illegality that compromised Churchill and Marsh and his appointment of the suspected homosexual paedophile Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. His later connection to homosexual Bolshevik agent Guy Burgess and Lord Boothby, lover of Jewish homosexual gangster Ronnie Kray, only exacerbates Churchill’s homosexual persuasions. Of course these associations can only link to one assumption that our government was highly compromised before, during and after WWII by Jewish infiltration. Churchill’s political action can only stand as testimony to this.

Indeed Churchill criticised the principles of Protectionism and military expenditure during Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin’s multiple visits to the British capital (1902-1911). An advocate of the mixed race Kalergi’s work he opposed the curb on immigration and crossed the floor to the Liberal Party in 1904. His entanglement with Jewish anarchist activity in the early 20th century is suggestive particularly in light of his advocacy of the Jew Reilly’s (Shlomo Markovich Rosenblum) recruitment into the fledgling British Secret Service in 1909.

In this light the catastrophe that was the Gallipoli campaign in which 46,000 men of European origin aimlessly lost their lives can only be seen under the influence of a Jewish guiding hand. Churchill would also construct a dialectic between the Jewish ideologies of Zionism and Bolshevism (Communism) indicating conflict were none exists (Zio-Marxism) in a 1920 article entitled ‘A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People’. A bronze bust of Churchill was given pride of place in Jerusalem in 2012 marking the 95th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Anton Hagen #fundie returnofkings.com

5 REASONS WHY BISEXUALS CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
[…]
Anton Hagen is a multilingual writer from the UK whose joys and woes living in different parts of Europe inspired him to contribute philosophical pieces to the manosphere, with the odd caustic joke.

The topic of bisexuality keeps cropping up time and time again. It’s constantly rammed down our throats: taking the form of either vacuous gossip about the “bi-curious” escapades of an acquaintance or vapid celebrity, or the even more tiresome bilge concerning “biphobia” and bigotry.

In this article, we shall examine how refusing to take bisexuals seriously is a perfectly rational point of view to hold, after having examined certain aspects of this phenomenon in closer detail.

1. The Ludicrous myth of “Biphobia”
[“Dancing with the Stars” Logo]

In the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly more and more laughable to suggest that homophobia is rampant, when all television, entertainment and culture seem to be catered towards the tastes of gay men: just looking through a TV guide or turning on the radio confirms this assertion.

Yet it is even more ridiculous to suggest that we live in a culture of “biphobia.” There has been extremely little evidence in history which suggests that bisexuals have been more severely treated than homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Despite this fact, “biphobia” has become an accepted term. Furthermore, it is used incorrectly to describe anyone who questions bisexuality in any shape or form, as opposed to denote those who genuinely loathe and despise bisexuals (of whom there are very few).

By classing the opinions of those with whom they disagree as an irrational “phobia,” LGBT activists are able to shun counter-arguments as being inherently flawed and diseased, without having to tackle the assertion with reason and evidence. This tactic is a favorite among leftists (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, etc.)

[Picture of a hippie-looking woman.
Transcript: Your Rights End where my feelings begin.]

[…]
The term “biphobia” has just become a means of suppressing reasoned arguments and healthy skepticism by portraying their opponents as being mentally deranged. It could not be more typical of the totalitarian progressive movement.

There is no such thing as biphobia: there are only those who do not wholeheartedly embrace bisexuals and shower them in praise and compliments for being so open-minded and adventurous; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2. They’re trend-followers
[Picture of 2 female celebrities kissing]
Far from being a minority of poor, oppressed, counter-cultural victims, bisexuals are extolled and exalted in modern culture. From Madonna and Britney Spears’ kiss at that god awful music show all the way up to the Mozart and Beethoven of our age (Lady Gaga and Katy Perry), bisexual behavior is portrayed as “cool” and fashionable.

Impressionable youths therefore gravitate to such behavior because it gives them a sense of identity and excitement. They engage in bisexuality as an expression of faux-individualism, in an attempt to distance themselves from what they believe to be the bigoted, narrow-minded majority.

They are of course, all completely deluded. They think they’re unique, yet all they are doing is following a trend which has been concocted for them by MTV and record companies. Bisexuality has simply become a fashion statement, and very little more.

3. They’re promiscuous
In Tuthmosis’ famous article, he lists claiming to be bisexual as a major slut tell. This could not be more true. Many of the other signs mentioned in that article stem from an adolescent, pseudo-rebellious attitude (e.g. tattoos, piercings, swearing, drugs etc.)

Bisexuality is simply another form of immature revolt: by challenging the supposed “heteronormative” culture, they are trying to affirm themselves as individualistic, exciting people. This childish attitude manifests itself in bisexuality, promiscuity, and self-destructive behavior.

Very often, youths do not have any major achievements or unique personality on which to define themselves; they therefore jump at any opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, the “sex-positive” bisexual culture of today just happens to be the means to that end.

4. Bisexuals cannot form long-term relationships
The rebellious, childish youths described above are not fit for long-term relationships. It is impossible to be bisexual and maintain a monogamous commitment: one half of one’s sexuality must be renounced before entering into a relationship with a single person. Unfortunately the bisexuals will argue that they have the right to “be who they want to be” and claim “I am what I am.”

Monogamous relationships are based on self-restraint, compromise, and mutual understanding. Someone who continues to assert that they wish to sleep with members of both sexes whilst in a long-term relationship simply lacks the above virtues and has no empathy for their partner’s feelings, only caring for themselves and their carnal desires.

Were someone to vow full commitment to a single partner, they would obviously have to abandon any desire for someone of a different sex to their partner. This is a perfectly moral and reasonable expectation. Bisexuality is usually confined to the pre-adult phase of sleeping around and experimentation. It is therefore very difficult to view it something mature and worthy of anything other than condescension.

5. Evidence suggests it doesn’t even exist
Having said all the above, there is still reasonable scientific doubt as to the actual existence of bisexuality. A recent study investigating this naturally attracted a lot of negative attention from the liberal media powerhouse. In this study, it was determined that thirty males who identified themselves as bisexual were indistinguishable from homosexuals in their hormonal responses to pornography. The study can be read online here.

Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the conductors of the study, noted: “I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists, but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”

Skepticism over the existence of bisexuality continues to this day. We still cannot determine at this stage whether it categorically exists or doesn’t, but it is downright foolish and disrespectful to label those who question it as having a “phobia” or being “bigoted.” The burden of proof remains on those who argue for its existence, rather than those who claim its absence.

Conclusion
It is not irrational or incorrect to hold a healthy, skeptical attitude towards bisexuality. Furthermore, those who doubt it should not be classed as intolerant or bigoted. Upon closer examination of the matter, it appears to be linked to juvenile irresponsibility and typically millennial, liberal attitudes towards sex, relationships, and politics. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to cast doubt upon it.

Undoubtedly, the leftists will jeer, howl and screech their vitriol against such an objective examination of their degenerate habits. Questionable behavior such as bisexuality should be repudiated if we are to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us as a whole.

BigEarthBear #sexist reddit.com

When it comes to this discussion it seems that the targets of Trans Rage is always gay men and women with a focus on lesbians. It is this bizarre desire to win the most oppressed race. When it comes to personal pronouns, gays and lesbians know the truth, it really is not that huge of a deal and there are larger issues that need to be faced.

Feminists are attacked because they know the bigger issues facing women. There is a basic male need to control and become authoritarian. They can change their outsides but it is still the same homophobia and misogyny.

I often wonder this does the misgendering message does actual harm on youth. The message says that misgendering is violence and causes people to kill themselves and do other harm to themselves. It causes them to give death threats and rape threats to people who disgree with them. It causes crippling depression. This is like a mass brainwashing. Could this be what is really causing people to harm themselves?

Is using this to silence and no platform people creating an enemy (gay men and women) to rally behind in order to reinforce an authoritarian movement? I see young people harming themselves and talking about something that the community has always viewed as the most minor of things.... In many ways I see this as self inflicted harm to create martyrs for the movement.

DragQueen_Eclipse #fundie reddit.com

Anyone who thinks anarchy and Antifa actions are inherently "Peaceful" is looking for a watered-down variation of 'anarchy' that will never get past chat-rooms, blogs, and social media. or believing that you can eradicate the fascist and crypto-fascist by chanting and debates that does not mean we fetishize violence or use it as oppressive tactics (see State sponsored Violence)

Also, accepting the fact that as anarchists and various radicals, we are always in a 'self-defense' mindset because the State, Police, fascist/Crypto-fascist, sympathizers etc, want us eradicated, combined that with various Races/Ethnicities, Sexes, Gender-Identities, Sexual Orientations and we are always being attacked, from Class to Identity.

To not use Preemptive and offensive actions is surrendering, submitting to politicians, legislature, Ballot Boxes is surrendering, believing the Police will protect you is surrendering. Non-Violence is dangerous and protects the state. Liberals know this and use this "Non-Violent" stance to further oppress those that will fight for their autonomy because it will abolish their authoritative hierarchy aswell

fenlandia #racist englisc-gateway.com

Could America be next? Could we be next, given the population figures for all Africa compared to Europeans, and all wanting to make their way here. I've heard a fair few stories from South Africans here, about the car jackings, robberies and beatings, very unpleasant.

I'm reading a serialised account of Hendrik Verwoerd Sth African Prime Minister of late 1950's early 60's, by Stephen Mitford Goodson. Another MI6/CIA Rothschild target according to Mitford Goodson. He did so much for the Black's in regard to education, homelands, and the pass system which was actually there to protect them against immigrant workers coming in from other areas, and not a repressive act. It's an account that certainly gives another side to the brutal repressive apartheid we've always been told of.

He was a Head of State who very rarely made comment on other Countries affairs. However he did warn the British Ambassador that if Britain continued allowing non-whites in by the thousand, they would make a bastard race of themselves and this would one day be the source of many difficulties for the British people. Such a time of many difficulties has now come to his people, and there seems to be silence from the Western liberal elite about this genocide.

Faye Hardin #fundie rawstory.com

It’s a rare sight to find a conservative, so far right-wing, that even Fox News is too liberal for them. This week’s episode of “Faye Hardin Presents BattleCry,” so-called “prayer warrior” for Christ, Faye Hardin went on an epic rant about Fox News and Megyn Kelly, who, Hardin believes, detests Christians and could be part of the liberal plot to destroy their religion.

After going off about how Hillary Clinton doesn’t represent women, Hardin turned her insults to Fox News, which she says is the only channel “that even allows conservative hosts.” But really, even Fox News is “runnin’ down to ’bout one person,” Hardin explained before correcting herself saying there might actually be two. “I think we’ve got Sean Hannity now and we’ve got, um, uh, a couple of Fox contributors who are conservative and take a stand for Christian values but not many.”

That’s when it took a turn against Kelly. “Most of Fox News has gone to the, um, uh, Kelly File, a liberal, feminist,” Hardin managed to say with a straight face. “Who is undermining everything Christian through her program. But the guests she sets up, they say exactly what she wants them to say. And I’ve never seen anybody that detests Christians and conservatives like Megyn Kelly. Well, she’s got a major platform and she’s gettin’ millions to desecrate who we are and why we are that, depicting us to be absolutely irresponsible and, uh, radicals. If that’s not a twist in the truth.”

Sitting next to large sticks of bamboo, as if she was shooting her show in the front waiting room of a Texas hibachi grill, Hardin resolved that all women must come together against people like Clinton and Kelly. If you don’t, it means that your minds have been “yielded to the progressive, socialist, communist values of the women controlling the media, uh, they’re controllin’ the government, and we don’t have a position. They don’t give us fair and balanced,” she claimed.

No word on whether someone has informed Hardin that “progressive, socialist, communist values” are all conflicting ideologies, but ignorance is the same in all forms of politics.

Shimon Cowen #fundie theaustralian.com.au

A recent article in The Australian on my book Homosexuality, Marriage and Society carried the banner (and opening gist) “Rabbi likens homosexuality to incest and bestiality”. Nowhere did I say this — and the article provided no source for it in my book. But it served to trigger condemnations of the book and foreclose consideration of its arguments, which I would like to briefly state.

The principal notion behind the same-sex marriage movement is the human being as an essentially physical being, driven and defined by its diverse impulses. Society must gratify them to grant essential personhood. My book counterposes to this the notion — from the Abrahamic faith traditions — that the human being also possesses a soul or conscience, which resonates with its Creator’s eternal moral laws, including the norm of heterosexual marriage. The soul confers both freedom and responsibility upon the person to evaluate and arbitrate physical impulses by reference to its moral compass.

Homosexuality comes from diverse sources: bodily temperament and disposition, psych­o­logical trauma and from ideological cultures which advocate for it. All of these sources are, however, extraneous to the real human essence, the soul or conscience, with its independent compass. Homosexuality is not like skin colour, with which the soul can have no issue. It is a behaviour, with which the soul can and does legitimately struggle, however difficult and deserving of compassion it may be. The cultural ideology supporting same-sex marriage represses both the consciousness of the soul and its conflicts with the body — which expresses our real humanity.

Same-sex marriage is harmful to the family. It is statistically far less stable than the complementary masculine-feminine union. The procurement of children for same-sex couples through donor gametes deprives these children of needed identity — to know and be raised by both of one’s biological parents. It deprives children of the differentiated roles of father and mother required in their upbringing. Homosexuals themselves are victims of the same-sex marriage movement’s ideology, which posits that the human being is determined by physical impulse, and dissonance between conscience and impulse as “internalised homophobia”.

Its drive to ban therapy — even for homosexuals who want it — is a denial of patient autonomy. It suppresses both the significant incidence of successful therapy and the absence (as reported by the American Psychological Association in 2009) of evidence of harm from such ­therapies.

The re-education needed to support the ideology of same-sex marriage is seen in the “Safe Schools” program, which models “sexual diversity” to susceptible children, of which 25 per cent have as-yet fluid sexual identity, and would otherwise overwhelmingly settle into heterosexuality. It also seeks to weaken parents’ traditionally recognised right to transmit to their children religious teaching, which includes traditional marriage.

Victoria, which has made the Safe Schools program compulsory in all state schools, did this by excluding special religious instruction from classroom hours and “replacing” it with a compulsory subject that relativises world religions and puts them on a par with “secular humanist” non-belief.