Similar posts

Charles #fundie christiannews.net

Here's some actual truth as opposed to your propaganda.

The Numbers

New HIV Infectionsb

• In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

HIV and AIDS Diagnosesc

• In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.

• In 2013, gay and bisexual men accounted for 55% of the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 14,611 gay and bisexual men diagnosed with AIDS, 40% were blacks/African Americans; 32% were whites; and 23% were Hispanics/Latinos.

• By the end of 2011, an estimated 311,087 gay and bisexual men with AIDS had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 47% of all deaths of persons with AIDS.

• In 2011, CDC data showed that 80.6% of MSM with diagnosed HIV infection were linked to care, 57.5% were retained in care, 52.9% were prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 44.6% had achieved viral suppression.

Sounds much more like a Homosexual issue than a Heterosexual one.. Remember the Homosexual population isn't more than 2 percent.

Roosh V #fundie donotlink.com

The World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with new guidelines that advise all homosexual men without HIV to take anti-HIV drugs to prevent themselves from becoming infected. This policy has presumably come about because HIV prevention education has not gotten through to homosexual men who continue to practice unsafe anal sex with dozens of new partners a year. This has hastened the global spread of the virus.

While the media has done a great job portraying homosexuals as “just like” heterosexuals (deserving of marriage benefits and infinite compassion), it’s clear that the similarities are few. Homosexual men engage in extreme high-risk and extreme promiscuous activity and, as the article linked above states, are “19 times more likely than the general population to be infected by HIV.” Bisexual men have become the perfect vessel to transmit the HIV virus to the heterosexual population, especially to women, who are more likely than men to become infected by HIV during patriarchal male-female sex.

Last year, the NBC made a stink about gay men not being able to donate blood, and even now there is a growing political movement to allow gay men to donate. Thankfully for my relatives in the US who I hope never needs donated blood, the ban on gay men from donating still stands, because health organizations (WHO, FDA) fully understand the danger that homosexual men pose to society due to their degenerate lifestyle.

[...]

The American media has become so infected with the politically correct virus that it is silent when it comes to informing the public of a real virus, all because it contradicts their heterophobia party line that aims to paint gay couples as wonderful and loving.

[...]

A common argument for homo acceptance is the following: “Why do you care how two gays live or whether they want to get married?” Because their lifestyle is spreading a virus that can kill people who aren’t gay. Society should rightfully accept that homosexual men are the bringers of death, a sort of grim reaper wrapped up in fuzzy progressive packaging. Even the FDA is vigorously fighting attempts to allow them to donate blood for the general population. We should be thankful they are on the side of those who don’t have HIV or engage in activities which easily spread it.

image

Whenever someone waves a rainbow flag in your face and insists that you get with the times, tell them that maybe they can start a beef instead with the World Health Organization. They are so alarmed at what gay men are doing that they are pushing a desperate and expensive policy to prevent an epidemic that is not being controlled in spite of everything we know about preventing HIV with condom use. The least we can do is keep this virus contained within the homosexual population, and it may soon be prudent to even consider legislation that prevents homosexuals from sleeping with non-homosexuals.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


There's no proof that homosexuality is inborn. All of the studies often used to prove that homosexuality is inborn are fallacious. Why? Well, let’s begin with LeVay’s brain study. When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. Another problem is that out of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. Also, there’s brain plasticity which is a fact acknowledged by most scientists. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Another study often used by gay activists as a proof that homosexuals are ‘born’ that way is Bailey and Pillard’s Study. In this one there isn’t much to explain as the whole fallacy of the study can be proven with this one statement: If there was in fact a “gay gene” or “a gay combination per se” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. This observation suggests that there is no genetic component but rather social component in homosexuality. In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor in homosexuality, this result would be counter to the expected trend. The other fallacious study we will be covering here is Dr. Alan Sanders’ study of x-male chromosome. Dr. Alan Sander’s study fails for this one reason: the results exhibited on the gay men were never compared to that of heterosexual males. Another thing as to why homosexuality cannot be inborn from an evolutionary standpoint is that: Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. Besides, there's no proof that homosexuality is caused by hormonal misbalances such as low testosterone, such claims are naught but mere hypothesis and thus, invalid. In fact, low testosterone has been associated with low sex drive and infertility so, there really isn't any ground for such hypothesis. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. As you can see there's no study that even suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

Nowadays, there’s this myth that homosexuality is not harmful and an equal to heterosexual relationships; however, this couldn’t be further away from the truth. Homosexuality is a very harmful practice that results in many illnesses, it’s kind of like smoking a misbehavior that feels good but destroys your body. How can this be true? How can homosexuality be harmful when so many LGBT are such wonderful people? Well, let’s begin with how gays have shortened lifespan. Yes, homosexuals have shortens lifespan and this isn’t just my word as there are studies to back my claims. It isn't just the 1997 study that pointed to this grim truth, according to the article you attached, the 1997 study is fallacious because the lifespan of gays should have improved over time thus, so it shouldn’t be valid today. However, other recent studies have reported similar findings. Such studies include an study done by Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute and who held a poster session and presented the study at March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia. The facts of the Cameron's studies were these: the lifespan of homosexuals is 20 years lower than that of straights. They found that in the Canadian database, a decline in homosexuality was evident by the fourth decade of life. Those who identified themselves as homosexual constituted a relatively stable fraction of adults only for those aged into their mid-40s (e.g., one of every 47-48 adults). Thereafter, their proportion dropped regularly, down to one of every 234 adults in old age (65+), resulting in an overall estimate of 1.4% of adults who ‘were. In both the table and abstract done by the Cameron a precipitous decline in the homosexual population following middle age was noted. Taking a look at the statistics and studies regarding homosexuals, both old and new, it becomes evident what’s the real reason as to the reduction in homosexuals’ lifespan. Unlike what most pro-gay activist like to claims this reduced lifespans is not due to discrimination or stigmatization because these studies were conducted in countries were homosexuals are not persecuted, there's very little disapproval of homosexuality, and were homosexuals even enjoy special rights. The reason for this statistics is the nature of homosexual sex itself is harmful, and many of the harmful acts committed in such relationships are not committed by straights as often as by homosexuals. Like Diggs said the anus is not made for penetration and anal sex is extremely harmful for both homosexuals and straights. However, straights have the option to indulge in traditional sexual intercourse which is way safer than those homosexual practices. There's no such thing as safe homosexual sex for all the practices involved in their so called making 'love' ritual have been proven to be dangerous practices that often result in many illnesses. The use of a condom reduces the chances of HIV; however, it does not eliminate the risk especially during anal sex practiced mostly by homosexuals as 1 in 27 condoms will break during anogenital homosexual sex. Also, there’s no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Herpes simplex virus. The prevention of the these three STDs has not been absolutely quantified, because no one is suggesting that a person known to have one of these treatable infections have regular intercourse with an unaffected partner. Though, health professionals assume the usage of condoms reduces the risks of getting these diseases; however, as to what extent condoms prevent these diseases are unknown. Back to anal sex, this kind of sex is extremely dangerous and harmful. The use of artificial lubricants doesn’t make this practice any safer, in one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong. Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. Thus, lubricants don’t really make anal sex safer if anything it makes anal sex more dangerous. Anal sexual intercourse as Mr.Diggs noted does increase fecal incontinence as shown in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2010) done by Alayne D Markland and others which included 2,100 male participants. Anal sex is also known to increase anal cancer and it’s no surprise taking into account anal sex is done mostly by homosexuals that, gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies. Oral sex practiced amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly among homosexuals is dangerous as well. Fisting is far more dangerous than anal intercourse; results of fisting can include infections, inflammation and enhanced susceptibility to STDs. Rimming a practice done by most homosexuals which increases the risk for Hepatitis A or B, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes/genital warts, though low, the risks are still there especially when most people perform unprotected oral sex. Another illness that is very prevalent among homosexual communities is Shigella, it can be transmitted through person-to-person contact, oral-anal sex, or sucking or licking of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.Many shigellosis outbreaks among MSM have been reported in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Europe since 1999. Frottage, when done naked or simply if the infected skin of a partaker rubs against the uninfected skin of the partner, can result in STDs transmitted by skin-to-skin contact which include: Herpes, HPV, genital warts, mononucleosis, Molluscum Contagiosum, and syphilis. Also, another risk of frottage is clothing rubbing on a lesion as it can irritate it risking either a secondary infection or a disease spreading through self-inoculation. Tribadism includes the risks of frottage as well. There is almost no published research addressing the question of whether fingering is transmits STDs or not. However, common sense says it should be extremely low but still, fingering is not risk free from STDs. The usage of latex condoms does not completely eliminate the risks of STDs during mutual masturbation and other forms of sexual contacts as it is not 100% effective and there’s also the risk of developing latex allergies. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that while men with same-sex attraction make up only 2 percent of the total population, they accounted for 63% of all newly-diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases in 2010. Despite what gay activist would like to believe, HIV among msm seems to be increasing as in 2014, gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses (CDC). When into account that gays are about 1.6% or 2.3% (counting bisexuals) of the population, according to a recent survey done by the National Health Statistics Reports (2014), it can be concluded by using basic math that being gay drastically increases your chances of getting many illnesses. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 82.9% of all male syphilis cases and 61.2% of all syphilis cases in the US. In your article it was claimed that over time Homosexual’s ailments would become less common but it seems the opposite is happening as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention(2014) noted that the number of cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis is increasing among men and particularly the msm populace. A study done by Damien Stark(2007) resulted in indicating that MSM were more likely to have multiple parasites in their stool compared to non-MSM (43.5% versus 8%; P < 0.001). In a sexual health survey of MSM in Vancouver, 18% of men had been diagnosed with genital warts, 62% were infected with a strain of HPV, and screening for anal cancer detected abnormalities in 64% of HIV-positive men and 34% of HIV-negative men (suggesting anal cancer may be present). What’s more, it seems most homosexuals infected with HIV are unaware of their infection! A CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. Another study conducted by Marc Martí-Pastor,Patricia García de Olalla, and others (2015) concluded that an increase in cases of STIs was observed in 2015, most of which affected mainly msm. The Marc and Patricia’s study revealed that 66.8 % of the HIV cases were men who had sex with men (MSM), 45.5 % of the gonorrhea cases were MSM.74.2 % of the syphilis cases were MSM and 95.3 % of the LGV cases are MSM. Homosexuality increases the risk to HPV as shown by the statistics presented in the journal Cancer (2004): 60% of gay men without HIV, 90% of gay men with, have human papilloma virus infection in their anal canal. A study conducted n 2002 by Susanne L. Dibble and others concluded that lesbians are at a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. HPV (human papillomavirus) is common in WSW as HPV can be transmitted through skin to skin contact. A study published by the Gay and Lesbian Association concluded that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer. The lesbians that chose not to do the screenings do them for the same reasons straights chose not to. Since oral-genital sex is a frequent practice of women who have sex with women, genital herpes transmission with both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can occur. A National survey from 2001-2006, reported that 30% of women who reported having same-sex sexual contact in the past year, had positive blood tests for HSV-2. This finding is contrasted with women who report no same-sex sexual contact, among whom 24% had positive blood tests for HSV-2. Other diseases abundant in homosexuals include: Hepatites A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Proctitis, HSV, BV, HEP B, Giardia lamblia, Amebiasis, and mental disorders. The tendency of gay men to acquire many of these plethora of diseases, contrary to what most gay activists suggest, isn’t due to discrimination as public acceptance of gay/lesbian relations as morally acceptable grew slowly but steadily from 38% in 2002 to 56% in 2011 and is now holding at the majority level; the problems with the American LGBT community aren’t also due to lack of knowledge about ‘safe’ homosexual sex practices as since 2013 in The Real Education For Healthy Youth Act, an act that promotes homsosexual sex education by providing federal fund solely to programs that educate about ‘safe’ homosexual sex partners, has been in place. Also, there have been numerous LGBT education programs receiving federal funding before and many school districts teaching about safe homosexual sex education that date back prior the 2013. On the web there’s also a plethora of websites that cover safe gay sex available to homosexuals of any age, when you write the word ‘safe gay sex’ on Google you will get 36,100,000 results many of which cover on ‘safe’ gay sex practices with tips. So, it can be concluded that the many illnesses present on the homosexual community are more due to the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexuality per se rather than due to discrimination or lack of homosexual sex education. Homosexuality is asexual behavior, not a characteristic like a skin color, and when looking at all this statistics we can determine that homosexuality is a harmful sexual behavior such as smoking is a harmful behavior.

3# Children of gays parents do as well as those of straights

Children raised by homosexual parents don’t fare as well. Studies that indicate that children from homosexual households fare as well as those with heterosexual parents are fallacious. Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. They have also used selective recruiting instead of using random samples. And usually the reports are given by the parents instead of the kids themselves. Studies that prove kids under the care of same sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents include: Regnerus(2012), Allen(2013), and Sullins(2015). Most of these studies have random samples with numbers that are representative of the children raised in same sex households.

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

there's evidence that shows intervention to change ones' sexualities are actually pretty successful.Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).
In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).
Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:
Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:
Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004). Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation. These studies are not mere speculation as they have numbers to back up their results. These studies are more than enough proof that homosexuality can be changed.

#faggots #gay #homosexuality #homosexuals #lesbian #religion #statistics #yaoi #yuri #antigay #boyslove #homophobe #homophobia #lgbt #misconception #myths #science #study #truths #boys_love
Once again God is right and humans are wrong.

Rep. Troy Mader (R-Gillette, WY) #fundie trib.com

From “The Death Sentence of AIDS: Vital Information For You and Your Family’s Health and Safety,” copyright 1987, compiled and edited by T.R. Mader. Mader is now a Republican member of the Wyoming House, representing Campbell County. All quotes are direct excerpts from the book.

• Page 135: “Mandatory Testing must be required for the entire population…”

• Page 136: “Sex Education was attempted during World War II in response to syphilis. The result was the highest incidence of syphilis cases in the United States. It did not work then nor will it work now.”

• Page 162:-163 “The spread of AIDS into the general population of the United States is assumed to have come about by: A. Homosexuals who purposely infected women to pass AIDS infection into the straight population. B. Bisexual men who participated in homosexual acts, became infected and then passed it on to wives, lovers, prostitutes and most off-spring born after infection….”

• Page 180: “There is not a constitutional right to practice homosexuality.”

• Page 180: “Many homosexuals demand the right to kill themselves with the AIDS virus and to kill others by infecting them.”

• Page 180: “Many homosexuals demand the right to have sexual acts with children of any age, including infants.”

• Page 180: “All sexual practices of homosexuals must cease…”

• Page 180: “Most attacks on homosexuals are covered up by the media.”

• Page 190: The media attacks “any action that they feel would be harmful to their cause of protecting homosexuals, promiscuity, etc.”

• Page 207: “Homosexuals have very strong, well-financed political activists who are constantly attempting to get legislation passed in favor of homosexual/lesbian rights.”

• Page 207: “Congress has many members that are sympathetic to the homosexual cause.”

• Page 207: “There are admitted homosexuals in congress as well as in many other branches of government.”

• Page 209: “A homosexual can reform if he wants to, it is just that most homosexuals do not want to change.”

• Page 210: “They (liberals and the liberal press) advocate national suicide for the ‘rights’ of a few.”

[...]

The Star-Tribune asked Mader whether he still thinks everyone should get tested.

“You’re asking the wrong person,” he said. “That’s what the experts recommended at the time. I will say this: I haven’t seen anything to refute their statements at the time. Again, that was 30 years ago. I have researched a lot of issues over the years. I am not up to speed on all the issues the experts said back then.”

System Resistance Network #fundie thelionrises.org

Homosexuality, faggotry, sodomy, whatever you want to call it, has been a blight on mankind for millenia.

There are 3 types of faggots;

Those who are born that way due to hormone fluctuations in the womb; therefore, a deformity.
Those who are turned that way due to abuse as a child; therefore, a mental illness.
Those who pursue it as fetish; therefore, a sexual degeneracy.
All are simply degenerate and must be purged from society for the greater good. Let us look at the statistics. These will shock and horrify you.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times as likely to be molested, and children in the care of lesbians are ten (10) times as likely to be molested by their carers compared to children with normal parents.

This is clearly the most disgusting aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, with incestuous paedophilic tendencies being at a horrifyingly high level when compared to the normal population.

Children under the age of 16 are far more likely to turn out homosexual when sexually abused, showing how the rate of homosexuality has increased with the societal acceptance of faggotry allowing for these disgusting people to be near children. By stamping out paedophilia, we can cut down on the rate of homosexuality as one of the pathways to homosexuality is removed.

Children in the care of gay men are three (3) times more likely to identify with something other than the norm of heterosexuality, while children in the care of lesbians are four (4) times as likely. Continuing with the latter, children in the care of lesbians are 75% more likely to currently be in a same-sex relationship, while gay men result in the children being three (3) times as likely.

This is extremely concerning. This is all self-reported data specifically on children in the care of homosexual parents. This is not covering the data of homosexuals abusing children not in their care, and the influence the abuse will have on the mental health of the child.

By pushing for “equal rights”, which is a disgusting concept no matter the topic it is pushed upon, you are condemning countless children to a life of misery. The creation of homosexuals through child abuse by homosexuals will create more homosexuals due to knock-on effect of the abused becoming the abuser. Stamp out paedophilia, turn them into tree ornaments, put bullets through their skulls. Whatever it takes to protect our children and ensure they live happy lives.

As for those who are born “naturally” a.k.a. a birth defect, it is up to science and society to treat this. By shunning homosexuality and making them run from the streets and sodomy venues back into their homes, they will do less damage on the surface. But they must still be eradicated entirely. Hormone therapy corresponding with their sex, e.g. testosterone for male homosexuals, could be an option to treat their deformity.

Then finally, for the fetishists, they are nothing but purely hedonistic degenerates. Society must reform to shun this ill-minded lot. Bring back shame into society, for shame is a powerful force to ensure the conformation to society’s standards and preventing moral decay.

As we all know, HIV/AIDS is rife among the homosexual community, especially involving gay men.

There is a sickening fetish known as “bugchasing” where gay men willingly become “pozzed” by a HIV-infected partner, or the HIV-infected deliberately infects an unwitting partner to give them the “gift” of HIV. Degeneracy knows no bounds with the faggot. Some of you may think “Well it’s their life, if they want to destroy it, so be it” but you are forgetting that in this nation of ours, our taxes go to the NHS which provides free treatment for these degenerates to continue living and infecting further sodomites. You are paying so these utterly degenerate scumbags can continue on with their disgusting fetishes, further destroying this already broken society.

The dominant exposure to HIV is among gay men, with 50% of the cases being from this category. 82% of HIV cases in Rossendale are a result of homosexuality, with 61% and 58% in Lancashire and Cheshire.

1.5% of the UK population identifies as homosexual, with 1.1% being gay men. 1.1% of the population is responsible for 50% of the HIV cases in the UK. This means that gay men are 90 times more likely to have HIV than a normal person.

Gay men are three (3) times more likely to use drugs, and six (6) times more likely to inject drugs compared to normal men.

Reported use of stimulants is approximately five (5) times higher among gay and bisexual men, with methamphetamine usage at fifteen (15) times higher.

Drug use among lesbians is four (4) times higher than among normal women, with a higher usage rate of cocaine, ecstasy (MDMA), amphetamines and ketamine.

These are just three sickening factors due to society’s acceptance of homosexuality. But we must not forget those who are pushing homosexuality upon Western nations. It is the System and the Jew that inhabits said System. Homosexuality is a symptom of the cause.

The Rabbis praise homosexual acceptance within White countries, but not within their own faith or within Israel.

The System appeals to this tiny percentage of the population, such as with the cash-strapped police force painting and decaling their vehicles with rainbow flags paid for through the “diversity fund”. Never forget that the System is infested with paedophiles in all parties. They protect each other to continue pursuing their abhorrent fantasies. The people shall never forget the betrayal to the nation and its children committed by these degenerates.

John Hydenius #fundie returnofkings.com

Study: Homosexuals And Bisexuals Are More Likely To Be Mentally Ill, Drug Abusers

It’s summer now, and in Sweden that means it’s pride parade season. One thing that’s different this year is that the very gay Milo Yiannopoulos is coming here to lead a parade on July 27th. The reason is that this particular parade will go through Tensta, a suburb comprised of mostly immigrants, a lot of them Muslim. We’ll see how that goes.

In other gay news: a new survey has found excess health problems in gays, lesbians and bisexuals. These groups reported more health problems than straight men and women.

More prone to smoking and heavy drinking

The study was done in the US, with nearly 69,000 participants. The National Health Interview Survey has been around for many years, but in 2013 and 2014 it included a question about sexual orientation for the first time.

The researchers conclude that gay, lesbian and bisexual adults “were more likely to report impaired physical and mental health, heavy alcohol consumption, and heavy cigarette use, potentially due to the stressors that (they) experience as a result of interpersonal and structural discrimination.”

The results show that lesbians, compared to heterosexual women, are 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians are also 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are more likely to indulge in heavy drinking and smoking. 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men reported at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 17 percent of heterosexual men.

In the case of women, about 22 percent of heterosexuals had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbians and about 46 percent of bisexuals.

Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, who worked with this study, thinks so-called “minority stress” may account for health differences between heterosexuals and gay, lesbian and bisexual people. He thinks bisexuals have it worse than the rest because they may not always be accepted by gay, lesbian and transgender communities.

Right off the bat, you know the researchers aren’t exactly unbiased in this matter, since they talk about “structural discrimination” of these minority groups in America, a country where they are constantly praised in the media and by the elites. But leaving that aside, their study does show some interesting results.

I can’t say that I’m surprised. There are many possible reasons why the LGB (and likely also T) community is having more psychological problems than heterosexuals. One reason could be that some people do treat them badly on account of them being so strange (there’s a reason why they’re called queers). If they insist on acting act out their weird sexual desires in public, it’s understandable that some will take offense to that.

Some might even go so far as to discriminate against them. A business owner with more traditional values might deny them service—for instance, refuse to be the host of a gay wedding. That could well cause the gay couple to feel distress. (Although I would say that that’s the business owner’s right in a free country.)

But I would argue that there are other factors that affect LGBT people’s mental health more than real life discrimination, which can’t be that common in Western countries. The fact that their situation is often described as a lot more bleak than it is, is something that surely must affect them in a negative way. If they’re constantly being told about how oppressed they are by white, cisgender men, and “the religious right” (but not Muslims, we can’t say that), then of course they’re gonna be worried about their safety and future.

In the same way, if you tell a black person enough times that the police are after him and want to shoot him to death, for nothing more than walking down the street, eventually he’s going to believe it and start resenting cops and society in general.

Why celebrate sexual deviance?

But there’s one other factor that I want to bring to this discussion. I’m not a scientist like Gilbert Gonzales, and I’m definitely going to sound like a prejudiced asshole saying this (although it wouldn’t be the first time), but I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Wrong in the sense that they weren’t created as they were supposed to be.

People are, like all animals, supposed to mate with each other, otherwise we wouldn’t still be here. Hence, we’re meant to be heterosexuals. Ergo, gays, lesbians and bisexuals were born with a faulty constitution. And since they’re faulty, it’s no wonder if that reflects on their mental condition.

I’m not saying that there’s necessarily something morally wrong with being gay, just that they’re a small minority of the populace for a reason. It’s not something we should encourage people to be—the results of the study presented above support that case.

Should someone feel pride over being born faulty? Should it be paraded around in the street like it’s something we should celebrate? Should we embrace a condition that impedes our species’ ability to survive? I’m not sure I can agree with that.

Philip Irvin #fundie wnd.com

[part of an article that claims to prove that one can't be born gay]

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of “born gay,” let’s talk about bisexuality. What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50 percent straight and 50 percent gay? Can’t someone also be a 60-40 bisexual or any other ratio? We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies” – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good relationship with one gender and a bad relationship with the other, can’t this “bisexual person” easily go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already seen that homosexual ideology says it’s not even possible to determine who is/is not homosexual, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2 percent gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

Also, if people are “born gay,” please explain whether pedophiles were born that way and if not, why is there such an insistence that their behavior must have been learned or chosen, but that of heterosexuals and homosexuals could not have been?

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don’t think about it. Homosexuality is about what a person does and not about what a person is.

United HealthCare #fundie rawstory.com

An insurer denied HIV medication to a gay man for allegedly “engaging in high-risk homosexual behavior.”

A letter from United HealthCare posted in a Facebook group for HIV awareness showed the insurer declined to pay for the man’s prescription for Truvada, which treats and reduces the risk of HIV infection and would cost up to $1,500 a month out of pocket.

“This decision is based on health plan criteria for Truvada,” the letter reads. “The information sent in shows you are using this medicine for engaging in High risk homosexual behavior.”

The insurer tells the man his plan covers Truvada only if used to treat HIV infection, reduce the risk from possible HIV exposure or potential HIV exposure for certain high-risk patients – but the man was told he didn’t fit any of those criteria.

The letter claims the decision falls under New York state law governing health care coverage — but HIV activist Jeremiah Johnson said that’s not true.

“This was a malicious attempt to discourage PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) uptake by people who need it most,” said Johnson, of the Treatment Action Group.

PrEP intervention, usually available as the oral medication Truvada, is manufactured by Gilead Sciences, Inc., which says the drug is among the most expensive they make.

Johnson said the man’s doctor appealed the coverage denial, and United HealthCare ultimately paid for the drugs — but he said the episode highlighted significant barriers to treatment.

Truvada must be ordered online and delivered by mail, which Johnson said was problematic for anyone trying to safeguard their privacy, and requires an intricate report filed four times a year by their physicians.

“This is an enormous barrier for some people,” he said.

United HealthCare has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Raw Story CEO John Byrne is the founder of Prevention Access Campaign, a nonprofit focused on improving education and access to biomedical HIV prevention, including PrEP, and United HealthCare covers Raw Story employees.

The PrEP intervention is used by up to 100,000 patients in the U.S., and can reduce the risk of HIV infection by 99 percent.

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.

Shelley Garland #sexist huffingtonpost.co.za

[Note: I initially assumed this to be satire, until I saw a follow up piece from the Huffington Post which indicated that this was quite serious.]

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.

It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (in particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof's terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.

Jonathan Van Maren #fundie lifesitenews.com

Alfred Kinsey was a pervert and a sex criminal

He is known as “The Father of the Sexual Revolution,” and if you’ve ever taken a university course on 20th century history, you’ll have heard his name: Alfred Kinsey.

Kinsey was not only the “father” of the Sexual Revolution, he set the stage for the massive social and cultural upheaval of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s with his 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Maleand his 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Much less talked about were his other disturbing “findings”—an in-depth study on the “sexual behavior” of children, as well as claims that nearly 10% of men had performed sex acts with animals (as well as 3.6% of women), and that this number rose to between 40-50% based on proximity to farms

Kinsey’s research portrayed people as amoral and sex-driven, and is credited as fundamentally changing the way our culture views sex.

But was he right?

To begin with, the integrity of much of his work has long since been called into question: among his questionable practices, Kinsey encouraged those he was working with to engage in all types of sexual activity as a form of research, misrepresented single people as married, and hugely over represented incarcerated sex criminals and prostitutes in his data.

But beyond this is the simple fact that Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.

For example, where did he get all of his data on the “sexual behavior of children”? The answer is nothing short of chilling. Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her ground-breaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to get his so-called research: "Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts. For example, “Table 34” on page 180 of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” claims to be a “scientific” record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.” Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for “orgasm” by Kinsey’s “technically trained” aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 “orgasms.” Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child “data” to prove children’s need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via “safe-sex” education. These data are also regularly used to “prove” children are sexual from birth."

The man heralded with enthusiasm by mainstream publications such as Timeand Life Magazine was nothing less than a monstrous facilitator of child-rape. In fact, he even went so far as to record children shrieking and thrashing in pain, passing out and convulsing as the result of the hellish abuse he was putting them through, as evidence of “orgasm”—especially for children who could not yet speak.

Kinsey’s so-called research was simply a quest to justify the fact that he himself was a deeply disturbed man. Dr. Reisman writes, “Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ Marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous ‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.”

Got that? The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children. His goal was not just to engage in scientific research in order to see where the data took him, but rather, as one of his prominent biographers Michael Jones notes, to launch a crusade to undermine traditional sexual morality. He did so to wild success—Kinsey’s influence on sex education and law in the Western world is absolutely staggering.

Some have claimed that even though Kinsey may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. This, too, proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman:

1. [Dr. Kinsey’s team] ‘forced’ subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man ‘married,’ reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”
It is crucially important that people become aware of the truth behind the Kinsey Reports.

Today’s pornified sex educators, legal experts, academics, and more disturbingly, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA pushing “inter-generational intimacy,” all use Kinsey’s work to justify their agendas and lend their causes scientific credibility.

Most people have no idea who Alfred Kinsey really was and how his so-called research was actually performed. I myself first heard of Alfred Kinsey in the first year of my history degree at university, where my professor announced that there “was no Sexual Revolution at all”—because the Kinsey Reports proved that people had been engaging in all sorts of bizarre and criminal sexual behaviors all along.

The real story is horrifying. It is stomach-churning. But it is also crucial that we know how, exactly, we got to this place in our culture of such sexual nihilism.

Ilana Mercer #fundie archive.today

But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world`s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.

During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world`s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men`s intelligence. The “Bell Curve“ of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women. They are, consequently, more likely to enjoy very high but suffer very low IQs.

The subjects in which so few women have demonstrated excellence require particularly high IQs. And women, so the theory goes, simply have fewer high IQs.

However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ—their median may be as much as five points above that of women. This means that there are even more high IQ men than women. At an IQ of 145 there are about ten men to one woman.

The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women`s mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men`s on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.

Lynn, working from his developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, demonstrates that while men do enjoy the aforementioned advantage, adults are, on average, equal in verbal ability, with one minor exception: women are better at spelling and foreign languages.
Women`s relatively scant accomplishments in the second half of the 20th century as quantified objectively by Murray certainly puts meat on the bones of Lynn`s findings.

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer?
In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul.

But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize.

I`m not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek`s dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Questions also surround this year`s choice for the most prestigious prize in medicine. I personally doubt whether Linda B. Buck`s olfactory discoveries warranted a Nobel (shared with Richard Axel). For example, this year`s Nobel winners in Chemistry—two Israelis and one American—appear to dwarf the Buck and Axel smell sensation.
Was the committee compelled perhaps to showcase at least one female scientist?

To overcome the shortage of women in male-dominated professions, some institutions are stacking the deck.

Statistician La Griffe du Lion has documented the campaign to make entry into engineering schools easier for women. To overcome the advantage that men have on the crucial mathematical reasoning sections of the admission tests, educational administrators are devising subtle ways to lower standards.

On a lighter note, look at the zany world of reality television—as presented in this scene from the first season of The Apprentice.
The task confronting the two competing teams was to refurbish and rent out two apartments. The team leaders—Katrina Campins and Troy McClain—were vying for the best apartment. Campins, tart and schoolmarm rolled into one, is a real estate “expert,” but is unsure which apartment is the better bet.

Although it is unclear to what avail, Campins decided that she and her rival would write down and then exchange their respective choices. Troy McClain, who had been watching her closely as she brainstormed (or infarcted) for the camera, smiled amiably and complied. When Campins opened McClain`s note, she went berserk. He had effortlessly outsmarted her: “I want what you want,” McClain had written.

Then and there he figured out how to claim the prized pick by picking the professional`s brain.

Of course, The Apprentice candidates constitute a restricted sample, chosen for a combination of looks and status.

Despite this, the disparities in character and cerebral agility between the men and the women could not be more glaring. An obviously déclassé act, the women would have been utterly risible if they were not so revolting.
I sincerely hope The Apprentice is not an accurate reflection of the crème de la crème of up-and-coming distaff America.

As a measure of woman, the Nobel Prize is depressing enough.

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

The relentless promotion of homosexuality by the liberal establishment is having its predictable effect:

'“We are seeing exploding epidemics,” warned Gottfried Hirnschall, who heads [the World Health Organization's] HIV department.

Infection rates are rising again among men who have sex with men — the group at the epicentre of AIDS pandemic when it first emerged 33 years ago, he told reporters in Geneva. …

In its new recommendations for combatting the HIV/AIDS pandemic, published Friday, the UN health agency therefore for the first time “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection”.

US authorities made the same recommendation in May."

This is equivalent to advising people to take Advil before smashing their fingers with a hammer. More constructive advice would be along the lines of: If you do not want to contract the horrific, lethal diseases associated with homosexual depravity, then don’t engage in it. But that message would run contrary to The Agenda.

"Taking pre-exposure prophylaxis medication, for instance as a single daily pill combining two antiretrovirals, in addition to using condoms, has been estimated to cut HIV incidence among such men by 20-25 percent, WHO said…"

Morality would cut it by about 100%.

The progressive establishment aggressively aggravates the problem by working to normalize behaviors that spread HIV, on the grounds that this allows greater access to healthcare, thereby facilitating the treatment of diseases that degenerates voluntarily bring upon themselves through homosexuality, intravenous drug use, prostitution, et cetera.

"Globally, transgender women [i.e., men pretending to be women] and injecting drug users, for instance, are around 50 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV, while sex workers have a 14-fold higher chance of getting infected, WHO said."

So you can see why we should normalize their lifestyles by decriminalizing and destigmatizing their vices, as WHO demands.

HIV and the AIDS it causes aren’t the only problems closely associated with homosexuality:

"Researcher Dale O’Leary, reporting in the prestigious Linacre Quarterly, says the problem of sexually transmitted diseases in the gay community is such that scientists are calling it not an epidemic or a pandemic but a “syndemic,” a linked set of health issues involving two or more afflictions acting in concert within a specific population. According to the medical literature, among men who have sex with men this includes syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV but also such pathologies as partner violence, drug abuse, and psychological disorders."

You could almost get the impression that the Bible has it right about homosexuality being inherently wrong.

It’s a good thing that despite all the promotion and special treatment associated with politically celebrated homosexual status, admitted homosexual/bisexuals still make up less than 3% of the US population, according to the very government that places top priority on imposing reverence for their potentially lethal brand of perversion.

jewish philosopher #fundie torahphilosophy.com

Straight Rights

[...]

Thousands of people are mourning the death of Mr Clementi, an 18 year old college student who committed suicide after being taunted about his homosexuality.

I wonder how many people are mourning the deaths of straight people infected with HIV by homosexual men.

Imagine for a moment that you had a twenty eight year old daughter. She is diagnosed with AIDS and tuberculosis and is expected to soon die. Her husband and her two small children, have tested HIV positive. Researching into this, it turns out that when she was 18, your daughter had unprotected sex with an 18 year old boy. That boy unknown to her was HIV positive after having had unprotected anal sex with a man who, unknown to the boy, was HIV positive. Such tragedies can and do happen in America and Europe today.

If we would follow the Torah's commandment to put to death any man who has anal sex with another man, those tradegies could be prevented.

Mjolnir Hammerschlag #fundie mediaite.com

Sure we have. You're just in denial.

For starters, millions have died due to that disease which was once called GAY RELATED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY or GRID), because only Gays got it.

But homosexual activists screamed about 'stigma' and it was changed. Plus, it became clear that homosexuals were also infecting the Normal community through the vectors of them donating blood, sharing infected needles and not telling hetero females that you were also taking it up the poop chute too.

And then there are the thousands of little boys raped by homosexual pederasts. The rate of child sexual assault for homosexuals is far above that of hetero perverts (the ones assaulting underage little girls).

Homosexuals make up 2 percent of the population, yet commit between 25 to 40 percent of all the kiddie-raping. Researchers think that the rate must be even higher, since it is a very under-reported crime.

Look for how long molesting had been taking place in the Church, Boy Scout and Sandusky scandals before they came to light.

There are MILLIONS of reasons why homosexuality is wrong. It is deviant, diseased, deadly and especially dangerous to children.

... you just don't want to admit it.

MasterAmazon #fundie masteramazon.blogspot.com

I like all kinds of Dykes, every kind…well, I do have my preferences, but at least I know another Dyke(whose out loud and proud) will completely understand my sexuality in a way a bisexual woman cannot. She will always be holding back on some level, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. If she is also sexual with men, I don’t want whatever beautiful Lesbian energy I share with her or put into her, to then go directly to men, or for her to talk about our most intimate experiences with some dude..then I feel psychically ripped off. I’ve had my share of bisexual women, and even though all the sexacts may be the same, the magic of those acts are not…cuz only another Dyke ‘gets’ me. She is willing to be in the trenches with me when push comes to shove. She’s not likely to flirt with a dude, or give a dude energy. A bisexual woman very likely would. Another Dyke knows what daily Dyke oppression is like, from hetero males, to straight women who fear us…a bisexual walks between the two worlds. She can marry her man, while still fucking women….for the most part, with few exceptions and few states, and some countries, we cannot, or even if we do, our marriages won’t be well recognized and heap us with the privileges heteros and even bisexuals take for granted. Also, she can go back into the hetero world with all it’s privileges and be legitimate, or seen as legitimate and keep her bisexuality on the ‘downlow’. Less than. Second fiddle. Us Dykes don’t have that luxury, no matter which corner of the Dyke communities we come from . We’re still pariahs. She can bail and go back to hetero privilege by taking up with a man, or even single expressing desire for a dude, when the going gets rough.

sobercommunist #fundie sobercommunist.tumblr.com

Why exactly is it ok to not tell your partner you're hiv+? I mean... you can give it to them. I'm not arguing with you btw I'm sure there's a good reason I just want to know what it is.


there are multiple issues with “omg you MUST disclose your HIV status or you’re evil!” Number one, I actually can’t give HIV to a partner, because I have an undetectable viral load and high CD4s. Even without barrier protection, I am not a transmission risk. The medical community has been aware that antiretroviral treatment prevents transmission since 2008, but because of political concerns, HIV stigma, and homophobia, this fact has not been widely promoted in the public.

It also indicates a level of complacency on the part of the person saying it. Your sexual health is your responsibility as much as it is your partner’s, and the people who are high-risk for transmission are people unaware of their HIV infection, i.e. people who believe they are HIV-negative. In communities where HIV is a reality, the only responsible thing to do is to treat all potential partners as if they are HIV+ and unaware, rather than to take anyone at their word (get on PrEP!!!)

The reality is, it is SAFER to have sex with a partner who is aware of their HIV status and managing their infection than it is someone who belives they are negative (and how often is that person getting tested? Be honest, how often do YOU get tested?).

It also paints HIV+ people in an unfair, predatory light. Most sex is non-transmissible. Most HIV+ people are decent human beings (lurid exaggerated news stories aside). If an HIV+ person engages in oral sex (one of those non-transmissible sex acts) without disclosing, why does it matter? Why are the irrational, medically-inaccurate stigmatizing fears of HIV-negative people given overwhelming precedence over the well-being of poz people?

Do I think is is “ok” to withold your status, or to lie about it? Not really. It is not nearly as big a deal as it is made out to be, but honesty is still better than dishonesty. After all, you never know when a hook-up might turn into a relationship, and “so I know you thought I was negative when we met” is a messy, un-fun conversation.

The TERFs who insist that non-disclosure=rape are unaware of any of this, and they don’t care so they can burn, but that’s the long and short of it.

Tags: #Hiv #serophobia #terf

Unknown man #fundie dailymail.co.uk

(This happened in 2013)

A man who infected his teenage girlfriend with HIV then urged her to 'sleep around' to spread the virus was jailed for four-and-a-half years today. The 32-year-old hid the fact he was HIV positive from the girl, who was only 16 when they met. She only discovered she was infected with the virus when she went for a hospital appointment, by which time the couple had a one year old son.

Once the girl knew she was infected, the man urged her to sleep with other people so they wouldn't be alone in having HIV. The court heard that as well as the teenager, the man had unprotected sex with three other women, playing 'Russian Roulette' with their lives. One, in her 20s, was later diagnosed with HIV. The other two women were tested, but found not to have been infected.

The 'callous' man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, denied inflicting grievous bodily harm between 2006 and 2008 but was found guilty following an eight-day trial at Leicester Crown Court. He was jailed for four and a half years and given a 10-year anti-social behaviour order which bans him from having penetrative sex with anyone without disclosing to them that he is HIV positive. If he breaches the order, which includes protected sex, he can be jailed for up to five years.

The Zimbabwean immigrant - who has indefinite leave to remain in the UK - met the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in 2006. She told jurors that a few months into the relationship, he suggested they try for a baby. She told the court she was 'surprised' and thought she was 'too young' but agreed because she was in love with him. They moved in together after she fell pregnant, but the man soon became 'violent and aggressive'.

The woman, now in her 20s, said that after she went back to college following the birth of a son, he would often bring girls to their home while she was out, claiming they were 'just friends'. But when their child was a year old, the man started showing signs of a sexually transmitted infection - which he blamed on her 'cheating'. The couple went to hospital for tests and doctors asked the woman if she was aware her partner was HIV positive. She broke down as she told the court how she was tested for the virus - and the following day was given the devastating news that she too had it. Their son was also checked - but his result was negative.

The woman, who gave evidence from behind a screen told the court: 'I was very surprised and puzzled because I had been living with this man for two years and he never mentioned it at all to me.

'He said he had told me, and I said "No, you did not"’. 'That is something that is so important. He didn’t seem fazed by it. It did not surprise him.' The woman, whose dreams of becoming a midwife were wrecked by the diagnosis, said she managed to forgive him as their son 'needed two parents'. It was during this time that the man asked her to 'sleep around and give it to other people'. The woman wept as she told a jury how he ‘believed he should spread the HIV as he hadn’t done anything wrong to get it’.

She said: 'This was so it would not just be us that were HIV positive. 'He believed that he had done nothing wrong or anything to get the virus. He believed he should not have the virus so he should spread it.' Throughout the trial, the man claimed he had told all his partners that he was HIV positive. A charge of GBH relating to the other woman he infected was thrown out after judge Michael Pert QC ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove sex with the man was the only way she could have caught the disease.

Sentencing, Judge Michael Pert QC told the man: 'You found out in 2004 that you were HIV positive. 'You were very angry and bitter about that. You were then utterly selfish and irresponsible and, in that sense, a dangerous man.' Rebecca Herbert, prosecuting, said: 'Few women in their right minds, let alone two or, indeed, four of them, would have unprotected sex with a man with HIV.

'He’s been utterly selfish, showing callous disregard and recklessness towards them and their wellbeing. 'Having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive is a bit like Russian Roulette. You might be lucky and might not get it - or you might.'

Pat Robertson #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson railed against a supposed “left-wing bias” in the media, the entertainment industry, and academia, lamenting that gays and lesbians have “infiltrated” such institutions and are now using them to dominate society.

“We have given the ground to a small minority,” he said. “You figure, lesbians, one percent of the population; homosexuals, two percent of the population. That’s all. That’s statistically all. But they have dominated—dominated the media, they’ve dominated the cultural shift and they have infiltrated the major universities. It’s just unbelievable what’s being done. A tiny, tiny minority makes a huge difference. The majority—it’s time it wakes up.”

Robertson shared that he is working with actor Kevin Sorbo on taking back the culture: “So what are you gonna do? Kevin Sorbo brought me some scripts so I just finished reading some scripts. I got one that I think would make a pretty good movie. I’m going to talk to Kevin to see what he thinks. We gotta make some more movies.”

Bob Livingston #conspiracy easyhealthoptions.com

The germ theory of disease is a hoax created by Louis Pasteur and latched onto and perpetuated by establishment medicine.

It is the belief that disease or sickness is spread by germs or viruses outside the body. The germ theory opens the way to impose millions of drug concoctions upon the people. Don’t we realize that this notion implies that every illness or sickness is drug-dependent?

Germ theory has been promulgated upon us for so long by establishment medicine and the propaganda media that there can no longer be serious inquiry into the nature of infections and the ways to prevent them. But like the “97 percent consensus” surrounding anthropogenic global warming, the germ theory is a notion of nonsense that has confused millions of people, enriched the pharmaceuticals and empowered a growing medical police state.

The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other national health bureaucracies, along with a compliant propaganda media, have conditioned the modern mind to equate medicine with health and germs with disease. So to prevent us from becoming sick, conventional wisdom holds, we must treat ourselves beforehand with drugs (vaccines) to kill the “bad germs” in advance. And once we become sick, we must treat ourselves with more drugs to kill the germs that overcame the vaccines we administered to prevent us from becoming sick in the first place.

As I noted in “Doctors fret over future of drugs as antibiotic overuse creates antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs,’” the overuse of antibiotics in our food (by inoculating the poultry and livestock) and the over-prescription of antibiotics by doctors to their patients has created ever more prevalent and ever more deadly “superbugs” resistant to known antibiotics.

But even worse, the overuse of antibiotics is damaging our health by also destroying the germs and microbes the human body must have to stay healthy. That’s because antibiotics don’t differentiate one germ or microbe from another. They attack them all.

Now a new study published in the journal “Atherosclerosis” demonstrates that even the so-called “bad germs” are necessary for good health.

According to the study, measles and mumps infections were associated with decreased risks of mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is also evidence indicating that a higher number of infections lowers the overall mortality rate from cardiovascular disease.

The study in Japan followed 43,689 men and 60,147 women aged 40-79 beginning in 1988-1990 and followed them until 2009. It found that men who had a history of measles showed an 8 percent reduction in total CVD; and those with mumps had a 48 percent reduction in mortality from stroke, a 79 percent reduction in mortality from hemorrhagic stroke. Men with a history of both measles and mumps showed a mortality reduction of 20 percent in total CVD, 29 percent for myocardial infarction and 17 percent for total stroke.

Women with both infections showed comparable reductions, including 15 percent reduction in mortality from total CVD, 21 percent for total stroke, and 22 percent for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. The study concluded that “Measles and mumps, especially in case of both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic CVD.”

Measles was once a joke disease and considered a rite of passage for American youth. But that was before the medical cartel and propaganda media went to work on the American public to create an irrational fear of normal childhood diseases.

Vaccines and other chemical cocktails reduce and inhibit natural immunity, making us more susceptible to a host of diseases. During the so-called “measles outbreak” connected to the Disney theme park in 2014 it was found that most of those who contracted the measles had been previously vaccinated with the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Studies are also showing that more flu shots make people more susceptible to the flu.

We are told and intimidated by medical propaganda over and over that we must be protected internally from diseases that originate in the external environment. What the establishment does not tell us is that when we are healthy, we have peak immunity and can walk and live among sick people and not get sick.

DonReynolds #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

By my observation, Vox, the women who would appear to have the least to fear from possible rape are often the women who fret the most. No doubt this feminist is yet another example of this observation. Of course, what goes unmentioned in this rant is the fact that lesbians love to attend feminist functions and a good many of the so-called "feminists" are not femme at all but simply man-hating diesel dykes. They come to the feminist get togethers hoping to snare an unsuspecting bisexual or hetero slut. No mention is made of lesbian rape. It is only the men who do that. But I do appreciate you pointing out that girls who hang at the club and tease the Blacks and Hispanics are likely to get what they want most. The alcohol helps, but they lied....you still remember the indiscretion later....so there is that annoying regret and the dark realization that abortion is not actually free.

Rectal Statistics Award

For excellence in pulling numbers out of one's ass

apostalism #fundie apostalism.tumblr.com

Homosexuals are…
- 3% of the population
- 55% of HIV carriers
- 82% of syphilis cases
- 20% of HBV cases
- 37% of anal cancer
- 78% have had an STD

Of children raised by gay parents…
- 92% are abused
- 51% have depression
- 72% are obese

Data from:
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
D. Paul Sullins, “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” Depression Research and Treatment, vol. 2016, Article ID 2410392, 8 pages, 2016. doi:10.1155/2016/2410392

Ricardo Duchesne #racist eurocanadian.ca

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

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

What Kerry Jang is saying is a historical fabrication.

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

Chinese Millionaire Migrants

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

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

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

Institutional Racism in China

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

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

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

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

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

Extermination of Ethnic Minorities in China

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

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

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

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

Mike King #conspiracy realhistorychannel.org

The following interview with an investigative journalist (a real one) named Harry Vox (Harry Stuckey) took place during the EbolaMania scare of 2014. Vox had gotten hold of a 2010 document authored mainly by "futurologist" Peter Schwartz and published by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was titled, "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development" -- in which the various scenarios for today's CoronaMania are clearly and "prophetically" spelled out. The report amounts to a classic textbook example of how "elite" members of the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) inform the lower tiers of their club with a wink-wink as to what will be coming in the near future.

One of the sections -- referred to as a "scenarios" -- is titled, "Lock Step." Sub-titled: A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen push-back.” The scenario -- written in past tense format for literary effect -- states:

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months…”

.... The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.”

Sound familiar? Then the "scenario" gets really freaky:

“During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

******************

Wake up, people! We are the sheep and the conspiratorial PRC operatives are the ravenous wolves. Do you actually believe that an elitist wolf actually gives a rat's ass about about your health? Seriously?

In the name of "safety," the Globalist PRC is using what is essentially a common cold to destroy Donald Trump and swindle us out of our liberties, our livelihoods, our countries, and -- by way of the deliberate sedation overdoses now being wildly administered to helplessly locked-down seniors under the cover of COVID -- our very lives! If the YouTube video posted below doesn't rattle a few brain cells among the normies in your circle, then perhaps nothing will.

Anonymous #conspiracy whale.to

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.

When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.

At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The homosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.

disruptor #conspiracy christianforums.net

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.

When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.

At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The homosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.

Rom. 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Some Quotes on the Non-Existence of HIV:

"Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry 1993 and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, needed a reference for "the generally known fact" that HIV was the cause of AIDS. While working on a project he became aware that he didn´t know a scientific reference for the statement he had just written down: HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. So he asked the next virologist at the table after that basic paper. The virologist told Mullis, he wouldn´t need a reference in this case; after all, everyone knows that HIV leads to AIDS. Kary Mullis disagreed and thought such an important discovery should be published in some paper. He learnt soon that it was impossible to find such a paper." Claus Kohnlein.

"Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.......It is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained. They concluded: "the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined". Stefan Lanka.

http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html

disruptor #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.

When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.

At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The h*mosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.

IamRedeemed #fundie christianforums.com

Guess you weren't "listening" when you read the OP. Please read it again, and
understand it for the facts within it, and come out from under the mushroom
and into reality. This should be a health concern for everyone and should not
be a political or personal matter.

Straight people do not give aids to other straight people.
This is not a recorded fact whatsoever. If a "straight person" gives another
"straight person" HIV, then one of them isn't exactly straight,
or engaged in sexual activity with another who wasn't exactly straight
unless one of them is a victim of tainted blood.

Homosexual males are the source of HIV/AIDS.

If you don't like the factual data, take it up with the
Health Dept. and the Center for Disease Control.

No sexual immorality/fornication/adultery which is ALL sex outside the
covenant marriage between a man and a woman as ordained by God is
good for society on a whole. That is why God said, FLEE sexual immorality.
(or fornication-same thing)

1 Corinthians 6:18-20
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body; but he
that commits fornication sins against his own body.

19What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which
is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own?
20For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's.

If any of us here claim to have been washed in the blood of Jesus and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, then we need to pay particularly close attention to verses 19-20 as they absolutely apply to us who bear His name. So, we need to change our ways, or change our name. We cannot serve two masters, just as Jesus said. We will love the one and despise the other or vice versa. (or hey I know! create a new Jesus...but no that one, the one created by the minds of men, who choose not to walk in the light, cannot save a flea much more a soul)

sobercommunist #fundie sobercommunist.tumblr.com

But seriously, ask anybody who’s HIV positive, they’ll tell you they aren’t offended that someone doesn’t wanna go out with them, let alone sleep with them.

I remember in one class my teacher invited one of her friends who was diagnosed with HIV in the 80’s. He talked about how it’s always difficult, but he always feels it necessary to confess to whatever girlfriend/boyfriend on 2nd or 3rd date. Most of the time he tells them it’s okay to not be willing to go out with him. He also talked about how he has rarely ever had sex, and almost never willing to sleep with someone. So honestly, people who actually have HIV don’t think people who have a completely natural fear of disease are scum.


This is such a fucking lie. You think that because you had one fucking dude who was diagnosed at a time when HIV was actually a death sentence tell you “oh it’s totally OK that I never get to have sex and that people constantly reject me,” you can speak for the entire HIV+ community? Fuck you.

The prospect of never getting to date or have sex is deeply fucking hurtful to HIV+ people. It’s so hurtful that a significant minority of poz people refuse to sleep or date anyone who isn’t poz, because the ignorance is too much to handle.

And the kicker is that the NEG4NEG attitude does fuck-all to actually protect anybody, because most transmissions occur due to one person having an undetected HIV infection and an out-of-control viral load. You dumbfucks cluck about disclosure and how NEG4NEG is “just playing it safe!” and ignore the fact that for many, many HIV+ people there wasn’t even the possibility of disclosure, because the person who infected them did not know they were HIV+.

Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

Linda Cebrian #fundie rhobserver.com

It started as a plea for societal tolerance. Over 40 years later, it has become a demand for advocacy – by minor children.

On April 19, student members of pro-homosexual clubs in public high schools may remain silent for the entire school day to entreat sympathy for students affected by same-sex attraction and/or gender confusion. This “day of silence” seeks to promote the LGBTQ image as normative adolescent sexual development, thus encouraging a “gay” identity at an early age. Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports the cold fact that 2 percent of the U.S. population engaged in homosexual sodomy in 2010, resulting in 62 percent of all new HIV cases that year.

Schools and parents who allow this event are doing a disservice to our youth. “LGBTQ” is not ontological. No one is born/created that way. Does it make sense to advocate for a lifestyle choice proven to shorten one’s lifespan?

Interestingly, as this “day of silence” stumps for sexual minorities, it does not acknowledge or affirm former homosexuals. So Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays has developed a handbill for students and their parents promoting recognition of ex-gays. (http://pfox.org/school_resources_handout.pdf)

Linda Cebrian
Rhinebeck

BlackHomophobicAtheists #fundie debate.org

1. Homophobes opposed gay bath houses. The police began to shut down gay bath houses in which led to the Stonewall Riots. Gays were able to keep the gay bath houses open in the name of rights.

Gay bathhouses turned out to be HIV distribution centers in which profoundly contributed to one of the worst STD epidemics in human history.

2. During the early days of HIV when only a few gays were infected, homophobes warned gays to stop having gay sex. Gays refused to stop having gay sex and as a result, the HIV epidemic switched into a mass epidemic and ended up killing thousands of gays and innocent victims who were receiving blood donations. Hiv eventually spreaded to the heterosexual community by bisexuals.

3. During the gay marriage battle, homophobes warned gay supporters that gays are too promiscuous to get married. A study by CDC shows the majority of HIV infecrions are happening within serious, gay committed relationships in which obviously includes gay marriages. According to the study, gay marriage influences unsafe sex.. the problem is, it doesn't guarantee loyalty.. Therefore, gay marriage is increasing HIV infection among gay men among gay men.

In conclusion, if gays had have obeyed homophobes, they would have shut down the gay bath houses in which would have saved thousands of gay men's lives because many of them would have not contracted HIV. During the early stages of HIV, if gays had have obeyed homophobes, they would have stopped having gay sex so many gays who died from HIV in the 80's would be still alive. During the gay marriage battle, homophobes warned gay supporters that gays are too promiscuous to get married. Gay marriage increases the risk of contracting HIV because gay marriage influences unsafe sex but it does not guarantee loyalty.

Derryck Green #fundie derryckgreen.com


All Christians Should Support Capital Punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Derbyshire #fundie vdare.com

Asians, East and South Asians, comprise about twenty percent of New York City high-school freshmen. Whites are around ten percent. Sun People—blacks and Hispanics—are seventy percent.

At the elite high schools admitting via the SHSAT exam Asians are 62 percent overall. Once again: They are twenty percent of the relevant population, 62 percent of those passing the SHSAT.

At Stuyvesant, the most popular of the specialized high schools, Asians are 73 percent (whites twenty percent, Sun People seven percent). Brooklyn Tech—which, by the way, Mayor de Blasio's son attended, is a mere 61 percent Asian (and again twenty percent white). Queens High School for the Sciences is seventy-six percent Asian.

Staten Island Tech bucks the trend somewhat. It's only 41 percent Asian, 52 percent white, seven percent Sun People. Yet more diverse is the High School of Math, Science, and Engineering up in Harlem: a paltry 37 percent Asian, 25 percent white, 38 percent Sun People.

They spoil the effect somewhat though by having a larger-than-average sex imbalance: seventy percent guys, thirty percent gals. The average for the specialized high schools is more like sixty-forty. Obviously some really flagrant discrimination going on there.

The local politics on this issue is getting pretty rancorous. June 10th there was a big demo outside City Hall: Asians—well-nigh all East Asians, to judge from the news pictures—protesting de Blasio's plan to scrap the SHSAT. Taking on those Tiger Moms, Comrade Bill, you're looking for trouble. [Protesters gather at City Hall to oppose de Blasio’s no-test plan, By Gina Daidone and Bruce Golding, NY Post, June 10, 2018]

For people who don't mind facing the realities of human nature, the two takeaways here are:

* One, the folly of mass non-European immigration—what elsewhere I have referred to as importing an overclass;

* Two, race and sex realism.

Importing An Overclass: To import an overclass is to invite resentment and disharmony. How is this not obvious?

Race and Sex Realism: On the second point, the truly depressing thing is how far outside the boundary of acceptable commentary race and sex realism remain.

Men and women display, in the statistical generality, different inclinations and preferences. The human races, again in the statistical generality, profile differently on intelligence, personality, and characteristic behaviors.

None of this is astounding or outrageous; it's just basic biology.

Yet these truths are unmentionable. Even sensible, well-informed commentators—people as based as you can be while holding a job writing for Main Stream Media publications—steer clear of them.

Erothos #sexist incels.co

Lesbianism is a mental illness.

Lately there's a great influx of lesbian characters in interactive movie type video games like Life is Strange, Last of Us and now The Walking Dead. These kinds of games have quite a big female population.

What is this? I mean female promiscuity is not only accepted by most ''dudebro'' types and other guys love seeing them in ''action'' but these games are pushing it a level further. The girls ''ain't need no man'' and usually mock and put down men. It's conditioning women into genuine lesbianism which is fucked because if they don't leave their gay little phase quick enough they turn irredeemable hate roasts who harbour resentment at their rejection from the male sex.

According to the CDC Sexual Violence Survey 67,4% of lesbian women encounter abuse by their partner, the second most, apart from bisexual women. Seeing as heterosexual females encounter less abuse than lesbian women it's safe to say bisexual women are being abused by their female counterparts.
Lesbians also hold resentment towards bisexual women and most bisexual women allegedly end up in straight relationships.
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58c1a38be4b054a0ea68e31c/amp
https://www.google.nl/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/05/04/over_80_percent_of_bisexuals_end_up_in_straight_relationships_why.html

Female promiscuity is historic. Men have always preferred bisexual women to straight women because it both makes cuckoldry (bearing another man's child) unlikely because the women can fuck and cheat with other women and because a harem getting along means your children have more moms to support them.

This idea comes from a ''controversial'' study (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-20776-001[url]) that the gay community and the media are pretty pissed about ([url]https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/male-scientist-claims-lesbianism-evolved-because-men-like-it-gay-community-disagrees/).

(Note how they describe him as a male scientist as if that has any impact on the study. Pavlov not being a dog apparently makes his study invalid.)

What I'm building up to is that dykes are the female equivalent of incels that have an easier time hooking up because of their sexual promiscuity and are treated like a victimized group on account of the fact they're technically operating in love, gays have been persecuted before, and dudebros idealise lesbianism in porn and games.

Lesbians are, indeed, failures, it turns out.
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/attractive-women-more-likely-to-be-100-heterosexual-claims-new-study-10470599.html%3famp
Theyre not all Malena Morgan and Eufrat, most of them are fucking rejects and otherwise female incels.

What I am recommending is to stop the brainwash of the female youth into thinking lesbianism is hot and positive when it'll bring them misery, and to stop the brainwash of ourselves that's driven by our prehistoric drive to fuck.
Do not consume lesbian media.
Do not consune lesbian porn.
Spread awareness if you can about the negative effects of lesbianism and suggest that lesbians are our counterpart.

I don't know how effective such a campaign would be but if lesbianism started being rejected by men (the majority of consumers of such media) maybe we can reclaim some women and rid ourselves of inceldom.

Not all of these lesbians are ugly misandryst dykes, some are actually redeemable.
image

fuzzylogic #fundie freerepublic.com

I make the argument that penicillin, while having saved millions, was the single biggest cause of sexual immorality on the planet. Things that used to be a death sentence were no longer a threat. I don’t believe the behavior rampant during the 60’s and 70’s would have happened if it didn’t exist.

Then HIV emerged in the 80’s. This was during my teenage years. It was terrifying, thinking that sex could kill you - while, historically, it had always been the case. The culture that surrounded you encouraged sex at every turn. While initially understood as a largely a ‘gay mans disease’ it was quickly repeated as ‘not so, anyone can get it’.

While true, the statistics reveal the larger truth. When a small percentage of the population has very risky sex with many people from the same small population, infections will spread like wildfire.

They do not behave, sexually, the same as the heterosexual population (in general). Now that the HIV virus can be controlled with new drugs, as penicillin did for bacteria based infections, they’re no longer afraid and transmission will skyrocket, being ‘safe’ is no longer a concern.

They are a petri dish for virus mutation. It is inevitable that a new virus will emerge that will be immune to current drugs. It is not an ‘if’ but a ‘when’. Every time a virus mutates you have a chance of it happening, their lifestyle is providing the environment for it to occur.

This isn’t ‘hate’, this is science. I only wish they would realize this. There are consequences to behavior, yet the only message they hear is that you’re a bigot to not affirm their lifestyle. There can only be one outcome.

Bob Livingston #conspiracy personalliberty.com

The germ theory of disease is a foolish hoax created by Louis Pasteur. It is a notion of nonsense that has confused millions of people and made billions for the pharmaceuticals with vaccines and tens of thousands of drugs or over-the-counter preparations. If one person in society should die of a “contagious disease,” the whole world population would expire.

Well, what about the flu epidemic shortly after World War I that killed 80 million people worldwide? According to the germ theory of disease, this flu should have killed everyone on earth. Of course, it didn’t and some people died in the same household where others did not. Why did this so-called “infectious disease” not infect the entire world population?

The answer is that disease is born of us and in us. If our immune system is strong and healthy, we could sleep with people dying with “contagious disease” and never even get sick. What a relief this is to know, but how difficult it is to get people to believe!

The germ theory of disease is nothing in the world but a commercial enterprise.

Disease comes from within. When the body is overly fatigued with excess stress, toxins and malnutrition, there is a breakdown of immunity.

A person’s nutritional status and hydration level is the prime determinant of health. Disease comes from within!

John Derbyshire #racist vdare.com

Part Two of my answer: Jews are white, Asians are not, and while any overclass is resented, a racially distinctive overclass is resented more than one that barely looks any different from the resenters.

Anti-Semites know this; that's why they put out drawings of the hunch-backed, hook-nosed cartoon Jew when they want to inflame anti-Jewish feeling. It makes the Jew plainly a different race.

Part Three of my answer: even under the current covert quotas, Asian Americans are enrolled at elite colleges in numbers far above their five percent share of the U.S. population.

Yes, they're being held down: on a strictly meritocratic basis their numbers would be much higher yet, because of the arithmetic of those distribution tails. Still, strictly measured by demographic proportionality, they're high.
So yes, we were importing an overclass a hundred years ago. Elite universities dealt with the issue by fudging and chicanery—just as they are dealing with this repeat performance.

There are some key differences, though. Jews are white, which makes things easier to fudge.

Also, the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is more verbal than visuo-spatial, leading to that dominance in the shaping of opinion.
Asian Americans, by contrast, are much more visible as a group. And their high IQ is more visuo-spatial than verbal, giving us more engineers and scientists, fewer writers, lawyers, comedians, movie and newspaper moguls.

But in both cases, non-Asian gentiles get squeezed. We un-squeeze blacks and Hispanics with Affirmative Action, but that just squeezes white gentiles even more.
Under our current state ideology, the orthodox approach to that hovers somewhere between "Who cares?" and "Serve them right!"

Whether that ideology can be sustained going forward through the 21st century, is an interesting question.

Second point main point raised by readers: any merit-based immigration system imports an overclass.

I agree. Consider for example India. The mean IQ of that country is 82. The mean IQ of Indians in the U.S.A., on the other hand, is 106—higher than the mean for white gentile Americans.

So there's an overclass we've imported … from a low-IQ population.

The same applies to Africa. The mean IQ in black Africa is 70, which is very low. Assuming a normal distribution with mean 70 and standard deviation 15, Microsoft Excel tells me that only 0.0032 percent of the population is higher than 130 IQ.

That's a teeny-tiny percent; but there are an awful lot of black Africans: 1.2 billion is the latest number I've seen. Point zero zero three two percent of 1.2 billion is 38,000. Every one of those 38,000 very-smart Africans is applying for a U.S. student visa.
Caribbean blacks are, for complicated reasons, somewhat smarter than black Africans. Add them into the mix and we're importing a small black overclass.
Is this something we should be bothered about? We-e-ell … there are contrary factors to consider.

Under the present regime of chain migration, for example, all those smart Indians and Africans can bring in their way-less-smart siblings, brides, parents, and even cousins. You could argue that long-term that evens out the mix.

There's also regression to the mean. The offspring of these high-IQ immigrants will regress towards their population mean — although not all the way to it, or else Natural Selection wouldn't work. Given the likelihood of assortative mating, in fact — smart immigrants marrying other smart people — regression all the way back to the population mean is highly improbable, even after many generations.

So, no, this is not a great issue. It is an issue, though — an issue that lurks behind all the happy talk about a merit-based system of immigration.

The first time America imported an overclass, we did so accidentally. When that Great Wave of Ashkenazi Jews came in after 1881, we had only the vaguest ideas about population differentials in intelligence and personality. Psychometry as a quantitative science was just getting started.

Now we understand much more, and can make better decisions. If we import a new overclass today, we'll be doing it deliberately. We know enough to not do it.

And any overclass we import now will be nonwhite. That follows just from the balance of races in the world being much different than it was 100 years ago.

If you're a nonwhite who doesn't like white people, you are fine with that. If you're a white person living in one of the globalist-bubble districts — big coastal cities, college towns — you may think it's no big deal, we can all get along.

The rest of us are shaking our heads.

Gardendale #racist theroot.com

A judge told a mostly white suburb near one of the blackest cities in the country that—after reviewing all of the facts—she believed the town’s request to separate itself was motivated by race. She stressed that the move could encourage feelings of racial inferiority among the district’s black students. The judge chastised the white citizens for trying to minimize school desegregation laws. Then, with a pound of her gavel, she allowed them to do it anyway.

Just north of Birmingham, Ala., sits the tiny suburb of Gardendale. While Birmingham’s 74 percent black population ranks it as America’s fourth-blackest city, Gardendale’s population is 88 percent white. Gardendale’s median family income is more than double that of Birmingham, too, giving the small town a lucrative tax base. In recent years, most of Birmingham’s affluent suburbs have left the struggling Jefferson County Schools’ system to form smaller districts, but until now, a judge had never examined the racial reasons and implications as closely, according to a report by the Washington Post.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala heard the case of Jefferson County Board of Education v. Gardendale City Board of Education and issued an extensive, wide-ranging ruling Wednesday. The case was not overly complex and was mostly black vs. white. The white residents of Gardendale wanted to break away from the county’s schools, creating a new district that reflected the demographics of the city. The parents of black students in Gardendale’s schools said the white parents just wanted to get rid of the schools’ black students.

In her 190-page ruling, Haikala admitted that Gardendale City’s motivations were based on race and inequality. She pointed to a Facebook group with thinly veiled racist messages and wrote about flyers that listed “some of the best” white schools that had already left Jefferson County Schools alongside a list of “bad” racially mixed schools, with a white child asking, “Which one will you choose?” The report noted that the flyers delivered an “unambiguous message of inferiority.” The ruling reprimanded the parents for their continued reference to “Smithfield kids” (a reference to a mostly black section of Jefferson County whose children attend Gardendale schools) in a degrading manner.

The ruling extensively referenced desegregation cases and how they impacted her ruling. The judge explicitly admitted that race seemed to be Gardendale’s primary motivation, finding such to be worse than some of the desegregations of the civil rights era, writing:

"Given these findings, the Court would be within its discretion if it were simply to deny Gardendale’s motion to separate. Were it not for a number of practical considerations, the Court would do just that. As was the case in Stout II, though, some of the circumstances surrounding Gardendale’s attempt to separate are deplorable ..."

Deplorable. But even though she saw that Gardendale’s motives were based on the idea that the school district’s black students were inferior; even though she noted that it would set back the county’s desegregation efforts to make schools equal; and even though it would negatively impact the black students who already attend Gardendale schools, she allowed Gardendale to move forward anyway.

“It’s hard to square,” said Monique Lin-Luse, an NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund lawyer who represented black parents.

No one could figure it out. However, the Gardendale parents were ecstatic.

“We know that the community is anxious and ready to achieve its goal of a locally led public school system. We are, too,” said Chris Segroves, the new board’s president.

There are no quotes from the black students who will all have to attend new schools, knowing it is only because of the color of their skin.

Sandy and Rushdog #fundie idolme.com

Sandy : Homosexuality/sodomy is disgusting

Rushdog : Even if you weren't a religious person, and all you really believed in was science, and medicine, it's easy to figure out that there is something wrong with that lifestyle. Especially for men. I mean, why else would gay men be more succeptible to HIV, Hepititis, and other diseases, as opposed to straight men? You can be a straight guy, and get HIV, but it's alot less likely. To me, there has to be a reason for this. I don't think it's coincidental.

Ilana Mercer #fundie donotlink.com

I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store, and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoilt, cranky kids in tow, and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats—one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous, and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation—legal and cultural—have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men's testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines—they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads. The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as The Dangerous Book for Boys proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again—the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy, and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun—or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more inclined to divorce (and get custody), never marry, or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with "Kiddie Cocaine." Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia, and death. Writing for the PBS’s “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite sixty years of stimulant use with children…some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken, “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon are replacing deep-voiced, mucho men. Tom Brokaw, for instance. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking...

Doug Mainwaring #fundie lifesitenews.com

In A Heartbeat, declared by millions to be “the cutest thing I’ve ever seen,” is a short animated video about a young boy's middle school ‘crush’ on another boy, currently melting a few million hearts around the world each day.

Posted on Monday, the four-minute video quickly went viral. By Tuesday afternoon, it had garnered 3.7 million ‘views.’ By late afternoon Wednesday, the number of views had doubled to 7.4 million. By Thursday morning, it was headed toward 11 million views.

On the one hand, it’s popularity is no surprise. It’s a totally engaging, masterfully crafted little film, bound to receive many film festival awards. And because there’s no dialogue, it offers global appeal and reach.

Yahoo’s movie reviewer cheered it, saying, “Hopefully, given the response the short film has gotten, major studios will take notice of the fact that LGBTQ stories should be told, and that no matter your sexual identity, people can relate to those first flushes of love.”

The LGBT Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and others are showering it with praise.

Don’t be fooled!

While many inside and outside the gay world may find it heart-warming, resonating with their own inner-awkward-middle-school-boy, there’s a problem with it. A big problem.

In a Heartbeat is getting a whole lot of attention but will do a disservice to those it aims to help. It will further undermine strong, healthy — extraordinarily necessary — male adolescent relationships. Once boys and adolescents are herded toward gayness in order to deal with the very common experience of social anxiety, directed to question their sexual orientation, their sexuality risks becoming ‘re-wired.’ And once 're-wired' in that way, it's hard to undo. I should know. I was one of them.

The big problem:

An official description of the movie tells us, “A closeted boy runs the risk of being outed by his own heart after it pops out of his chest to chase down the boy of his dreams.”

The problem is this: The red-haired boy who is pictured is not a "closeted boy." The animators may think they are portraying such a boy, but they are actually telling a completely different story.

They show us a boy who demonstrates an extremely high level of social anxiety. When we first see him, he appears scared to death. He’s nervous. He’s panting. He experiences heart palpitations. He jumps behind a tree to hide from the second, dark-haired boy, and by so doing demonstrates his debilitating discomfort and inability to relate to his male classmate.

And who is the kid he’s running from, but clearly attracted to? He’s a boy who displays any easy self-confidence — the type that all socially awkward boys envy and would like to be like. He appears unflappable, problem free, in complete control. He’s so cool he can even spin an apple on one finger while walking and reading on the way to school. The fact that the red-haired boy hides behind a tree to avoid him reveals just how unnerving his feeling of not being accepted by his male peers troubles him.

Let’s be clear: Shy boys at that age aren’t searching for romance with their same-sex peers. They want just one thing and they want it desperately: acceptance. At that age, acceptance is more valuable than gold.

‘In a Heartbeat’ is a dangerous distortion.

The red-haired boy is not romantically attracted to the second boy, although that’s what the movie’s creators want you to think. He’s attracted to a boy who is his opposite, self-confident and trouble-free.

The movie’s creators misinterpret their own character: He’s not ‘closeted’ and he’s not "outed" by his own heart.’ He simply experiences a very high degree of social anxiety.

And the answer for this young man is not ‘romance’ with another boy. The answer is acceptance — to develop and persevere in friendship, and in that to find acceptance. Romance between males is a mirage, always proving to be elusive.

The movie promotes escaping social anxiety disorder by “coming out” and being “gay.” But this is an escape from the disorder, not a means of healing it in order to become whole and healthy as a person.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, an expert on marital and child healing, told LifeSiteNews that the movie is “psychologically harmful to youth — not helpful to kids experiencing social anxiety disorder.”

Yet it is precisely those kids the movie is aimed at, and they are the ones put at risk by the narrative it promotes.

According to Dr. Fitzgibbons’ ChildHealing.com website, “Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is the most prevalent of all anxiety disorders. A 2011 study of 10,000 American adolescents revealed that anxiety disorders were the most common disorder in youth, occurring in approximately one-third of adolescents.”

“SAD is a marked and persistent fear in social situations characterized by pervasive social inhibition, timidity, lack of confidence and fear. It has an early age of onset, by age 11 years in about 50 percent and by age 20 years in about 80 percent of individuals.”

Most important, “Research has shown that youth suicide risk decreases by delaying self-identifying as a homosexual. One study demonstrated that suicide risk among youth with same-sex attractions decreases 20 percent each year they delay labeling themselves as gay.”

Homosexuality: A thoroughly unsatisfying dead end for young males

Quentin Crisp, in his novel The Naked Civil Servant, identified the conundrum facing gay men: “If the Great Dark Man met me, he would not love me. If he did love me, he could not be my Great Dark Man.” In other words, Crisp is saying: “If I found the man of my dreams” — as the boy in the ‘Heartbeat’ video seems to — “no matter how attractive, masculine and virile; if he were interested in me either sexually or romantically or both, he could no longer be the man of my dreams because he would no longer be 100 percent ‘straight.’ There would be a huge chink in his armor, and he would disappoint me.” One senses the snickering of Satan somewhere in the wings behind the hopeless, discouragement-fraught dreams of many gay men. No wonder so many become depressed. This is also why same-sex marriage will evaporate over time.

Michael Glatze, now a Christian pastor and subject of the movie, I Am Michael, was a practicing homosexual and gay activist until he experienced conversion to Jesus Christ. In 2013, he married his wife. In an open letter to Ricky Martin after Martin came out, Glatze wrote, “Homosexuality is a cage in which you are trapped in an endless cycle of constantly wanting more — sexually — that you can never actually receive, constantly full of emptiness, trying to justify your twisted actions by politics and ‘feel good’ language.”

He also told his own former “lover": “God loves you more than any dude will ever love you. ... Don’t put your faith in some man, some flesh. That’s what we do when we’re stuck in the gay identity, when we’re stuck in that cave. We go from guy to guy, looking for someone to love us and make us feel OK, but God is so much better than all the other masters out there.”

The world today, influenced heavily by the LGBT community and an undiscerning media, undermines close relationships between adolescent males, causing them to question their romantic and sexual orientation. This is precisely what this video sets out to do and is why it is so dangerous.

Can’t a kid just really like another kid without it being interpreted as either romantic or sexual? ALL boys want close friendships with other boys. It’s a basic human need.

FogCityJohn #fundie dailykos.com

[Mangum was arraigned earlier today on charges of recklessly infecting another person with HIV. He's in a world of trouble, to say the least. In Missouri, knowingly exposing someone to HIV without the other's consent can carry up to 15 years in prison, and infecting someone can send you to prison for life. I hope they throw the library at this guy. There's really no such thing as too heavy-handed a sentence for something this outrageous.]

Really?

Do you know much about the laws criminalizing nondisclosure of one's serostatus? They usually don't require that a victim be infected before criminal liability attaches. And with many of them, the fact that you have an undetectable viral load (and are therefore highly unlikely to infect anyone) and that you used a condom are no defense. So you can be on meds with a fully suppressed viral load and use a condom and not infect your "victim," and still go to jail. Not to mention that the laws single out HIV for special punishment.

Laws like these are one of the reasons many people who may have been exposed to HIV don't get tested. They're a public health disaster. No one should be cheering a prosecution under such draconian legislation.

And by the way, people who are HIV-negative bear a little responsibility in this too. No one should simply take a person's word that he's uninfected. A large percentage of people with HIV are unaware of their infection (in part because laws like this are a powerful disincentive to testing). This is particularly true among us gay men, and unless he's been living under a rock since the 1980s, every gay man has heard the message that you have to treat every sex partner as positive.

[...]

FFS, these are gay men we're talking about. Something like 20% of us are positive. If you decide to have unprotected sex with someone whose serostatus you have not verified through testing, then you are simply assuming the risk of infection. Clearly, Magnum's "victims" weren't all that concerned about it.

Neil Clark #conspiracy rt.com

Mark the date. Saturday May 14, 2016, the day the music died and a song contest whose well-intentioned original aim of national harmony has become the latest front in the Western elite’s obsessional and relentless new Cold War against Russia.

A blatantly political song by Ukraine - which should not have been allowed in the contest in the first place as it clearly broke the European Broadcasting Union’s ‘No Politics’ rules - was declared the ‘winner’ of the Eurovision Song Contest, even though the country which got the most votes from the general public was Russia.

What helped Ukraine ‘win’ were the ‘national juries’ panels of so-called ‘music industry professionals’ who were given 50 percent of the votes and who only put Russia in joint fifth place, with 81 fewer points than Ukraine.

What we saw last night, as some on Twitter have commented, was a replay of the 2000 US Presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, when Gore got the most votes, but the neocon-backed Bush made it to the White House. The Establishment may give us plebs a say, but it has mechanisms to make sure that it gets the result it most desires.

The prospect of a Russian Eurovision win and next year’s contest being held in Moscow certainly seems to have caused great panic in Western Establishment circles. We’ve already got the next football World Cup scheduled to be held in Russia in 2018- an event which has come under attack from Russophobes who are calling for boycotts or for the tournament to be transferred; having Eurovision in Russia as well would clearly be too much for them. For daring to resist Western regime change plans in Syria and elsewhere, Russia should be sanctioned and isolated and not be hosting international events watched by millions of people around the world!

We heard earlier that the European Broadcasting Union was very worried about Russia winning Eurovision 2016 and by jove, they did everything they could to prevent that from happening. It wasn’t just the voting system –with ‘national juries’ used to skew public opinion, it was also the running order, in which Jamala, the Ukrainian contestant, was given a prime Number 21 slot to sing ‘1944’.

In modern Eurovision contests, in which there are so many countries taking part, singing towards the end of the show is usually a major advantage.

Would Jamala have done as well if she’d been asked to go on fifth? I very much doubt it.

In the end, the EBU got the result they wanted. But in doing so they have destroyed the contest. Eurovision has for long been plagued by bloc voting - in which countries vote for their neighbours - but what we saw last night was something different altogether. The contest has never been so blatantly political and the agenda so obvious.

[...]

Genuine Eurovision fans, who believe the contest should simply be about voting for the best song regardless of what one thinks of that country politically, are appalled at what happened.

Take the voting of the UK ‘national jury’. Britain’s ‘music industry professionals’ gave 10 points to Ukraine, but none to a Russian song which the general public liked best. Bias? Perish the thought, old chap ! I’m sure Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond heartily approved of the panel’s conclusions.

[...]

While Russians will understandably feel cheated – in one way what happened last night was good as it shows to everyone the limits of democracy in the West.

People have to be seen to be given a voice – but to make sure the result is not one that elites don’t like ‘blocks’ have to be put in place.

In the US, the peoples candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining on Hillary Clinton in the race to get the Democratic nomination, but even if he does catch Hillary the Hawk, the candidate of Wall Street and the military/industrial complex, there’s the unelected ‘Super Delegates’ - of whom Clinton is said to have the support of 524, compared to Sanders’ 40.

Last summer in Britain, the antiwar left-winger Jeremy Corbyn swept to victory in the election to be Labour leader, having been supported in large numbers by the party’s ordinary members and supporters. The party’s Blairite Establishment though were clearly rattled by this outbreak of genuine democracy and plans are afoot to change Labour’s leadership rules to give MPs - who are far to the right of the membership - more say in electing the leader.

[...]

If the plebs, after all the brainwashing and pro-Establishment propaganda, do happen to vote the ‘wrong way’ then they’re told they simply have to vote again - as the Irish were told when they refused to support the EU’s Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in 2008. And does anyone seriously doubt that if the British do decide to vote for Brexit on the 23rd, the EU won’t try to get the result reversed?

Perhaps David Cameron - if he watched Eurovision last night - will actually change the terms of a referendum so that an appointed ‘national jury’ of ‘experts’ will have a 50 percent say in the result.

If Eurovision had been decided by the popular vote alone then Russia and not Ukraine would have been crowned winner last night. Thank god for the super delegates, oh sorry, ‘music industry professionals’, who made sure that a ‘nightmare’ result for the Russophobic Western establishment was avoided. It may ‘only’ be a song contest but the result was clearly of great importance to some people.

China's National Health Commission #quack france24.com

China has approved the use of bear bile to treat coronavirus patients, angering activists and raising fears it could undermine efforts to stop the illegal animal trade which is blamed for the emergence of the new disease sweeping the globe.

The move comes just weeks after China banned the sale of wild animals for food, citing the risk of diseases spreading from animals to humans.

But the National Health Commission in March issued guidelines recommending the use of "Tan Re Qing" –- an injection that contains bear bile powder, goat horn and three other medicinal herbs –- to treat critically ill coronavirus patients.

It is one of six traditional Chinese medicine products included in the directive.

President Xi Jinping has been keen to promote traditional medicine, calling it a "treasure of Chinese civilisation" and saying it should be given as much weight as other treatments.

The active ingredient in bear bile, ursodeoxycholic acid, is used to dissolve gallstones and treat liver disease but has no proven effectiveness in treating COVID-19.

China has used both traditional and Western medicine in its battle against the novel coronavirus, which has killed more than 3,000 and infected more than 82,000.

But activists say greenlighting a treatment that uses an animal product is "both tragic and ironic" given that the origin of the deadly coronavirus is linked to the trade and consumption of wild animals.

Chris Roberts #racist #wingnut amren.com

Context is King: How the Left Talks About Demographic Change

Gregory Hood is fond of saying, “Politics is about who, not what.” Nothing confirms this more than how leftist media write about demographic change. If whites object to being displaced, it’s not even happening, and even if it is, whites are paranoid. When demographic change brings leftist victories or when it displaces leftist pets, it’s real and significant.

In March, The Guardian published this headline, “White nationalist hate groups have grown 55% in Trump era, report finds.” The subtitle was “Southern Poverty Law Center warns of growing movement driven by ‘fear of demographic change’” — implying that such fears are silly and unfounded.

But in a 2017 essay called “‘Nothing is ours anymore’: Kurds forced out of Afrin after Turkish assault,” The Guardian found similar fears for Kurds living in Syria serious and worrisome:

There is definitely a demographic change, a lot of Kurds have been forcibly displaced on the count that they’re with the PKK when in fact they weren’t. There are barely any Kurds left in Afrin, no one is helping us go back.

Another Afrin local, Shiyar Khalil, 32, said: “When the Kurds try to get back to their house they have to jump through hoops. You cannot deny a demographic change, Kurds are not able to go back. Women are veiled, bars are closed; it’s a deliberate erasing of Kurdish culture.

Salon is just as inconsistent. After Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012, it published an article called “The final defeat of backlash politics.” This is from its opening paragraph:

A new, increasingly liberal electorate has ratified the results of the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution. Republican conservatives will still be able to win victories, but their hopes of overturning the outcomes of the 1930s and the 1960s have been doomed by cultural and demographic change.

But a 2017 article from the same website suggests that if Trump supporters take change seriously, they are falling for a “a false narrative of white victimhood“:

[President Trump’s white supporters] feel they are living through rapid demographic change that will leave them as a minority of the population.

Note how the first Salon quote uses the word “doomed” to describe the impact of demographic change, while the second uses “feel” to make the worries of whites sound subjective and perhaps irrational.

The leftist magazine The Nation is no better. A 2019 essay called “The ‘Great Replacement’ Is a Genocidal Playbook” (“The Great Replacement” is shorthand for mass population change at the expense of whites) puts scare quotes around the phrase to reinforce the idea that it’s a myth:

image

When The Nation approves of what’s happening it understands that demographics are destiny. This is from “As California Goes . . . “:

Demographically, what California was a generation ago, America is now; what California is, America is likely to become. The Golden State, for all its reputed liberalism and its rapid Hispanicization, may not be so different from the rest of the nation, just a generation or two ahead of it.

There doesn’t seem to be one leftist outlet that doesn’t follow this double standard. Jacobin opposes demographic change in Israel and Syria:

Elsewhere this has initiated full-blown attempts at “Judaization.” After 1967, the Israeli government became concerned about the lack of Jews living in the north and south of the state and so planned to increase the population in those areas. Such a demographic change necessitated the confiscation of Palestinian land for the building of Jewish settlements. — No, Israel Is Not a Democracy, Ilan Pappe, May 2017

Those who stayed in Afrin [Syria] fared little better. . . .The new occupiers themselves imposed demographic change and extended “Turkification” policies from Turkey’s Kurdish southeast into northern Syria. — Ignoring Afrin, Gokcan Aydogan, et al, September 2018

But Jacobin would never write about the “full-blown ‘Hispanicization’ of California public schools.”

The Daily Beast, whose tech reporter Will Sommer specializes in mocking the Right, published the following claim about a “great replacement” with no caveats:

The depopulation of Palestine was no accident. The Zionist movement sought to create a Jewish state in a territory where Jews were a minority. On the eve of the Nakba, Jews constituted 30 percent of the population and owned 7 percent of the land. Within months, they forged a state on 78 percent of the territory where they flipped the demographic ratio from 30:70 Jews to Arabs to 90:10. To think such dramatic demographic change happens by accident—only coincidently suiting decades old Zionist aims—is dangerous naiveté. Such things happen only by design. — Nakba Denials Must Be Condemned, Yousef Munayyer, July 13, 2017

The Left understands demographic change; it just doesn’t want whites to notice it’s happening.

Six years ago, a “purple” Georgia was a pipe dream. Now, in a year when Republicans have the national advantage, it’s a possibility. The pace of demographic change is so fast that, soon enough, Democrats like [Stacey] Abrams won’t have to work to change the electorate—it will have happened on its own.

Paul Kersey was not the author. It was a black liberal named Jamelle Bouie, writing for Slate. Mr. Bouie has since been hired by the New York Times and Paul Kersey has been attacked by it. That’s because Mr. Bouie is happy to see these changes, and Mr. Kersey isn’t.

By Clifford E Carnicom #conspiracy educate-yourself.org

A meeting has taken place recently between an investigative researcher and a well placed military source. The identity of both parties is to be protected. The source has intimate knowledge of at least one aspect of the aerosol operations, and asserts the following:

1. The operation is a joint project between the Pentagon and the pharmaceutical industry.

2. The Pentagon wishes to test biological diseases for war purposes on unsuspecting populations. It was stated that SARS is a failure as the expected rate of mortality was intended to be 80%.

3. The pharmaceutical industry is making trillions on medications designed to treat both fatal and non-fatal diseases given to populations.

4. The bacteria and viruses are freeze-dried and then placed on fine filaments for release.

5. The metals released along with the diseases heat up from the sun, creating a perfect environment for the bacteria and viruses to thrive in the air supply.

6. Most countries being sprayed are unaware of the activities and they have not consented to the activities. He states that commercial aircraft flying are one of the delivery systems.

7. Most of the "players" are old friends and business partners of the senior Bush.

8. The ultimate goal is the control of all populations through directed and accurate spraying of drugs, diseases, etc.

9. People who have tried to reveal the truth have been imprisoned and killed.

10. This is the most dangerous and dark time that I have experienced in all of my years of serving this country.


This information is relayed without qualification, as I am knowledgeable in the level of integrity of the researcher that has made this information available to the public. There is both risk and restraint that has been exercised in the preparation of this statement.

mrbill6ishere #fundie #wingnut deviantart.com

History repeats itself quickly...
Apr 23, 2017

COGOLIN, France — Muslims preoccupy Jennifer Troin.

"I'm worried about my nieces having to wear the veil," said the soft-spoken 29-year-old.

This fear has helped propel the young mother to the far-right of the political spectrum ahead of key presidential elections Sunday — and into the arms of the hard-line National Front party.

Troin sells children's clothes at a store in Cogolin, a town of 11,000 a few miles from the jet-set resorts of the French Riviera. In 2014, Cogolin became one of a handful of communities nationwide to elect mayors from the National Front, which is also known by the acronym FN.

Troin told NBC News that it wasn't just the FN's stance on Islam and immigration that attracted her, but also the party's populist take on the economy.

But most of all, it was the party's charismatic leader, Marine Le Pen, who captured Troin's loyalty.

"She fights for women's rights against Islam," she said. "I vote because of Marine."

Troin is part of a quiet army of female National Front supporters, who could well tip the balance of the election and give the presidency to the hard-right.

An FN victory would rewrite the continent's political playbook, given the party's pledge to take France out of the European Union. Were it to win, it would not have been an easy ride for a movement that peaked in 2002 when founder Jean Mari Le Pen — Marine Le Pen's father — reached the second and final round of the presidential election.

French voters flocked to the polls in the runoff to ensure Le Pen did not win, instead electing former President Jacques Chirac with a resounding 78 percent of the vote. Most pollsters expect a similar outcome in May's second-round vote, predicting moderate voters to rally once again to shut out the FN.

But few doubt that the party's anti-immigrant and anti-establishment platform is resonating.

The Front's anti-Islamic message is especially potent in France, whose 4.7 million Muslims make up around 7.5 percent of the population. Islamist militant attacks have killed more than 230 people over two years and plunged the country into a long-term state of emergency.

PlayMarine Le Pen: Mass Immigration Is a Tragedy for France

Marine Le Pen: Mass Immigration Is a Tragedy for France 1:00
This anxiety deepened on the eve of the election after a gunman ambushed three Parisian police officers on the Champs-Elysees late Thursday, killing one and wounding two others. ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting and French President Francois Hollande said it was likely a terrorist attack.

Meanwhile, the FN's influence has spread from its heartlands along the Mediterranean coast and in the rust-belt north, into rural "forgotten" France.

'Marine is different'
Polling institute Elabe recently predicted that 22 percent of women would vote for the National Front in the first round Sunday — almost 5 percent more than in 2012.

With just days to go, polls show the race is tightening. Centrist Emmanuel Macron is edging his way ahead on 24 percent and Le Pen is a fraction behind on 22.5 percent, according to Bloomberg polling.

Just below them, hard-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon has enjoyed a late surge and scandal-hit conservative Francois Fillon has hung in there despite a slew of allegations that he paid thousands of euros to his British-born wife for assistance she allegedly did not provide. A third of voters remain undecided.

Image: French far-right Front National leader Marine Le Pen is kissed by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen
Front National leader Marine Le Pen is kissed by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen after being re-elected as president of the party on Nov. 30, 2014. Laurent Cipriani / AP, file
The FN's ability to motivate French women could be decisive. Traditionally, it has struggled to attract female voters amid accusations of sexism, racism and anti-Semitism.

In its early years under Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party advocated a traditional image of women, opposed abortion rights and developed a reputation for a macho, strongman culture.

This bias showed. The FN was far less successful at attracting women than men. During Jean-Marie Le Pen' time in charge, around 12 percent of French women supported the party compared with 17 percent of men, according to Sciences Po Cevipof, a political institute based in Paris.

Marine Le Pen changed this.

Since taking over in 2011, she has softened the party's image, steering the FN away from some of its overtly anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric in an effort to broaden its electoral base. In 2015, she expelled her father after he repeated his view that the Holocaust was a "detail of history."

“Women understand Marine Le Pen — she’s divorced, she has three children, she works, she’s a modern woman.”
In the run up to the this year's election, Le Pen dropped her last name from campaign handouts, referring to herself simply as Marine.

More recently, she specifically targeted the female vote. She has published special pamphlets and a campaign video that describes her as a woman and a mother and shows her flicking through family photo albums. She has also changed the party's logo from a flame to a blue rose.

'Hitler-like figure'
For Troin, the children's clothes seller in Cogolin, her interest in the National Front has grown with Marine Le Pen's rise. While immigration, job security and her fear of Islam remained underlying motivators, she was also attracted to the party's re-brand.

For her, the former leader "was too outspoken, too offensive. He was a Hitler-like figure," Troin said. "But Marine is different."

In the last presidential election in 2012 — the first with Marine Le Pen as leader — the party's gender gap closed to 1.5 percentage points. It's what Cevipof professor and FN expert Nonna Mayer called the "Marine Le Pen effect."

The party has long advocated clamping down on immigration and securing borders, and throughout her campaign Le Pen has consistently made the country's Muslims a target.

Image: Marine Le Pen supporters cheer
Marine Le Pen supporters cheer at a rally in the southern city of Marseille on Wednesday. Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images
"In France we respect women, we don't beat them, we don't ask them to hide themselves behind a veil as if they were impure. We drink wine when we want, we can criticize religion and speak freely," she said during a rally Monday night, comments clearly aimed at Muslims.

During the rally, Le Pen pledged to suspend all visas from non-European migrants hoping to join their families in France — often code for immigrants from mainly Muslim North Africa and the Middle East.

After Thursday night's attack in Paris, she again singled out what she sees as the threat posed by Islam.

"It is a war in which there can be no retreat because all our population and all our territory are exposed," she said.

And for all her rebranding, Marine Le Pen can also fall back into the older, harsher style of messaging.

Cathy, a 50-year-old dental assistant who was shopping for groceries in Cogolin, said she was all set to vote FN but was taken aback by Le Pen's recent comments that the French were not to blame for the anti-Jewish policies of the government during the Nazi occupation in World War II.

Referring to the "Vel d'Hiv" roundup of Jews by French police in July 1942, in which nearly 13,000 were detained and deported to concentration camps, Le Pen told French radio earlier this month she thought France was "not responsible."

Cathy, who didn't want to be identified by her second name, said Le Pen's remarks had made her pause.

Others needed no time to reflect.

"The FN is xenophobic, racist and anti-feminist," said retired teacher Mireille Escarrat. "For me it feels like the 1930s. We're going backwards."

'I don't talk politics here'
Many of the National Front supporters interviewed by NBC News were reluctant to admit it, and others were concerned about being named.

"I don't talk politics here," a local woman said, having led the way into a backroom of her business in the town. The 60-year-old asked not to be named or for her business to be described because she felt that admitting her loyalty to the FN would damage her reputation.

"I wouldn't mind if it weren't for my business," she added, out of earshot of her customers. "But this is somewhere everyone can come whether you vote communist or for the right."

Even in this town — where 53 percent of the population voted FN in 2014 — voting Le Pen still carries a social stigma. There's no telling just how many closet female FN voters there may be.

The party's marriage of socialist economic policy and right-wing identity politics is working in the town, which sits in the FN's traditional southern heartland. With the decline of traditional industries and unemployment at 18 percent, locals worry Cogolin is being reduced to a seasonal economy dependent on rich resort communities.

Newly-converted women at the FN's regional headquarters in neighboring Sainte-Maxime said Sunday's election would be the first time they voted for the Front in a presidential race.

"We didn't vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen because he scared us," said Monique Guckert, 67, a retired shop assistant. "His ideas were too fascist, too racist. It was too much."

Even the FN mayor of Cogolin, Marc Etienne Lansade, admitted his mother would never have voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen.

"He drove her crazy," he said. "Women understand Marine Le Pen, she's divorced, she has three children, she works — she's a modern woman," he added, sitting in his second-floor office in the town hall.

Still, not all women appreciate Le Pen's message. On Monday, a topless protester carrying flowers charged the candidate during a rally northern Paris.

Le Pen does not try to make out that she is a feminist. Of her 144 manifesto pledges, only one addresses women's issues. In it, she promises to defend women's rights by fighting against Islam, implementing a plan for equal pay and combating social and job insecurity.

"She's a fake feminist," said Camille Froidevaux-Metterie, a political scientist and expert on women in politics at the University of Reims.

Asked if a Le Pen win would be a victory for women, she said that though symbolically "it would not be nothing." She said it would mean France is ready for a female president but would have elected one on a non-feminist agenda.

"It's a sort of paradox," she said.

Ricardo Duchesne #fundie eurocanadian.ca

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.

Bethany Blankley #fundie charismanews.com

By destroying the institution of marriage, the "gay rights" LBGQTI movement made possible the extension of similar "legal rights" for other "lifestyle choices," including zoophilia, consanguinamorous relationships, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy, and every other "fluid" sexual preference or identification—including sologamy and trans-polyamorous relationships.

Efforts to normalize sex with animals as an accepted lifestyle choice resulted in one documentary winning an award this year that idolizes a sexual relationship between a man and his bottlenose dolphin lover.

The 40-year movement to legalize sexual interaction with children is working. People are publicly advocating without shame: "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster;" and, "pedophilia is natural and normal for males."

Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

Because of a case in New Mexico that's making national headlines, incest activists argue exactly what homosexuals argued to normalize incest.

"I was born this way."

"I can't choose who I love."

"I have a right to be happy just like everyone else."

"We aren't hurting anyone."

"Who is the government to legislate love?"

Incest activists maintain that all sexual preferences and acts should be legal if they are consensual and don't harm anyone. More importantly, the government should not be legislating love.

Christina Shy, an incest activist who runs an advocacy and support website for consanguinamorous people, and is in a relationship with her half-brother, argues that incest "needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together, but we are related. That shouldn't be a deciding factor."

She's right—if sex is consensual among adults in the privacy of their own home—how is it wrong or even illegal?

How is consensual sex between two adult men different than consensual sex between adult brothers and sisters or adult mothers and sons? If two adult men can legally marry each other, why can't consensual adult incestuous couples?

Why should one consensual relationship be denied and another legal?

Incestuous adults aren't coercing anyone. They are knowingly making choices about their own bodies, so why does anyone have a problem with it? It's really none of anyone else's business.

If transgender people in America, who represent less than half of one percent of the population, can have the government dictate bathroom policies for non-transgender people in public schools and stores, why won't the government legalize consanguinamorous relationships?

Homosexuals, who represent less than 3 percent of the population in America, can legally marry and adopt children, why can't incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles?

If morality and laws are determined by personal preferences (that are fluid and always changing) to justify societal norms, why is a different standard being used to legislate incest, necrophilia or pedophilia than that of same-sex relationships?

Incestuous relationships are mutually consensual, therefore they should be legal. (The same reasoning can be applied to murder. Surely, if two people agree to murder someone, in fact a group of people consent to murder another group of people, their consent justifies their action, which should therefore legalize murder.)

The same goes for polygamy. And necrophilia.

Why is having sex with dead people wrong? The corpse doesn't care. It's dead. It doesn't hurt the corpse; it doesn't even know what's happening. Granted, it can't consent to the sexual act, but that doesn't matter because there are enough necrophiliacs to argue that their sexual preference is normal.

When it comes to not hurting anyone, incest activists argue that abortion is legal, so again, what standard is being used to legislate harm to another person?

They are right. If a baby has no constitutional rights, and adults do, why can't the adults, who aren't harming anyone else, be together?

Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal. Now gays can marry. Times have changed, so who has the audacity to suggest that incest is not the new normal of the 21st century family? Or bestiality?

"Non-human animals have incestuous relationships and multiple partners," some activists argue. Likewise, it's well-known that kings and queens had incestuous relationships for centuries to 'keep their bloodline pure.'

So, who is the government to legislate love? Everyone has the right to love whomever they choose. All love is equal. How is heterosexual love better than incestuous love or being in love with multiple partners?

As the defendant in the New Mexico case argues, as to why he should be allowed to love, have sex with and even marry his mother, he says: "This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure (expletive) have the right to love Monica. You can't tell people who to love or who not to love."

His mother's name, Monica, could easily be "Matthew," the name of a brother, father, uncle or homosexual boyfriend.

No love is wrong.

Gay rights activists and corrupt politicians who chose to legalize same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom policies, have no justification to prevent the legalization other sexual behavior.

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

Now if gays are allowed into the military, they will be inevitably be put in battlefield situations where donated blood from soldiers may be necessary to save the lives of wounded comrades. An HIV-infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.

If open homosexuals are allowed into the United States military, the Taliban won't need to plant dirty needles to infect our soldiers with HIV. Our own soldiers will take care of that for them.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

(ELE) Extinction Level Event Covid 19 and Eco Terrorism

Time is short, research it for yourself. Covid 19 was lab created, but not by the Chinese Government, but by an eco terrorist that wants to rid the planet of humans, so that nature and Earth can repair itself. They view other humans as parasites.

The coronavirus has four HIV-1 insertions in its RNA. A coronavirus was used because it is highly contagious and this version in and of itself deadly. However, most of the illness you are seeing among the ones who are severely ill is nothing more than a seroconversion syndrome, not unlike one that HIV causes in about the same percentage of the people it infects in the early stage, however, unlike Covid 19, that does not kill the host.

You will not get natural immunity from Covid 19 and will get it again and again and again. For those that live long enough, within several years, they will begin to die from an AIDS like illness.

There will be no vaccine. For the following reasons and you can research it yourself and again I ask you too:

"... vaccine development for coronaviruses faces many challenges. First, for mucosal infections, natural infection does not prevent subsequent infection, and so vaccines must either induce better immunity than the original virus or must at least lessen the disease incurred during a secondary infection."

Because of how this virus was designed and its relation to HIV-1, that is why you will read about people with severe infections having their CD4 cells falling. That is how HIV kills you. This is also why in China they began giving people HIV medication in the hospital to see if it would work.

Again, please research. Notice that the Governments around the world half try to contain it (The CCP outright lies about its numbers). They make the appearance that something is being done, but they already know the outcome.

How many times can you survive Covid 19 and its mutations? And if you do, how will you stop the destruction of your immune system?

Padraig Martin #racist identitydixie.com

[From ""Distinguishing Southern Nationalism"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can thank Northern Whites for your modern country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck and enjoy your pool parties.

Mike Adams #fundie townhall.com

Over the summer, I was convicted of anti-gay hate speech. The most incredible thing about it was that I never set foot in Canada. The conviction happened while I was in Colorado. But the offense took place almost 15 years ago.

In the 1990s, a friend of mine announced that he was divorcing his wife because he had decided (after a couple of unhappy marriages) to pursue the gay lifestyle. My decision to support him was born out of ignorance. Not only was I harboring the illusion that there actually was such a thing as a gay gene. I was also ignorant of the fact that gays could be successfully cured through therapeutic efforts.

My decision to label my own verbal support of his lifestyle choice as “hate speech” makes sense only after one becomes educated about that lifestyle. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 82% of all known sexually-transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for over 60% of all syphilis cases.

Some will say that homophobia is the indirect cause of such numbers. They claim that fear of stigmatization keeps gays from seeking information before they become ill and from seeking medical help afterwards. But, clearly, that is not the case. In cultures where homosexuality is more accepted the numbers are worse. That is why I steadfastly maintain that supporting my friend’s decision to turn to the homosexual lifestyle was indeed an example of hate speech.

Most gays become angry when someone tells the truth about the health consequences of their lifestyle choice. The reason they get angry over the facts is because their conscience convicts them. When I came to realize that I helped make it easier for my friend to pursue his unhealthy lifestyle my conscience was convicted. I have regretted my verbal support of his decision ever since.

No sane person could ever posit that the act of rectal sodomy is safe, normal, or healthy. The rectum is a one-way street. It is a sewer meant for the expulsion of poison. Treating the rectum as a sex organ is damaging to the health – especially for the recipient of such abuse. That is why it is an act of hate, regardless of whether some choose to call it “love.”

Daniel Whyte III #fundie blackchristiannews.com

The millennial kingdom will be a time of faith, when the majority of the population will become believers. We see that in several Bible passages. Christ will be in charge, so there won’t be immoral or other forms of destructive TV programming available to blind men’s minds to the gospel. Body-damaging substances will not be available, so people will not have their minds so fogged that they cannot fairly appraise the truths of Scripture. Satan will be bound so he should “deceive the nations no more.” The university chairs of learning will not be dominated by atheists set on turning the minds of young people away from God. Instead, all education will start from the premise, “In the beginning GOD!” In such an academic climate, young people will be more open than ever to the claims of God and Christ on their lives. Even art forms will glorify Christ during the millennial kingdom. Jeremiah 31:31-34 indicates that everyone will be so acquainted with the gospel that no one will need to share it with his neighbor.

Isaiah 65:20 indicates that unbelievers will die “being 100 years old.” That suggests enormous consequences for the high percentage of believers living at that time, for it indicates that only Christians will live beyond their hundredth birthday. Evidently God will give people 100 years to decide about Christ. If they accept Him, they are permitted to live on for the rest of the kingdom period. But no sinner will survive his hundredth birthday. That fact alone would mean that only Christians will be alive to propagate and raise children after they are l00 years old. Based on this fact, along with the ideal cultural environment present during this era, it is possible that as high as 80 percent or more of the population will be saved during that age.

The government and politics of the millennial kingdom will focus on the benevolent reign of Jesus Christ as Israel’s Messiah-King. It will be a theocracy centered in Jerusalem, where Jesus will reign as both Messiah and King of Israel, thus fulfilling God’s prophetic promise to King David in the Davidic Covenant. God’s covenant with David guaranteed David’s dynasty, throne, and kingdom would continue forever. When Jesus Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation, He will reestablish the Davidic throne in His personal rule. Other significant passages describing Christ’s reign over Israel include Psalm 2, Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 33:20-26, Ezekiel 34:23-25 and 37:23-24, and Luke 1:32-33. These and other Bible passages provide ample specific evidence that the kingdom promised to David will be fully realized in the future.

Jared Taylor #fundie amren.com

The great myth is essentially borne out by whatever one is likely to hear about Indians from non-specialist sources. Professor Clifton devotes several pages to fleshing it out, but it can be quickly summarized: Indians were spiritual, egalitarian, innocent people living in perfect harmony with the earth. They welcomed the white man, taught him the secrets of the wilderness, and shared with him the wisdom of their social institutions. In return, the white man enslaved and slaughtered the Indian, afflicted him with hideous diseases, and tried to destroy his culture.

Nevertheless, runs the myth, the Native American has survived. Though he has been dispossessed and politically emasculated, his spirit remains pure. As the white man begins to acknowledge the horrors he has wrought upon the Indian, so has he begun to study and appreciate the age-old wisdom and natural virtue to which all Indians, everywhere, are heir.

Like all myths, this one leaves certain things out: in this case, cannibalism, infanticide, ritual torture, geronticide, slaughter of prisoners, slavery, and the like. Such practices, though well substantiated, are seldom written about by historians and ethnographers for fear of violating what Prof. Clifton calls the Eleventh Commandment of the Indian business: Never Say No To An Indian. One of the Commandment’s corollaries prohibits writing or saying anything that Indians might not wish to hear. Most Indians know very little about their ancestors of centuries ago, and would vigorously deny accusations of slavery or cannibalism.

In Canada, certain agreeable fictions have semi-legal status. Whenever work crews find human bones at ancient camp sites, for example, they must take special measures not to violate the sacred dead. Broken or burnt human bones — evidence of certain now-embarrassing practices — can be treated like animal bones.

Stressing the Positive

On the stress-the-positive side of the myth we find the wisdom that the white man is supposed to have learned from the Indian. Every school child has heard of Squanto, the Algonquin who taught the Pilgrims to fertilize their corn with fish. As Lynn Ceci points out in a fascinating essay, there is no evidence that any North American tribes used fertilizer of any kind. Squanto, who had a very interesting and well-documented career, probably learned about it in Newfoundland, where he lived for some time among English settlers who routinely fertilized with fish.

School children do not learn that Squanto had lived in both England and Spain, spoke fluent English, and was hardly the noble, simple savage the history books make him out to be. As Dr.Ceci points out, the image of generous Squanto tends to obscure the more accurate picture of Indians who often attacked and killed settlers.

Another part of the great Indian myth that has recently been picking up steam, is that early Americans learned about democracy and the advantages of unity by studying the Iroquois Confederation. One of the authors traces the origins of this myth, and explodes the idea that the Constitution could have been influenced, in any way, by the matrilineal and hereditary form of representation practiced by the Iroquois.

One reason such preposterous notions make any headway at all is that it has become nearly obligatory to describe Indian societies as idyllically egalitarian, even “non-sexist.” Of course, there were hundreds of different tribal societies with different customs, but all of them had well defined sex roles that would horrify Gloria Steinem. Often, women were treated scarcely better than beasts of burden.

As for egalitarianism, it is difficult for bare subsistence-level hunters and gatherers to practice anything else, but as soon as material surplus appeared, some people got more of it than others. Leland Donald writes about the Tutchone of the southern Yukon, who lived on land so harsh as to be nearly uninhabitable. Nevertheless, their society was divided into hereditary classes of rich, poor, and slaves. As Dr. Donald puts it, “even in conditions that seem ideal for the presence of the classic egalitarian Indian society, it is possible for marked inequalities to emerge.”

The potlatches and ruinous gift-giving that were required for status among the more prosperous Northwest Indians are well known, but somehow coexist with the myth that Indians all lived in innocent classlessness. Even well known expressions like “low man on the totem pole” fail to puncture the myth.

Another important part of the image is the perfect harmony with nature in which Indians are said to have lived. Once again, sparsely scattered, stone-age people have very little choice about the matter, but “Mother Earth” is central to the myth. All Indians, it is said, saw the earth as their beloved mother. Hills were her breasts, streams were mother’s milk, and vegetation was her lovely hair.

Astounding as it may seem, one of the authors explains that the entire Mother Earth story can be traced to a single statement made by a single Indian in 1885. There is virtually no other evidence that Indians thought of the earth as mother. Nevertheless, the Mother Earth belief is now so widely attributed not only to American Indians but to all primitive peoples that it is frightful heresy to point out how unsubstantiated it is.

Not surprisingly, there are plenty of entrepreneurs — Indian and non-Indian — who have parlayed the notion of the noble, nature-wise Indian into a means of parting gullible whites from their money. People with names like Rolling Thunder and Spotted Fawn do a brisk business promoting sweat lodges, sun dances, purification ceremonies, or whatever else aging hippies can be made to pay for. These ceremonies bear only a vague resemblance to anything the Indians of the past ever did, but there is a steady market for them.

According to another author, the same can be said for the pottery sold on the Pamunkey Indian reservation in Virginia. The Pamunkey stopped making pottery in the 1890s and started up again in the 1930s only because the state of Virginia paid to establish a pottery school on the reservation. Now tourists happily buy “Indian” pots, decorated with stick figure “writing” that is likewise a 20th century invention.

The High Counters

Minor frauds like these are relatively harmless. Deliberate attempts to manipulate thinking about Indians are more serious. David Henige of the University of Wisconsin reports that there is a small academic industry devoted to inflating the population estimates of Pre-Columbian America. If evidence can be found that tens of millions of healthy, happy Indians were living on the continent before the white man arrived, then the reduction of their numbers through warfare and disease can be made to seem all the more heinous.

The High Counters, as Mr. Henige calls them, pore over ancient accounts, pick the most exaggerated population estimates they can find, and solemnly pass them along as wholly credible. One scholar, for example, believes that a single energetic priest actually baptized, and counted, 14,000 Indians in a single day — one every six seconds, ‘round the clock. Others think that when Cortes said he faced an army of “more than 149,000” men, he can be relied on to have counted them accurately.

As Mr. Henige points out, numbers like these are just another way of saying “a lot,” but it is the scholars who are prepared to believe the worst of the colonizing white man who have the deepest faith in his ability to count people in crowds. Other High Counters would have it that European diseases swept through native tribes before the white man found them, killing up to half the population before Europeans could even start counting them.

If, by whatever means, the High Counters can gin up enough pre-Columbian Indians, they can then trot out the great, anti-white totem word, “genocide,” when they talk about the legacy of Columbus. The University of Oklahoma has even published a book called American Indian Holocaust and Survival.

Indian Givers

Present descendants of invented Indians have woven the strands of myth into a mighty whip with which to beat the white man. They have, for example, mobilized reservoirs of public sympathy for huge land claims. Allan van Gestel, who has defended current owners against such claims, estimates that since 1970, Indian law suits have clouded the title to 35 million acres in the Eastern United States alone. This is an area the size of Austria or Ireland.

Indians can always call on teams of eager whites who will work for them pro bono. Clever lawyers have based most land cases on an obscure Congressional proclamation of 1783 that forbade the states to buy land from Indian tribes without federal permission. This was six years before the Constitution even went into effect, and several state governments had bought land from Indians even before the proclamation. This has not stopped tribes from trying to get back land that was duly purchased — and that has been enormously improved in the last two hundred years.

Public sentiment, stoked by tales about the invented Indian, is such that Indians can virtually monopolize the services of scholars and historians; to testify “against” Indians can ruin a career. Some Indian claims have cost current land-owners hundreds of millions of dollars.

Today, the federal government has primary responsibility for dealing with Indians, but states and Canadian provinces also manage publicly funded Indian programs. According to Steven Feraca, a long-time worker at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), all of these bureaucracies have long been given over to race-based hiring and promotion. Preferences at the Bureau are so blatant, and career prospects for non-Indians so bleak, that although Indians are only 1/2 percent of the US population, they hold 75 percent of the jobs at BIA.

In the last few decades, the “Indian desks” of virtually all branches of government have been turned over to Indians, so that decisions that are supposed to be made in the names of larger jurisdictions are in the hands of unabashed partisans. Tribal “leaders” are now often indistinguishable from Indian-affairs bureaucrats, with no way to sort out the resulting conflicts of interest. What is more, as another author points out, chronic lateness and absenteeism in these offices are routinely excused by the notion that Indians work according to mysterious earth rhythms rather than by the white man’s clock.

In sum, both in Canada and in the United States, Indians have succeeded in becoming a kind of Uber-citizen. Off the reservation, they have all the usual legal rights, in addition to the strenuous affirmative-action preferences that are now obligatory. On the reservation, they enjoy a kind of extraterritoriality, which exempts them from many taxes and laws, and entitles them to a complete array of Indians-only health and welfare benefits. They have suckled at the public teat for longer than any other group in North America, and bear the stigmata of listlessness and squalor to prove it.

Next year will mark the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of America. What, by all rights, should be a proud celebration of the spread of civilization to the New World, has already been hijacked by cultural relativists who see in the white man nothing but wickedness. The October issue of National Geographic begins a series of “quincentenary” articles, in which the editors flatter themselves on letting Indians write from “the most intimate — and perhaps truest — perspective of all.”

Such a series is likely to be filled with the exploits of invented Indians — more of what Prof. Clifton calls “perfectly enchanting fiction . . . that is both believed by its impresarios and presented as believable to others.” His book, impressively researched and stuffed with fascinating details, is the perfect antidote.

Chris Roberts #racist amren.com

Black Stranglehold on Democrat Party Dooms Bernie Sanders

Pat Buchanan put it bluntly in one of his recent columns: “Consider the most loyal of Democrat constituents in presidential elections: African Americans. They are 13 percent of the electorate but a fourth of the national Democrat vote.” That share may not seem like much, but in a crowded field for the presidential nomination, blacks are can play kingmaker, especially because more than any other group, they vote as a bloc. In general elections, blacks vote Democrat at rates never lower than 80 percent, and sometimes much higher, and during the party’s nomination process, blacks still vote together. In the 2016 race for the nomination, 75.9 percent of blacks voted for Hillary Clinton. The white vote was split almost exactly down the middle: 48.9 percent for Mrs. Clinton and 49.1 percent for Mr. Bernie Sanders.

In 2008, unsurprisingly, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton among blacks by eight — and sometimes nine — to one. Vox noted that “Obama won every primary in the eight states where more than 20 percent of the population is black.” This included the very important early state of South Carolina. The nomination fight was very close; Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by less than half a million out of over 35 million votes. Hispanics supported Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama almost two to one.

This means that in 2008, black voters – all by themselves – kept Mrs. Clinton from winning the nomination, and eight years later they guaranteed her victory. To win the Democrat nomination, a candidate has to carry the black vote.

This makes the race hard for political outsiders, or even ordinary politicians who aren’t very well known by blacks. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is an example. He is a young, moderate who was in the military, and has earned plenty of support and attention from important media. But he was almost unheard of on a national level before 2019, and despite campaigning hard for months, blacks do not care for him. Politico put it bluntly in a recent article: “‘On life support’: Buttigieg’s struggles with black voters threaten his candidacy.” Its opening paragraphs explain:

Over the past month and a half, he has invested more money advertising in South Carolina, where a majority of Democrats are African American, than any of the non-billionaire Democrats running for president. . . . But the more than $2 million Buttigieg poured into TV and radio ads, some featuring black supporters touting the former South Bend (Ind.) mayor, hasn’t budged his stubbornly low poll numbers in the state — 2 percent among African American Democrats in a recent Fox News poll.

Last November, Michael Harriot, a black writer at The Root, wrote an article called, “Pete Buttigieg Is a Lying MF” — MF stands for “Mother Fucker.” Mr. Harriot wrote about how hard it is to be black and poor in the United States, and suggested that Mr. Buttigieg knows this, but lies about it. In response, the white presidential candidate called the author on the phone in hopes of mollifying him. Mr. Harriot then wrote a column about the conversation, saying he still couldn’t be sure how honest Mr. Buttigieg was, concluding, “The only thing I actually know about Pete Buttigieg is that he is a white man.”

Two months later, “Mayor Pete” has spent about one million dollars for each percentage-point gain in black support in South Carolina. Ethnomasochism rarely impresses non-whites — especially blacks — but Mr. Buttigieg doesn’t have a choice if he wants the nomination. For whatever reason, blacks do not like Mr. Buttigieg, who desperately needs them; all he can do is grovel and buy ads.

Mr. Sanders, whose consistent democratic socialist principles have inspired millions, faces the same problem. His support among blacks has never been high, and South Carolina polls suggest he has not made much progress. Vice President Joe Biden has a commanding lead, at 36.5 percent, with Mr. Sanders a distant second, at 16.2 percent. Meanwhile, in Iowa Mr. Sanders trails Mr. Biden by just 3.3 percent, and in New Hampshire Mr. Sanders is ahead of Mr. Biden by nearly 5 percent. Needless to say, the population of South Carolina is very different from that of New Hampshire and Iowa.

All the same, Mr. Sanders’s popularity has frightened many within the Democrat Party who think he’s a dangerous radical. But the anti-Sanders wing needn’t worry; there is one thing they can, and very well may, do that will certainly torpedo him: have Barack Obama endorse Joe Biden.

If this happens, whatever support Sen. Sanders has among blacks will evaporate and keep it well below 10 percent. As shown earlier, monolithic black support for Mr. Obama in 2008 won him the nomination, and in the general election, 95 percent voted for him. In 2012, 93 percent of blacks voted for Mr. Obama. Throughout his presidency, black approval always stayed above 80 percent — and was sometimes double that of Americans as a whole. Most blacks will do what Mr. Obama tells them.

By all accounts, Mr. Obama is not a fan of Mr. Sanders, and rumors have been swirling for months that he may step in to ensure that the Vermont Senator does not get the nomination. As CNBC reported in November:

Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned Democratic primary candidates to avoid leaning too far left in their campaigns, and raised concerns that certain liberal policy proposals on health care and immigration might have gone further than public opinion. In an unusual address to a room of wealthy Democratic donors, Obama urged Democratic candidates to be pragmatic in their messages to voters. While he didn’t mention any specific presidential primary candidate or proposal, Obama warned that the average American voter does not align with views from ‘certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.’

He was obviously talking about Bernie Sanders.

So although Mr. Sanders inspires millions of whites to get involved in politics, he has a fatal weakness. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Obama will almost certainly endorse Mr. Biden, and the Sanders campaign will almost immediately lose any chance of victory.

Mr. Obama’s power will not fade any time soon. He is young for a former President: only 58. Assuming he lives to be 80, he has another 22 years to play kingmaker within the Democrat Party, and there is no countervailing force. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are older, white, and less popular. Flouting the wishes of blacks within the party would require a candidate that brings together most whites and most Hispanics. It’s not impossible, but not likely.

Today, many white progressives are full of hope that Mr. Sanders can fight the media elites and the Davos class within their party and win. But for all their hatred of big business, the military-industrial complex, and special interest groups, what most stands in their way is the fact that blacks, unlike whites, vote as a group. To fix that problem they’ll need more than socialism.

biphobiabullshit #fundie biphobiabullshit.tumblr.com

(I agree that bisexuals in straight relationships are privileged, but they still have a right to LGBTQ spaces)

No they don’t, their rights are not at stake when they invade LGBT spaces. Yes I know that in the past they could’ve been in a homosexual relationship but they’re not at present? So how about letting others who are actually socially, economically and culturally oppressed? why won’t you let them speak?

...

Like I said, the B is only for bisexual people not in a hetero relationship

Janoklark #fundie banjohollow.wordpress.com

Howdy y’all. We all know that phags molest kids at 30 to 60 times the rate of straights (the math is simple: one to two percent of the population is phags, and 60% of misopedia convictions are for phags. 30 to 60 times – that’s 3000 to 6000% more).

I had the lovely experience of debating queers in fagberg (they eventually false flagged me and my account was blocked – such civil “people”). Their main argumentation tactic was to repeat that Catholic priests have a pedophilia problem. Well if you check that, it isn’t true – Catholic priests have a misopedia rate far lower than the population at large. You could very well argue from these standard statistics that Catholicism is a cure for misopedia. Further, the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations have created action committees and organizations to combat the existing misopedes in the ranks. So this begs the question: where is the LGBT opposition to misopedia?

Istantanea_2016-01-29_16-49-34
click to enlarge. Research shows: faggits have zero organization against misopedia (“pedophilia”)

In my search I tried “gay opposition to pedophilia” and “LGBT opposition to pedophilia”. The results left show: 1) an ad by the occupying italian government for queers to come and steal money from italian taxpayers at their geigh center 2) a study on misopede statistics from the NIH 3) the wankapedia article on a murican kiddie rapist association (which is btw totally legal) NAMBLA 4) Rense.com’s repoasting of a study’s obvious results saying queers are more often misopedes 5) an often-linked “study” by headshrinkers (far more often crazy themselves than the normal population) claiming the opposite 6) a search on LGBTQnation.com for articles related to “pedophilia” 7) Ted Cruz’s dad saying legalization of faggitry will lead to legalization of misopedia, then the same thing from infowars, then at the very bottom an ad (ironically) for a intra-religious organization against misopedia, then the second and third pages filled with just tens more of irrelevant results. Okay then, it’s official: exactly zero queers are concerned about misopedia and are organizing to stop it.

Figured you already knew that, but we figured we’d sum it all up here. OM and Amen

Mamipanchitita #sexist reddit.com

The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death.

Not to forget the additional sado-gynecological interventions/ costs of PIV-maintenance, and all the secondary physical mutiliation and financial costs that go with our duty to make ourselves look decorative for male sexual consumption – such as hair removal, make-up, starvation or forced feeding, torturous limb deforming or cutting up, etc I mean, think about it, the very act is invasive by nature.

When I voice my opinions among libtards I always hear “PIV as rape trivialises real rape victims” and “but, but, I like sex and you’re insulting women or men who like sex” and “you’re just doing sex the wrong way”. But the thing is, the word consent is meaningless when the very purpose of violence is to inflict something on you that you don’t want and that’s against your interest. All women get raped in a patriarchy, even by libfem standards.

Bill Donohue #fundie joemygod.com

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), National Public Radio (NPR), and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), are all subsidized by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Trump administration is right to propose a budget that completely guts these entities of federal funding. That is why I am asking members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to honor the president’s request.

Justice demands that these agencies should be eliminated: Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for assaults on their religion. Christians constitute roughly 75 percent of the population; Catholics are approximately 25 percent of the total. In the name of “art,” these Americans are expected to pay for irreverent exhibits, but depictions that are reverential—such as a nativity scene outside City Hall—are denied a dime. It’s time we stopped giving the arts a privileged position and cut their funding. The same is true for publicly funded radio and TV programming that has a history of insulting the majority of Americans.

The CPB was founded in the 1960s, and it has been plagued with problems ever since. In the late 1980s, the NEA funded Andre Serrano’s “Piss Christ” and Robert Mapplethorpe’s “The Perfect Moment.” Serrano took a crucifix and dropped it into a jar of his own urine, branding it art. The NEA gave a Philadelphia museum $30,000 to display graphic homosexual S&M photos taken by Mapplethorpe.

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional prohibition against Congress setting decency standards for the NEA. But attempts by the NEA to enforce grant recipients to sign an anti-obscenity pledge went nowhere. This is why Congress must act.

To show how perverse things have become, President Barack Obama not only approved generous grants to the NEA, he actually included $50 million for the arts as part of his “federal stimulus package.” One of the first beneficiaries was a San Francisco outfit, CounterPULSE. It received $25,000 to pay for employees’ salaries. What did the public get from it? The group hosted “a long-running pansexual performance series” called “Perverts Put Out”; it asked the audience to “Join your fellow pervs for some explicit twisted fun.”

witchwind #fundie witchwind.wordpress.com

The term “fuck you” is not an insult for nothing, men know why – it’s the worst thing you can do to a human being. It is in itself an extremely physically invasive act, very often painful, generally at the beginning before the pain may be cut off by the genital arousal; causes all sorts of tears, bruises, swelling, discomfort, STDs, vaginal infections, urinary infections, genital warts, HIV and death. Not to forget the additional sado-gynecological interventions/ costs of PIV-maintenance, and all the secondary physical mutiliation and financial costs that go with our duty to make ourselves look decorative for male sexual consumption – such as hair removal, make-up, starvation or forced feeding, torturous limb deforming or cutting up, etc.
The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.

Mike #racist webcache.googleusercontent.com

Whites are the least racist and most generous ethnic group in all of human history. Consider the following.

Slavery: Only white countries abolished slavery for moral reasons (in some cases, anyway).

Colonialism: Only white countries surrendered the lands they conquered for moral reasons (in some cases, anyway).

White guilt: Only white people reject their own heritage as irredeemably racist and oppressive.

Immigration: Only white people are surrendering their majority status to unassimilable foreigners who bear historical grudges against them.

Welfare: Only white countries offer generous public benefits to minority groups who pay little or no taxes, makes lots of babies they can’t afford, and commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime (often against whites).

Crime: Only white people think it’s racist to complain about being victimized by hostile ethnic groups.

Crime 2: Despite being 74 percent of the population, whites commit only 10 percent of interracial crimes.

Culture: Only white people downplay their ancestors’ accomplishments (Western civilization) while glorifying the accomplishments of other races (rap music).

Charity: Only white people pair unceasing concern for poor minorities (“at-risk youth”) with contempt or hatred for poor members of their own race (“white trash”).

Internationalism: Only white people agonize over the problems of complete strangers on the other side of the world, spend hundreds of billions of dollars to alleviate their suffering, and welcome them into their homelands as “refugees” and “migrants.”

Environmentalism: Only white people gallivant around the world trying to save rare species and natural habitats in developing countries.

Legislation: White countries were the first to outlaw racial discrimination. Only white countries have special laws and penalties for “hate crimes” and “Holocaust denial.”

Affirmative action: Only white countries have laws and policies that put the majority ethnic group at a competitive disadvantage to minority ethnic groups.

Culture: Only white people feel guilty about their success and complain about their cultural dominance (“white privilege”).

Ideology: Only white people define their nations in terms of abstract ideals rather than culture, ethnicity, and religion.

Manners: White people are nice.

Political correctness: Only white people have a pathological fear of offending people.

Anti-racism: Only white countries engage in cathargic orgies of moral outrage over any hint of prejudice—no matter how small, isolated, imagined, or harmless.

Individualism/Universalism: Only white people reject the concepts of racial identity and racial solidarity.

Multiculturalism: Only white countries welcome the arrival and persistence of alien cultures, religions, and languages.

Diversity: Only white people feel guilty about a lack of diversity in their neighborhoods, schools, businesses, social circles, and entertainment choices.

Extinction: Only whites have allowed their birthrate to fall below replacement level; only whites glorify miscegenation; and only whites see their demographic decline as a sign of social progress.

Feel free to paste this list in the comment sections of anti-white articles on liberal and mainstream sites. Consider closing with the following: “I now fully expect other whites to attack me for saying good things about whites—which only proves my point! Whites don’t hate other races. Whites hate themselves.”

Faith Facts #fundie faithfacts.org

When the subject of Gay Marriage comes up, how are Christians doing at communicating the harm to society with the secular world? Do we have logical reasons to present without being perceived as being "Bible-thumping"?

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:

1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

M11 #fundie community.channel4.com

It may sound a bit harsh, but it seems like the best way to get rid of HIV and AIDS would be to stop keeping the infected people alive for 20-30 years with these drugs. As that way just allows the infections to spread and spread.
Surely HIV and AIDS would naturally die out with the infected dead as there would be nobody left alive to keep spreading and spreading it.

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

America is a crazy place to live. With only five-percent of the world's population, twenty-five percent of the world's prison inmates are incarcerated in the “Land of the Free.” What a sad testimony to our nation. What a tragic paradox.

It's not hard to figure out what's going on if one understands that there has been a Communist agenda to morally subvert and destroy America's sovereignty for centuries. As hard as it is for many people to believe, America was founded by Freemasons with the purpose of exploiting America as a vehicle to bring about a New World Order. This plot is well explained in naval officer, William Guy Carr's book, PAWNS IN THE GAME. Start with chapter 16. Pastor Texe Marrs summarizes 21 ways in which the Illuminati is destroying America. This stuff is real and Christians need to understand what is going on in order to comprehend why pornography, America's sex-culture, Rock 'N' Roll, sex-saturated television, feminism, divorce, Child Protection Services (CPS), corrupt courts, and the malicious newsmedia are destroying America's families. There is an AGENDA at work to destroy your family.

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

T. Matthew Phillips #conspiracy tmatthewphillips.com

The Corona virus is man-made. It’s a laboratory invention. And it’s patented. Disturbing but true.

Close your eyes. Imagine a world where disease-carrying pathogens are considered “inventions.” Now open your eyes. You live in that world!

The U.S. Patent Office indicates that Corona virus is Patent No. US10130701B2 (Nov. 20, 2018). Click on the below link — and see for yourself — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701/en

Waves of Corona outbreaks are coming soon! But there’s good news — the Corona vaccine will soon be available at CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens! Just in the nick of time!

So, what’s a Corona virus? It’s a virus that reportedly causes runny nose, coughing, sore throat, and sometimes a fever. According to WebMD: “In most cases, you won’t know whether you have a coronavirus or a different cold-causing virus.” In other words, it’s just the common cold.

But common cold outbreaks are not scary enough to prompt lawmakers to enact new vaccine mandates. So they crank-up the fear factor with horror movie headlines and apocalyptic images of sinister undertakers dressed in creepy-looking HAZ-MAT outfits!

And when the Corona virus strikes, gov’t authorities will refuse to examine it under a microscope. If they ever do, they’ll immediately recognize the patented LAB strain of the virus — in every confirmed case — and it will then be revealed that the LAB strain caused the outbreak!

Yes, folks are being infected with the LAB strain of the virus. But if this fact ever leaks-out, the Corona Caper will unravel. So the authorities LIE to us. They claim the outbreaks are caused by elusive, WILD strains of the virus. But remember, Corona virus is an “invention.” There is no WILD strain of the virus!

The mainstream media have already begun their Corona disinformation campaign. Gov’t lapdogs at USA Today report on what they call “bogus theories” that the Corona virus is patented. Um, okay, — but it *is* patented. Not a “theory!” It’s a “factoid” capable of verification at the U.S. Patent Office.

According to USA Today, the Corona patent is just a social media myth. But USA Today is a fake news peddler! They get paid to run “ads” alongside their news stories. And the more ad revenue they receive, the more fake their stories become.

Fake News from USA Today –> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/25/wuhan-coronavirus-bogus-conspiracy-theory-spreads-social-media/4569180002/

Despite the disinformation, the Corona virus is indeed patented — which makes it readily identifiable and distinct from WILD strains. The gov’t clearly has the means to discern whether victims are catching the LAB strain or a WILD strain, but the gov’t just doesn’t care to investigate. They already know which strain sparked the outbreak! After all, it was the gov’t that awarded the patent in the first place! (Wink-wink!)

When Corona outbreaks visit your town (and they will) tell your local health inspectors that Corona “test kits” yield only positive or negative test results, i.e., they never reveal the actual viral strain.

When they announce Corona outbreaks, insist that officials examine blood samples under a microscope — to determine whether the outbreak involves the LAB strain or a WILD strain.

Hey! There’s a Quest Diagnostics lab on every street corner in America! There’s no reason to avoid scrutinizing the Corona virus under a microscope! But mainstream science has no wish to study, research, or gain understanding about the origins of infectious outbreaks or how they spread. Mainstream science is too busy creating fear and panic — to sell more vaccines.

Once you see the fraud in how they “confirm” the identity of the virus that supposedly caused the outbreak, you suddenly see the fraud in the outbreak itself. All outbreak hoaxes unravel once you realize that “confirmed” cases of the dreaded disease are never actually “confirmed” under a microscope.

Consider this — many scientists are employed as “virus hunters.” Their only job is to search for new viruses. If they find one — they quickly bring it into captivity — to patent it! Capitalism has a way of turning nature into commodities! And yet, whenever there’s an infectious outbreak, presumably caused by new, WILD viruses, nobody ever goes hunting for these new, WILD viruses! (Get it?)

Predictably, the unvaccinated will be blamed for the Corona outbreaks. Kristen Bell will blame the heathen parents of unclean, ungodly, and unvaccinated children who aren’t caught-up on their Corona boosters, right?! But wait a sec’ — how can Sarah Marshall blame the unvaccinated for Corona outbreaks — when all Americans are unvaccinated for Coronal Disease? (“Shh!” Don’t ask!)

If they ever examined, under a microscope, blood samples from Corona victims, they’d plainly see that all were infected with the LAB strain of the virus! And they cleverly conceal this fact with test kits that test only for exposure to the virus — and which never identify the culprit viral strain! (Are you paying attention?)

Guess what? Ebola virus is patented. AIDS virus is patented. Measles virus is patented. And so is Chickenpox virus, Zika virus, SARS virus, MRSA virus, Avian flu virus, etc. Any virus you can name — it’s patented. All viruses now in captivity are patented.

And all Corona outbreaks are staged media events! For goodness’ sake — no Corona outbreaks exist in the historical record!

Remember when your mom told you how to care for diseases like Mumps, Measles and Coronas? Remember that time you stayed home from school for a week with a bad case of the Coronas? NO! Because the Corona virus never existed until Bill Gates paid some slob to invent it — so they can have more outbreaks — so they can sell more vaccines — so they can kill-off more useless eaters — so they can roll-out their new world order!

“If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower world population by 10 or 15 percent.” – Bill Gates

You guessed it! Bill Gates owns the patented Corona virus! And, not surprisingly, Bill Gates also own the rights to the anti-Corona virus vaccine!

he recent Corona outbreaks, which follow closely on the heels of the patent approval, is another c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y. (There! I said it!) But this should be evident from the intensive media coverage, which is calculated to scare you half to death! Be afraid! Be very afraid! Fear sells vaccines!

Corona outbreaks will scare lawmakers into enacting Corona vaccine mandates! Next thing ya know, they will patent a Heineken virus! So expect Heineken outbreaks — and then Heineken vaccines! This is how they do the masses. This is how the vaccine holocaust begins! This is what genocide looks like!

This is how they plan to exterminate seven billion useless eaters. There’s no need for gas chambers when vaccines will do the job nice and neat — and nobody will even know it’s a holocaust.

The downward spiral comes quickly — the time to resist is now. Just remember, it’s easier to genocide a population — than to convince them they’re being genocided. You heard me.

Kevin D. Williamson #fundie nationalreview.com

It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male.

Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote.

Jon Rappoport #quack #conspiracy lewrockwell.com

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.

My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.

For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.

Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.

I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.

AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”

Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?

Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?

And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?

The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

[…]

Edessasail #racist reddit.com

Europeans only for citizenship. I'd accept a non-white non-citizen resident minority population, but absolutely NEVER exceeding 10-20 percent of the population, and the larger it grew the harsher immigration restrictions would get for non-white countries, and the more privileges they would lose as a group.

Ryotte,themius,fathomfear,lenonis #fundie mmo-champion.com

[ (CBS) Larry Dunn Jr. made a chilling confession to cops last week after allegedly stabbing his girlfriend for telling him she was HIV-positive, WFAA-TV reported.

"She killed me, so I killed her."

Dunn, a 36-year-old Texas man, told police that he snapped during a visit to the Dallas apartment of his new girlfriend, 28-year-old Cicely Bolden, on Thursday afternoon, according to WFAA.Bolden apparently revealed her HIV status to Dunn after the couple had sex. (To clarify)Furious, Dunn grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed Bolden to death ]

Ryotte:How is it worse for her to want human affection badly enough and possibly be scared/confused/rejected enough to sleep with him before telling him her HIV status than for him to KILL HER without knowing if he even contracted HIV and leave her body for her 7 and 8 year old kids?
[ Think positive - she could've infected much more people with HIV if she was left alive. The man did good to society by not allowing the disease to spread to more innocent and unuspecting victims ]
Innocent and unsuspecting victims...like the kids who walked in and found their mother dead? Yeah, I'm sure that did positive things for their role in society. DIdn't screw them up at all. Nope.


Themius:This topic is disgusting... people are bashing the dead woman who admits to someone she has HIV and everyone is like.. yeah that's cool I would do it too.If he did have HIV "oh no I may only live to be almost 70! i'm going to kill her!" like really? It's not a death sentence and the guy is so fucking dumb he said he killed him? You know how some transsexuals will have sex with people without telling them till after? This is like that. They feel rejected for who they are on a regular and thus some opt to not say anything until later when the person has more vested feelings in them so that maybe they won't leave them. Is it the right thing? No not necessarily, but is it worthy of death? Absolutely not.

What I want to know is why are we painting her as this horrible woman? I view her more as a victim of circumstance, not some person out to give hiv to everyone. If this was the case she wouldn't have told him and would have had sex with him much more. Sleeping with a transsexual will affect you negatively if they never told you and tell you later, or you find out by some other method. This is very much like that.

yosef1015 :How about this, put your self in her shoes, would you have told him? Your all probably thinking "hell ya i would" but think about it, if she tells him, no sex and he will most likely break up with her. So basically if she tells any guy that she has HIV she will go through life with no sex and no relationships unless she finds that one guy which will be really hard to find. Sex is a powerful thing. Sure I think it was wrong not to tell him but I dont blame her one bit

FathomFear: The fact of the matter is that protecting ourselves from STIs is each individual's responsibility. While I would no doubt be pissed if I slept with a guy who knowingly withheld his HIV+ status, the onus is ultimately on me either way. There's a certain amount of risk that goes along with sexual activity, and everyone needs to be willing to take it on and take appropriate measures. The only 100% safe alternative is abstinence.

lenonis : Up to 500,000 people die worldwide each year because of the flu. So if someone tells me they have the flu after they have sex with me, I can kill them right? Cause I might die from the exposure?

Susanne Posel #conspiracy occupycorporatism.com

To infect a large amount of people (like the population of a large US city) with a bio-weapon like the Ebola virus, drones could be used to spray over-head with ease. Because of the immediacy of infection, the population of cities affect would experience a dramatic reduction nearly instantly. In fact, it would take nearly a week for officials to even respond to this type of pandemic and by that time, thousands of Americans would be have succumbed to the Ebola virus.

Because of the effectiveness of the mortality rate of the Ebola virus, it is the perfect bio-weapon. And if combined with the recent implementation of drones in US skies, could this be a combination we should be concerned about?

Couer d'lyon #conspiracy fstdt.com

As much as I absolutely despise disruptor and hope that he dies in a bath of salt after being flayed, he's right on the scientific evidence for HIV=AIDS, namely, that there is none.The evidence that exists is anecedotal and wouldn't pass muster in a class of kindergardeners.

Ah to wittynamehere, pictures are worth jack shit.They can be ANYTHING, no reputable virologist worth their salt depends on "mediafashioned" pictures.Those "Virus particles" could literally be anything from protein clumps to waste particles to viruses of another type to cellular debris etc.

The ONLY photography allowed to diagnose retroviruses is through electron micrography.Here, the standards set up by virologists world-wide consistently fail to turn up evidence of HIV in the standard gradient, which brings any other electron photo of supposed "HIV" particles into question.

a good interview....

http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html

I may be branded as a conspiracy theorist, but when I looked at all the statistics,facts and studies over the past 25+ years, and the MONEY, my god the money; I have to wonder, just what the fuck is up?!?

I'll tell you something, after all I've seen and heard, if I, a healthy gay man who largely abstains from recreational drugs, eats right and gets it on, but uses condoms; gets diagnosed with HIV by my doctor or health clinic, my reaction will be
"So what?".What other reaction can I have for HIV tests, which all have _statutory_disclaimers on their packaging.

http://campaignfortruth.com/latestnews/WDIrapidtest.htm

Should I be "Diagnosed" I will not take any AIDS drugs, I will of course, have to radically alter my life, since I will have to tell every man I potentially go out with that I've been diagnosed HIV+(OOOH nice, yeah, Ima _really_ pick up guys that way)almost all HIV+ guys I know are AIDS and especially recreational drug users, and I'm not into that scene, I wanna live, and I've always hated poppers(for chrissakes, when your ass hurts,
it means you and your partner need to
take it easy!).


Oh, BTW, it doesn't matter if I retest anonomyously, and am found HIV- or indeterminate(usually regarded as HIV-) my original testing will stand, and depending on where I live, I may have to register for unwanted social services and possibly even be regarded as a criminal if I have unprotected sex with another man without revealing that I have been diagnosed HIV+ at some point.

I'm sorry for ranting, but this is how I see things.

Linda Harvey #fundie worldnetdaily.com

[Time to shut down homosexual clubs]

Did you get that? Each year, 12 percent more boys and young men were diagnosed with HIV. The trend is straight uphill. Yet homosexual activist groups like GLSEN and PFLAG, in lockstep with the ACLU and even Planned Parenthood, convince educators that safe-sex condom demonstrations, "gay straight alliances," and tolerance and diversity lessons are necessary "support" for those who are presumably born to engage in this behavior.

Our beautifully designed 14-year-old boys were created to have anal sex? Right.

Claudio Gambino #racist america.aljazeera.com

Italy mayor wants separate buses for Roma people

An Italian mayor’s plan to use separate bus lines for Roma people has sparked controversy among the town’s politicians over what has been called the latest in a series of “ridiculous” human-rights violations that plague the Roma in Europe.

Claudio Gambino, mayor of the northern town of Borgaro Torinese, wants separate buses for Roma, who live in a camp of about 600 inhabitants on the town’s outskirts and, he said, "have been afflicting us for more than 20 years." Numerous protests, petitions and Facebook pages have been dedicated to the camp's prompt removal.

"To guarantee the security of our citizens, we need two buses. One for citizens, the other for Roma people," Italian media on Friday quoted Gambino as saying, adding that buses have been plagued by theft and petty violence. Last week a Roma passenger was accused of attempting to steal a 13-year-old boy’s backpack on his first day of school, Italian newspaper La Stampa reported.

City officials said at a town council meeting that there have been constant criminal incidents targeting passengers and that the bus plan does not constitute racism.

More than 80 percent of respondents to a La Stampa reader poll — about 9,000 people — said they agreed with the mayor’s suggestion of separate bus lines.

Human rights activists have sounded alarms over rising discrimination against Roma in the European Union. In France police last year detained a 15-year-old undocumented Roma girl during a school trip and deported her to her native Kosovo under a French government policy that targets Roma for expulsion. In Hungary, home to the far-right Jobbik party — which campaigns on anti-immigration policies — attacks on Roma people regularly make headlines, Amnesty International reported.

Andrey Ivanov, head of the Roma and migrant integration program of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), an EU-sponsored think tank, said Roma are “facing marginalization everywhere.” He called Gambino’s proposal “ridiculous.”

“Any form of racial segregation is illegal,” he said.

Only 15 percent of young Roma adults in EU member states have completed high school or vocational education, compared with more than 70 percent of the general population, according to FRA numbers. Fewer than 30 percent of Roma have paid jobs, and nearly half live in households lacking an indoor kitchen, a toilet, electricity or a shower or bath.

Nichi Vendola, leader of Italy’s Left Ecology Freedom party, told La Stampa on Saturday that "giving people different rights is called apartheid."

Micaela Campana, human-rights supervisor for Gambino's Democratic Party, said the party warned Gambino that "marginalization is never the solution" and that "answering violence by excluding people will not help."

But the bus plan has won the support of the anti-immigration Northern League party, with senior parliamentarian Roberto Calderoli saying, "These are the real problems. I send my compliments to Borgaro's administration, which — despite being left wing — has listened to the people."

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

Robert Conway at Reaxxion asks if Magic: The Gathering adding a transsexual character is a problem:

The answer is, ABSOLUTELY YES, it is a problem. It is a very serious and ultimately fatal problem that will eventually kill the game dead. It is a problem of such gargantuan and epic proportions that the only rational thing to do is to immediately stop playing Magic: The Gathering, and stop purchasing any of its related products, until the Alesha, Who Smiles At Death card is publicly withdrawn. The card is the gaming equivalent of a small but malignant melanoma.

One might as reasonably ask if the original decision to permit women to read Bible verses was a problem for the Anglican Church. Or if the original income tax, which was introduced with a maximum rate of 7 percent and affected less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was a problem for US taxpayers.

The point is not whether the addition of an overtly propagandistic SJW element immediately breaks the game. The first step never does. That's because the first step is always only symbolic, a testing of the waters to see if the invasion of the SJWs is going to be resisted or not. When it is resisted, of course, there will be endless protestations of how it is harmless little thing, how it is "just this one brick", and hand-on-heart vows of how there is, of course, absolutely NO intention of building a damn brick wall in the future.

The time to smack down the SJW entryists is when the camel first sticks its nose in the tent, not when it is already fully ensconced and defecating all over the carpets.

traingirls-vs-trigglypuffs #fundie traingirls-vs-trigglypuffs.tumblr.com

image Reblog if you believe Straight Pride is more vital than gay pride in a world that demonizes straight people for daring to love image

#straight pride #im bisexual lmao so you cant attack me for this #gay #straight #facts over feelings #straight hate #cishet scum #ace pride #ace positivity #ben shapiro #obama #trump #black lives matter #76 genders #feminism #anti sjw #accept yourself #straight positivity #the logical entrepeneur #the regressive left #the reasonable atheist #libtards #this will trigger liberals #liberal lunacy #liberal psychopathy

jtstevenson81-1 #fundie imdb.com

[how does allowing gays to get married harm you, if you are straight?]

Because allowing gay people to get married would be the same as allowing pedophiles to marry children. After all, why shouldn't pedophiles be allowed to marry what they are attracted to? They can't help it, after all!

[Fool, how is a child a consenting adult?]

Your logic sucks. The point is that at some point, you have to define what is actual marriage and what is unadulterated perversion. Why can't people who are addicted to beastiality marry farm animals? The lunacy has to end at some point.

Oh and by the way, God makes it clear in the bible that homosexual behavior is wrong, and that people who encourage the behavior will be sent to hell along with them(just read the story of Sodom and Gamorrah.) So in that way it affects me very greatly. Of course, you probably don't believe in God, so this last point is lost on you.

[UT OH!! He pulled the his trump card!! The bible says it!! Come on man, not fair.]

Ok then, I'll give you another argument that has nothing to do with my belief in God:

In the United States, a little over one million people are infected with HIV. Of these people, 75% are gay/bisexual men who acquired their infections through sex with another man.

So basically, the male homosexual population is responsible for the vast majority of the HIV/AIDS problem in the United States. Thanks, but no thanks.

Tony Bermanseder #conspiracy tonyb.freeyellow.com

In its place would be the meme of a new mental archetype, which had, (in that subgroup of the humanoids, which began to understand the implications of the new technological inventions) transmuted the 'supernaturality virus' into a viral neuronal infection known as CIS-HSI or 'Complex Inferioris Syndrome Homo Sapiensis Insanus' by the extraterrestrial observers.

This meme infection of the cis-hsi would so begin to 'war against' the old meme infection of the supernaturality virus, also known as the CSS-HSI or 'Complex Superioris Syndrome Homo Sapiensis Insanus'.

The old meme infection had resulted in a worldview of considering the external environment as superior and controlling relative to the humanoid realms of understanding; and the new meme infection induced the opposite, the idea of the humanoid worlds beginning to control and dominate the exterior environments.

However this human mentality also induced a 'false humility', namely the idea, that to consciously and in full awareness of the 'self' as human individuation to continue the 'controlling of the terrestrial environment'; ANY notion of a 'greater encompassing' intelligence had to become 'supernaturalised' and so exiled into the realm of the meme infection of the 'others', the other humanoids, suffering the css-hsi insanity infection.

Relegating the human existence to a relative insignificance as compared to the extraterrestrial universe would instil the idea of a 'false humility' before the 'grandeur of the encompassing cosmos' in the new 'highpriests' of the new global religion of organised and politico-economical associated academia establishment.

Then the 'intelligentsia' would begin to dominate and seek to control all information shared with the 'uninitiated' lower classes and including the 'other' meme infected humanoids, suffering, like themselves, from an eonold virus, causing CSI-NMO or Complexus Syndroma Insanus -Nil Memoria Originalis.

The mental disease, the extraterrestrials knew was confined to the quarantined humanoid planet and as the Meme-Virus, which prevented the infected carrier to remember their origins, causing a comatose forgetfulness.

Both humanoid meme- infections parasited the homo sapiens insanus genus however and prevented this typology to metamorphose into 'Wise Man' in the genotype of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and as originally targeted by the gardeners at the time of the planting.

bernard goldberg #fundie bernardgoldberg.com

Did you hear about the gay bakery in Greenwich Village – Sweetie Pies, Cupcakes and More — that refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple? Can you imagine?

When asked why they refused, the two gay bakers – Adam and Steve – said, “While we have nothing against straight people – some of our best friends are heteros – we don’t think straight people should fall into some ‘protected class.’ In other words, it’s our bakery and we can do whatever we want.”

City officials didn’t see it that way. They fined Adam and Steve over $100,000 because according to local law, a business open to the public must serve the public and can’t refuse service based on sexual orientation.



So whose side are you on? Do the gay bakers have a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple? It is their business, after all. Or was the government right in fining them?

In case you hadn’t heard about the Greenwich Village case, it’s because I made it up. But I suspect you knew that. And I understand that the Oregon case, which is in the news – where Christian bakers were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple – isn’t exactly the same.

In the Oregon case, the bakers claimed it was against their religious beliefs to bake the cake. To do so would violate their fundamental values.

The state didn’t see it that way, ruling that, “Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.”

(Before you ask, Should a Jewish baker be forced to cater a Nazi wedding, let’s be clear: Nazis are not a protected class. In many states — Oregon being one — gays are. So no on the Nazi wedding.)

Melissa Klein, the owner along with her husband of the bakery that was penalized, Sweet Cakes, in Portland, said this on her Facebook page: “We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!”

Fair enough. If they’re willing to lose their business by not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple, maybe that’s how God wants it, though I have a tough time believing that God gave even a second of his precious time to the question of whether Christian bakers should make a wedding cake for a couple of gays.

The Administration #racist kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com

I’d like to begin with a brief Q and A. See if you can discern nationalities, or at least geographically derived human sub-groups, from the following series of photos.

image


image

image


image


image


image

So what would you guess? Does the diversity of the people in each photo aid in the speculation? Here are the answers.

1) Chinese
2) Indians
3) Congolese
4) Nicaraguans
5-6)…Swedes

Do we notice any incongruencies in these national compositions? The lingering suspicion that perhaps diversity hasn’t quite been globally embraced? The thought that it never will be? That the entire concept of diversity will evaporate as mist with the last white majority? That diversity was never anything but a ruse to induce very foolish people into doing very harmful things? Is there almost, if one were to assign malicious intent, the sense that only one of the nations in those photos is being systematically scrubbed from the planet? Well no, thinking that is hate. Doing that, on the other hand, is most certainly not hate.

And that doing in Sweden is what this article will remark upon. For a couple of days ago in that country of fleetingly ethereal beauty, a small political group peacefully assembled, as citizens in heretofore Western countries are prone to do. According to the Daily Mail, this was a group of “Neo-nazis,” a term deployed in the article no less than four-times in a sort of journalistic call-response sing-along. What are they? Nazis. What are they?? Nazis!! In a nod to fairness and symmetry the party’s actual name–The Swedes Party–was also mentioned four times. Here is the Triple-R platform of the Swedes Party:

1. Sweden should in the future be Swedish: Only people who belong to the western genetic and cultural heritage, where ethnic Swedes are included, should be Swedish citizens.
2. Sweden shall be governed by the Swedes: Non-Swedes shall not be allowed to hold positions of power in Swedish society.
3. Sweden shall be governed for the Swedes: All policy decisions should be based on what is best for the interests of ethnic Swedes.
4. Sweden shall be governed as effectively as possible: The state apparatus shall be headed by a modern system of government that benefits the Swedes as efficiently as possible. The form of the government must be based on competence and responsibility, and its mission must always be to serve the people, not vice versa. The government’s motto should be improvement, development and what’s best for all of the people.
5. Sweden shall have actual self-government: Collaborations with other countries shall be gladly carried out, but no agreement stating that a supranational government will be accepted.
6. Sweden shall be a safe country to live in: Security, both individual and economic, should be one of the society’s foundations.
7. Freedom of expression: All questions shall be allowed to be discussed in Sweden, research shall be free, and restriction of privacy by governmental surveillance of non-criminal citizens shall not be allowed.
8. Swedish resources shall be owned by the Swedish people: Major Swedish natural resources and public utilities should be owned by the Swedish people meaning that all profits from such business returns to the population and not to foreign or private interests.
9. Community cohesion and social justice should permeate society: Class fragmentation should be replaced by class community whereby all of the peoples’ creative and productive efforts are highly valued and no social group is allowed to advance at the expense of any other.
10. Sweden shall have strong environmental and animal welfare goals: Sweden has unique nature that is worth protecting and preserving. Food industry and other industries dealing with livestock must be ethically sound and sustainable.

In other words, The State exists to serve The Nation rather than Nation serving State. And though it’s not difficult to see why this stance would lead liberal bots into motherboard meltdowns, it does lead one to wonder…why else? Why else would groups of like people ever form and empower a state apparatus, if not but to serve their interests? Swedes originally created a state and drew boundaries for the benefit of Swedes. No one else. There are approximately 8 million Swedes in a world of 7+ billion. If they do not stand as their own advocates, none will.

I will wager that not a founder of a single western state did so with the intention that his creation would find its purpose in dispossessing his posterity. That the media takes pains to reassure its cud-chewing consumers that this fundamental premise of government is Nazi! should explain all one needs to learn about the veracity of its reporting.

So what occurred when a few dozen Sweden for the Swedes congregated? Well, the gibbering howler monkeys went ape-shit, naturally. Furiously demanding that their children’s birthright be bequeathed instead to Sweden’s proliferating Somalis, they formed ranks in the thousands to attack the few remaining vessels of their forefather’s Viking legacy.

And then it became amusing. Because mounted police at the scene also drew fire from the left’s marionettes. And after issuing several ignored orders to disperse, they attended to the crowd the old-fashioned way: they rode them down in the street.

According to a witness: ’It is a narrow street where they rode ten horses abreast in full gallop towards a group of about 300 to 400 people. Police kept repeating this.

To provide a visual flavor…

*pic omitted. Graphic charge of Swedish mounted policemen on demonstrators. Authors adds a LOTR pic for irony*


Alas, the pleasant images cease there. In the end it was only a few dozen against thousands. And no force on Earth will deny a peoples determined to perish. Further, the rate of that dissolution is accelerating. The treasonous Swedish government, or I suppose one could say the government loyal to the people’s self-abnegation, has announced even more saints are arriving to camp.

In October, Sweden’s Migration Board (Migrationsverket) is expected to raise the prognosis of refugees in Sweden to 100,000, reported the Sydsvenskan newspaper on Tuesday.

The total would mark an all-time record for Sweden.

A spokesperson from the board explained that the dramatic increase Sweden has seen of late could be put explained by the unrest around the world.

This year’s income so far has arrived mostly from Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Eritrea.

Another reason for the hike in numbers is the worsening situation in northern Iraq.

“Our conclusion is that refugees from there still can’t get to Sweden, but will be able to by late autumn” Zettergren concluded.

A poll published on Monday showed that nearly two thirds of Swedes thought Sweden should take in more refugees or at least the same number as it currently does.

The poll, carried out by Novus, found that 32 percent of respondents believed the intake should be decreased, and 36 percent said the amount should remain the same. About 26 percent said Sweden should take in even more refugees, and six percent responded that they didn’t know.

The poll also showed that women and younger Swedes were slightly more positive towards refugees than men and older Swedes.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said Swedes should tolerance in the face of increasing refugee numbers.

“I know that this will cause friction. I therefore call on the Swedish people to show patience and open their hearts” he said.

Last year, Sweden took in almost 20 percent of the EU’s asylum seekers, more than any other country in the union.

Despite Sweden’s relatively small population of 9.5 million people, which is 1.9 percent of the European Union’s total population, Sweden opened the doors to a total of 135,700 asylum seekers – 46 percent of whom came from Syria.

In September last year, Sweden granted permanent residence to all Syrian refugees, the first country in the EU to do so.

The prime minister will be pleased to imagine the Swedish people will probably be opening their hearts as well as their necks before this matter is settled. And though it is excruciating to watch them do away with themselves for the mere frisson of liberal preening, one can hope their ashes will fertilize the resistance in other countries. For if the black flag rises over Stockholm, then remaining nations may be inclined to discipline their states. And when that begins, not even chants of “nazi” will stop the charge.

Mike Adams #conspiracy #wingnut #dunning-kruger #pratt naturalnews.com

The coronavirus achieves all the top priorities of the globalists: Depopulation, authoritarian government and elimination of the elderly who no longer contribute tax money

If the Wuhan coronavirus (CoVid-19) pandemic began from an “accidental” release, it sure was a happy accident for the globalists. Everything the pandemic is achieving just happens to perfectly fit the top priorities of the globalist agenda.

Consider the following:

– The coronavirus pandemic is currently on track to infect 60% – 80% of the world population and kill up to 15% of those infected, according to an increasing number of doctors and scientists. Conservatively, this could kill up to half a billion people (500 million people), which would go a long way toward accomplishing the globalist goal of depopulation.

– All the governments of the world are going broke covering entitlement payments for retired workers, such as Medicare, pensions, social security, etc. Killing off the elderly helps governments stay functionally solvent while they continue to operate on debt. (No government has any use for a citizen after they stop paying taxes and retire.) Note carefully that this virus tends to kill the elderly while leaving working-aged citizens alive so they can continue to run the factories, pay the taxes and fund the “tax plantations” that fiscally feed governments.

– The pandemic allows governments to declare medical martial law, with gunpoint-enforced quarantines, mandatory vaccinations and government kidnapping of children from parents who refuse to go along with the medical tyranny. It’s a dream come true for the CDC and the vaccine industry.

– Simultaneously, the pandemic also allows Big Tech to justify total censorship and de-platforming of “anti-vaxxers,” who will of course be immediately blamed for every infection and every death, as soon as a commercial vaccine is available.

– The economic collapse that’s now inevitable from the pandemic’s effects on the global supply chain will cover up all the counterfeit money printing by the central banks and shift blame for the economic collapse to the virus instead of failed monetary policy. Yes, the global economy was already headed for a cascading debt collapse apocalypse, but now the governments can claim “the virus did it.”

– If they can get the virus to spread quickly enough, globalists might even be able to crash the U.S. economy in time to defeat Trump’s re-election in November, removing a key enemy of the globalists and possibly even installing Hillary Clinton as Vice President (she’s rumored to be the running mate of Bloomberg).

Make no mistake, this CoVid-19 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak is almost the perfect weapon against humanity that keeps the globalists in power and even increases their tyranny on a global scale.

It’s almost as if — dare we say — the virus was intelligently designed with these goals in mind…

Harun Yahya #fundie newsrescue.com

Snobbery, homosexuality, anarchistic, paying no attention to national values, opposing Islam, ashamed of being a Muslim, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious and having an inferiority complex: These are the tenets some Muslims would like to ascribe to a new youth model. Some of them would like Muslim youth to have some of these attributes and some others all of them. They have a wrong-headed belief that being modern and acceptable in society requires such characteristics and therefore they are making an outstanding effort to turn the youth into this new “model”. Some of them are making such effort deliberately to damage the moral values of Islam and others are following them unconsciously just to catch up with the trend.

Among these new attributes, homosexuality seems to lead the field and thus it is promoted on all occasions as another human rights issue. Above all else, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam (7/80-82) and other Abrahamic religions (Leviticus 18/22, Romans 1/24-28) and in the stories of those who were punished for engaging in this perversion in the holy books (Qur’an, 15/68-75, 2 Peter 2/6-10, Leviticus 20/13). Some Muslim activists who promote homosexuality misinterpret these verses and lie by distorting the true meanings of the verses and explain them as if it was not homosexuality being condemned but coercion in sexual intercourse. They are elucidating the Qur’an with connotation; however the commands of God are not described through connotations – they are always clear and precise.

In some of today’s societies, being opposed to homosexuality is considered as embracing a bigoted mentality and thus many refrain from speaking out against it. Yet, the command against homosexuality is not something fabricated by the bigots put forth years after the Qur’an was revealed; it is forbidden by the Qur’an itself. Therefore, it’s not open to any other interpretations. It is important to note that we are against the homophobic actions some people engage in out of hatred such as assault or beatings or any other kind of misbehavior. In the extremist Islamic perspective, homosexuals are to be thrown from rooftops or exposed to physical assault, which we certainly condemn in no uncertain terms. When it comes to homosexuality, what we are against is the spiritual, moral and physical damage it imposes on societies, especially on children. The solution for this is absolutely not violence, but proper education.

As of late, homosexuality has increased to a great extent and those who oppose it or take a stand against it are considered abnormal and are isolated in society. Some homosexual activists promote same-sex marriage and their rights day and night in TV programs, newspaper columns and in social media. They endeavor to portray the homosexual way of life as ordinary, healthy and similar to typical heterosexual families. As a matter of fact, all this is no more than mere eyewash. Yet, homosexuality is indeed a very serious danger to society morally, physically and economically.

Approaching the issue from a moral perspective, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the concept of the family has been ruined and the number of illegitimate children being born has skyrocketed; to wit, in some areas in Scandinavia, 80% of children are born outside of a married family. Embracing homosexuality inevitably destroys social morality by distorting the nature of families and thus raising the children in an unvirtuous lifestyle. That is to say, it is not unpredictable to encounter higher rates of sexual molestation with homosexual parents. As per statistics, 29% of children had been particularly subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent. We should bear in mind that the real number is astronomical; this is only the recorded percentage and there are indeed much more similar cases but the abused children are either too ashamed or too scared to report the incidents.

The mental health of homosexuals is also precarious. In accordance with a health report from the US, homosexuals are about 50% more likely to be subject to depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the general public and the risk of suicide is more than 200%. The median lifespan of a homosexual is 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual person. Homosexuals tend to die in their early 50s or late 40s if AIDS is the cause of death, while heterosexuals tend to die in their mid 70’s.

It is an old story that AIDS is the primary cause of death of homosexuals. In a study in 2008 one in five homosexuals in 21 big US cities were infected with HIV and almost half of them were unaware of their infection. They are also prone to many other STD’s which are harmful both to themselves and the entire society. Being unaware of these infections, homosexuals are in a risk group of spreading the diseases extensively in a society through blood donations or injections or having significantly higher levels of promiscuity as one study shows that 28% of homosexuals have had more than 1,000 partners. Additionally, AIDS is damaging to the economy and to the governments that fight against it: In the US alone, government investment in the domestic response to HIV has risen to more than $24 billion per year.

This list of threats goes on forever and it is an obligation to raise public awareness in order to take the necessary precautions to foster a better and healthy environment. Our intention is to counsel these homosexual people to abandon the abnormality that affects them and the people around them and their activists to stop promoting it as if it is all a bed of roses, because it is not. Every human life matters in society and we are ready to work on the salvation of everyone. Especially these days supporting homosexuality is being presented as a way of promoting freedoms and enlightening people about these facts is one of the ways to reach it. Conscious people have to take the responsibility to brighten this darkness being imposed on Muslim communities before it is too late.

Gregory Hood, Paul Kersey, and Henry Wolff #racist amren.com

The Great Replacement: Minneapolis

Minneapolis, Minnesota, was almost entirely white until 1980. However, in the last few decades, large numbers of non-whites came to the city, especially immigrants from Somalia. Now, the idyllic city created by settlers and pioneers is a center for black crime and Islamic terrorist recruitment.

The city’s story began when the United States Army built Fort Snelling after the War of 1812 to guard American settlers. The most famous non-white inhabitant of Fort Snelling was Dred Scott, whose efforts to escape slavery led to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that blacks were not citizens and “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the world ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

After more settlers came, several local settlements combined. Adolf Hoeffler, a German who visited the area in 1852, predicted it would eventually become “an extensive manufacturing town, and depot of all the future productions of the extreme Upper Mississippi.” Minneapolis was ideally placed for milling flour, not just manufacturing. Its name means “water city.” From 1870 to 1890, Minneapolis grew from 13,000 people to almost 165,000. Almost everyone was white.

Many city leaders wanted to keep it that way. “Restrictive covenants” to keep neighborhoods white were used from 1910 until 1950. The fascist Silver Legion or “Silver Shirts” had a presence in the city in the 1930s. Blacks were simply not a significant presence in the city for most of its history, so ethnic tension was between Jews and gentiles, not blacks and whites. Some help-wanted ads even said, “Gentile preferred.” Minneapolis was a critical battleground for the Progressive movement. The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party didn’t unite with the Democrats until 1944, and the quasi-socialist MFLP was able to elect candidates such as Minneapolis mayor Thomas Latimer. Class and ideology — not race — dominated city politics.

Non-whites started coming to the city in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s. By 1990, the city was more than 20 percent non-white. Some migrants may have been tempted by Minnesota’s generous welfare programs. However, there was also a deliberate effort by churches and refugee settlement organizations to bring them. Corporations also wanted cheap labor, such as the meat packers who hired Somalis.

image

A graph showing the white population of Minneapolis falling from 99% a century ago to 60% today.

Organizations such as Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities, and World Relief Minnesota have worked with the State Department to settle foreign “refugees.” Many such organizations are essentially funded by the federal government, and have a clear financial interest to importing migrants. Without government, there would not be nearly so much resettlement.

In 2004, Minnesota was the number-one destination for foreign refugees on a per-capita basis. The Hmong began arriving in large numbers after the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. Their numbers are a good example of how military intervention brings foreigners. Beginning with 60 “refugees” in 1976, the Twin Cities region (Minneapolis and St. Paul) eventually “attracted the largest Hmong population in the country.” There are now more than 66,000, which means the area is the largest urban Hmong population in the world. Minneapolis now has Hmong gangs, which occasionally re-enact their tribal conflicts on American streets.

Hispanics have also come. The percentage of Hispanics almost quintupled from 1990 to 2010, rising from 2.14 percent to 10.47 percent.

There is a huge Somali population in Minneapolis: over 125,000. One area is called “Little Mogadishu” and is plagued by gangs. An estimated 23 men from the Twin Cities have joined the Islamic terrorist group al-Shabab since 2007. NPR did a series on “The Somali-Minneapolis Terrorist Axis” in 2009, chronicling many cases of Somali “teens” joining militant groups through an underground recruiting network.

The city accommodates Muslims. Somali businesses are permitted to stay open after regular closing hours during Ramadan. During the current pandemic, the Islamic call-to-prayer sounds in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood.

Violent crime is overwhelmingly black, but it sometimes spills out of black areas. In 2019, pipe-wielding Somali “youths” attacked people waiting for public transportation. That same year, black mobs attacked citizens, stealing cell phones and valuables. The police claimed that “race has nothing to do with it.”

The pandemic has not stopped the shootings. Someone killed a black “aspiring musician” outside his home on April 9. Less than two weeks later, someone killed Kevin Beasley, the grandson of “veteran peace and civil rights activist Spike Moss.” Mr. Moss called the deaths of young black men “our epidemic before the epidemic.” Beasley had a criminal record and was shot at a “house party,” though Minnesota has been under a “stay-at-home” order since March 25. Earlier this month, someone shot a city councilman’s car full of holes. Last Monday, there was a “rolling gun battle” between people in two cars, resulting in “grave” injuries for a young woman.

Still, majority white Minneapolis is considered a great city – a “miracle,” according to one Atlantic article in 2015. Success has not spread to non-whites. In a remarkable response to the “miracle” article, “Minneapolis’s White Lie,” The Atlantic’s Jessica Nickrand painstakingly listed the racial disparities in Minneapolis. Rates of poverty and educational failure are so high, she compared Minneapolis to Detroit.

Most of the article sounds like something I would write: She cites Minneapolis’s affordable living cost, robust job market, and good schools, calling it “the American Dream.” Of course, she adds, “60 years ago, so was Detroit.” The Twin Cities’ decline may “just come later” because it’s on the same course.

Agreed.

Her conclusion lost me. “For Minneapolis to remain successful,” she wrote, “the progressive policies of the 1960s and 1970s must evolve to reflect the changing population, prioritizing affordable housing, neighborhood integration, and investment in public education and health services.” That, she says, would be the real “miracle.”

Jessica Nickrand rejects the obvious explanation that Detroit collapsed because whites fled. The same is happening to Minneapolis. The programs Miss Nickrand wants haven’t fixed racial disparities in the past and won’t now. “Little Mogadishu” will just get bigger. The miracle we need is whites recognizing what is happening. If that happens, we can stop subsidizing our dispossession.

Chrisy58 #racist chrisy58.wordpress.com

John Derbyshire has rather pointedly described the fate of those who would criticize Jews in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com:

“So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: … I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.”

I thought about this when reading Peter Brimelow’s speech at Michael Hart’s Preserving Western Civilization conference in early February. Brimelow runs the excellent racial realism site VDARE.com, an immigration reform site that champions the interests of the American majority — European-Americans.

For this, Brimelow and his writers have drawn the wrath of the mainstream and liberal left, particularly the SPLC — routinely referred to as the $PLC at VDARE. [Editorial note: The Occidental Observer announces that from now on it will shamelessly copy this wonderfully accurate designation.)

He has also been shunned by mainstream conservative publications such as National Review where he was once Senior Editor. Jonah Goldberg, who personifies the changing of the guard at NR after Brimelow left, referred to Brimelow as “a once-respected conservative voice.” As Brimelow notes, NR is “a once-conservative, now respected, magazine.” I’m sure that the $PLC couldn’t be happier that Jonah Goldberg and his ilk are ensconced at NR. Brimelow introduces the problem he sees the West facing, delivered in the form of an observation followed by a question:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . .

What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power. As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people?”

Photo: Peter Brimelow debating immigration, 10-2-2008.
We at TOO have little doubt about the main force behind these transformations: The organized Jewish community. These transformations have nothing to do with economics but everything to do with ethnic activism and identity politics.

There are hints of this in Brimelow’s talk, although it was probably impolitic for him to mention it given the strong participation of Jews at the conference. As noted by The Searchlight (an $PLC-like outfit in the UK that is now running a “Hope not hate” campaign against the BNP), the conference was “an attempt to create a new ideological pole friendlier to Jewish participation, but within the broader white nationalist movement. They would bind Islamophobia and nativism with scientific racism.” Not quite the way I’d say it, but you get the idea.

Brimelow points to the growing Jewish support for Democratic politics in America — despite their relative prosperity. Jews are an economic elite but their voting patterns much more resemble non-white minorities — they “earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans,” as Milton Himmelfarb phrased it.

Indeed, Brimelow notes that higher percentages of Jews voted for Obama than the average for other minorities (83% to 79%). Why this is so “is a good question and in some ways the most important question in the immigration debate. And I recommend it to you for further discussion.”

Never one to pass up an invitation like that, I would point out that from the time they came to the US in large numbers, Jews have had a very negative view of traditional Americans and their culture. As Elliott Abrams put it, the mainstream Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” As portrayed by the Jewish media, “Western civilization is … a failing, dying culture, but at worst it is … sick and evil compared to other cultures.” It’s all about identity politics.

Brimelow gets right down to brass tacks about one side of the equation—he discusses and defends the interests of whites.

Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded inuniting the minoritiesand dividing the majority.

As fate would have it, this observation resonated with something I had just read about the way Bolsheviks had assumed power in 1917 at the beginning of the Soviet era. A shadowy Executive Committee ruled, and among those with power “more than half were Jewish socialists.” Native Russians did not even make up a quarter. One participant noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements.” The deaths of tens of millions of underrepresented white non-Jews followed. (The details of this genocide come from Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume study of Russian-Jewish relations, Two Hundred Years Together. Still lacking an English translation after seven years, Occidental Quarterly contributor F. Roger Devlin has worked from the French translation to provide a superb overview of Solzhenitsyn’s work. See The Occidental Quarterly Fall 2008 and Winter 2008-2009. Order here.)

Brimelow offered further room for discussion when last month he published Kevin MacDonald’s VDARE.com piece Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left. There MacDonald reiterated his argument that radical Jews of the 1960s “had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’”

In particular, the dispossession component is being accomplished by support for massive non-traditional immigration. MacDonald argued that “Jewish activism on behalf of non-white immigration can be directly traced back to Jewish activists on the left.” Indeed, “Massive non-white immigration into Western societies has been a project of the Jewish left for pretty much the entire last century. The Jewish left has been the most influential component of the organized Jewish community. And even when a significant number of Jews defected from the left, giving rise to the neoconservative movement, they retained the traditional Jewish attitudes on immigration.” (Read MacDonald’s chapter on this phenomenon here).

As with Solzhenitsyn above, MacDonald connected such displacement of a native population with the genocide that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union. After the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, “Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies of the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’”

MacDonald is proposing that a substantial component of the Jewish activism in the area of immigration is motivated by aggressive hostility toward the European American majority. Another, more defensive explanation of why Jews have led immigration reform movements that favor non-whites is the belief that a less homogeneously white America will be less likely to give rise to a powerful anti-Semitic movement. In an oft-cited passage, Jewish activist Earl Raab wrote:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

It seems likely that Raab’s wish to protect Jews is assured. After all, Jews are now famously dominant in media, government, academia and finance (for better or for worse).

Meanwhile, the rest of us Americans are left with many of the less pleasant aspects of diversity and non-white immigration, as last weekend’s news yet again drove home. As reported by CNN, a man wearing body armor used his car to block the rear door of an immigration services center, then entered the building and proceeded to murder thirteen people. “A federal law enforcement source identified the suspected gunman as Jiverly Wong. [The spokesman] said Wong, who was from Vietnam, was 41 and had changed his last name to Voong.”

I’m sure I’m not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out that the shooter was not a white male. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer explained “You can imagine how the Mainstream Media was itching to start typing denunciations of hate-filled white male anti-immigration rednecks when the news came in today that 13 people had been shot dead at an immigration center.” Brimelow is even more pointed on this issue: “If the killer in the Binghamton immigration center massacre had been a white American, I have no doubt that much of the VDARE.COM Editorial Collective would be in police custody right now.”

What has thus far been left unexplained is why there is any immigration to a region that has been devastated economically since at least the 1970s. Even the New York Times recognized this in a story about an area where “the number of 25-to-34-year-old residents in the 52 counties north of Rockland and Putnam declined by more than 25 percent. In 13 counties that include cities like Buffalo, Syracuse and Binghamton, the population of young adults fell by more than 30 percent.” In a perverse side note, The Times adds that “population growth upstate might have lagged even more but for the influx of 21,000 prison inmates, who accounted for 30 percent of new residents.” Is this the kind of place that needs legions of new immigrants?

VDARE.com’s Brenda Walker today made the broader point clear:

The problem of rampaging immigrants is not guns or unfriendly Americans or conservative radio programs or VDARE.com. The problem is the strangely persistent myth among elites and the media that millions from Somalia and Iraq and Red China can be plunked into our unique society and be expected to get along like they were putting on a different coat. . . . Immigration as a marker of the imaginary one-worlder multicultural paradise has been a screaming failure. The symptoms are everywhere, from ethnic gangs to mass murder.

Someday someone might look into this phenomenon, for it seems to fit the pattern of dispossession of traditional Americans. According to one blog, the US State Department has adopted a policy to spread refugees out to small and middle-sized American cities and away from the traditional “gateway cities.” Research found that “eleven top cities that had the largest refugee populations as a percentage of the foreign born in the city” were:

Utica-Rome, NY
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN
Erie, PA
Binghamton, NY
Spokane, WA
Portland, ME
Lincoln, NE
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA
Burlington, VT
Manchester, NH
Des Moines, IA

Odd that all eleven of these cities are overwhelmingly white gentile locales.

When considering this crazy jumble of immigration situations I’ve described, casual observers may mutter that the system sure seems to be broken. But as I’ve stressed before, the problem is not that the system is broken; rather, the problem is that it is working as intended. Whereas Ms. Walker notes that “a homogenous nation evokes loyalty, stability and harmony,” the sad fact is that Jews in general detest these qualities in others. For Jews, homogeneous masses of white people reminds them of marching storm troopers with swastikas on their uniforms. As I wrote last year, “Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.”

To me the lesson seems clear: Majority white Americans need to develop a sense of solidarity and then act on their interests. This too was the lesson Solzhenitsyn drew from his experience in the Soviet gulag: “More compact or tribally-minded peoples managed to look out for one another in the harsh conditions of camp life, and so stood a better chance of survival.” Time is not on the side of traditional Americans, so let this be a minor wake up call. Are you willing to allow the Powers That Be to elect a new people and replace you? I know I’m not.

Lynessence #conspiracy community.livejournal.com

[In regards to the availability of HIV anti-virals]

Of course it is not being made readily available to the general public, as diseases like HIV, cancer and the like are being used as population controllers, and also to target minority communities. HIV can be cured completely, I believe, but then all those scientists and research facilities would shut down and people would be out of jobs. Not to mention, people would probably be more careless about having unprotected sex and IV drug use if they knew they could be cured.

SaintElliot #fundie reddit.com

[Commenting under "About the rise of bisexual women....."]

It is because no female is bisexual or hetero sexual their sexuality changes depending on what fits them best. Bi sexual females are females that go for other females because it suits them atm. Females that couldn't find their optimal chad are going for each other because their ridiculous standards don't apply to other females.

BAFRIEND #fundie christianforums.com

Who Or What Killed Ryan White

[Are you referring to Africans who ate monkeys who were infected with the virus which causes AIDS, which was then transferred into the human population and spread primarily by sex?

You DO realize that in Africa, by far the largest number of people with the disease are heterosexuals, who spread the disease to each other by heterosexual contact.

Or are you possibly referring to African-American women, who are the single highest risk group in America for contracting HIV?

(God must love lesbians, then — they have the lowest rate of HIV infection of any group!)]

No, it is clear that the only victim I am talking about is Ryan White.

But I do appreciate your empathy with these other victims of the homosexual lifestyle.

I would also like to mention that I also refer to all the other innocent people who got AIDS from blood transfusions.

Vicki Batts #conspiracy naturalnews.com

ADHD is a FAKE disease invented by Big Pharma to drug children for profit

...

Writing for The Daily Bell, Joe Jarvis explains that there is proof that ADHD is nothing more than a fake disease. As Jarvis notes, two states with some of the highest incidences of ADHD are Arkansas and Kentucky.

These states are also home to a lot of children who enjoy hunting and fishing. Jarvis reports that census data from Arkansas shows 89 percent of kids fish and 35 percent hunt. Similar survey data shows that in Kentucky, 86 percent fish and 31 percent hunt. “These were the closest indicators I could think of that Kentucky and Arkansas children are more interested in being outside and active than cooped up in a classroom,” he contends.

Jarvis further notes that in states with the lowest incidences of ADHD, children seem to be far less interested in the great outdoors: In New Jersey, only 45 percent of kids go fishing. While not exactly evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship, it certainly raises questions about the way we look at kids who have trouble focusing in the classroom. Jarvis posits that the data he’s collected “suggests that the states with the highest instances of ADHD diagnosis are also states where the traditional values of public education are least aligned with the population.”

The validity of the ADHD diagnosis has been questioned for years now; many people wonder if it’s more of a behavioral issue than an actual cognitive deficit. But maybe it’s neither; maybe children should just be allowed to be children — without being drugged.

As Jarvis notes, many of the stats on ADHD are laughable. For example, boys are three times more likely to get an ADHD diagnosis than girls. Children from unstable home environments are also at a higher risk of being diagnosed with this so-called illness. These are the “facts” that allow the pharmaceutical industry unbridled access to drugging up little kids?

Even if you want to go so far as to say that ADHD is a behavioral issue and not a true cognitive problem, why choose potentially dangerous drugs over a more natural approach? There are many options to help kids who struggle in classrooms that do not involve prescription medication. For example, changing your child’s diet, providing them with more opportunities to exercise and ensuring they get enough sleep are all essential ways you can help your child be their best in the classroom.

Elizabeth Ely #conspiracy reducetheburden.org

This is a great summary, and wonderful PR for the movement for sanity in diagnoses and treatments.

I would only add the sexual dimension: Please cite the number of sexual contacts with a supposedly “infected” person that the CDC itself claims are necessary for “transmission” of the “virus.”

And then ask people to think about that. That number: 1,000? 3,000? This is usually with multiple partners, once each, a kind of Russian Roulette where you have sex with a person who is “infected” on that 1,000th or 3,000th time or whatever that they are actually “transmitting” the “virus.”

What kind of drugs, with what kind of immunological side effects, are necessary to sustain that kind of activity? What kind of psychological woundedness would a person carry into such an experience? How many other infections, viruses better documented, would a person pick up, and what would be the long-term effects on their immune systems of that level of constant onslaught? How would those things be risk factors in themselves?

And if somebody is objecting that this is Puritanism, ask them: What is their “ick” number? What level of sexual activity is too much? What level of detachment is a sign of psychosis? If not 3,000, how about 10,000? Because that’s how many sexual partners some of the original “AIDS” patients had.

This has nothing to do with the “HIV test,” because, as Neville Hodgkinson documented, the test was set at an artificially low threshold of “positive” to test blood supplies. Nobody minded if they threw out a lot of bags of blood, erring on the safe side — but if they’re labeling people as doomed with that test, they’re throwing out people who never even came close to that level of sexual activity or infection or malnutrition. Healthy people, caused to worry needlessly.

Sacrificing people.

And who are these people? Anyone important to us? People with issues, problems, drug addictions, sexual habits most folks don’t want to talk about? Human beings worth saving?

Is it OK to sacrifice certain people, or not? Avoiding the question is key to keeping “AIDS” alive.

I believe the answer, for most mainstream AIDS activists, is yes. Certain people are to be sacrificed, but we’re supposed to pretend we care. We’re not supposed to look too deeply within ourselves.

But if I really care . . . what then? Won’t I object to this labeling of people? Killing of people? Using a bogus test, an unreal label. Yes, I do care about the “stigma of HIV.” Stop labeling people with “HIV,” and the “stigma” is no longer a problem.

Start diagnosing people with their true immune deficiencies, and the source of these, and you begin to actually help them.

Thanks, Liam. On a clear day, you can see forever. You can see the truth.

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

Although I don't agree with all of his theological positions, the more I read the insightful writings of a dear saint named, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (1921-2016), the more I love this courageous man!

Read for yourself my friend what Dr. Ruckman has to say about, what has become, one of the most dangerous institutions in American history—BOB JONES UNIVERSITY—and the incredible damage they have done to the cause of Jesus Christ! ...

“King James Onlyism” was a cliche (like “Ruckmanism”) invented by the faculty and staff of the school where I got my M.A. and Ph.D.: Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. After placing a hidden placard on the pulpit of their chapel platform saying, “Use only the King James Version from this pulpit,” and declaring at “The World Congress of Fundamentalism” (1990) that the only English version used there would have to be the King James Version, this desperate bunch of professional deceivers decided that “King James Onlyism” was a deadly heresy that came from a “cult.”

Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III (1960-1980) thought it cute to add an “ism” on both the expressions above to scare Bible-believing Christians out of their faith in the Book. Then they would be accused of “following a man” and be identified with a “cult.” Very few Christians stopped to THINK for a moment about the innovative expression, for the only substitute for “King James Onlyism” for an American would be “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM.” I mean, a Christian is supposed to have some final authority by which he makes decisions and settles issues. If it was NOT the King James Bible, what would it be? Few American Christians stopped to think about this crucial question; and it was absolutely crucial, for it dealt with FINAL AUTHORITY which, from the dawn of recorded history (Gen. 3), has been THE ISSUE with mankind.

To cover up their devilment and their true designs, the apostates offered the Bible-believer a substitute for his Book. They offered him a pile of lost scattered pieces of paper (“original autographs”) written in a dead language that he could not understand unless he attended ($$$) a school like theirs ($$$). Thus “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM” became his substitute for the Holy Bible—the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation. This threw the hat of final authority into the ring for “grabs,” because scholars vary from demoniac atheists and unsaved agnostics to Roman Catholic monks and Conservative “Evangelicals.” Final authority was reduced, by Bob Jones University, to opinions and preferences, with the arbitrator of conflicting opinions and preferences being the opinions and preferences of the scholars who conflicted with each other. Anarchy, Relativism, pragmatic humanism. (If you want some “isms,” there they are.)

This booklet shows you how the cult of “SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM” operates (and has operated for one hundred years) in order to destroy the Holy Bible as the final authority in YOUR life. In this book, all of the conservative scholars assume the seat of final authority, and all sit in judgment on the BOOK. This Alexandrian Cult is composed of “gods” (Gen. 3) who partook of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” so they freely question what God said (Gen. 3:1), subtract from what He said (Gen. 3:2), and add to what He said (Gen. 3:3). Their final authority is their own opinion. This shows the FRUITS and RESULTS of this type of “Funnymentalism.” At the end of the book, “Scholarship Onlyism” is applied in a real situation, and you see it in actual operation as carried out by a saved “Fundamentalist.” Its fruits are one hundred percent error, while professing to have the ability to find error in ALL translations and ALL Greek texts.

SOURCE: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, the introduction to his book, “King James Onlyism Verses Scholarship Onlyism.”

I HIGHLY encourage you, dear web reader, to read the entire 68-page book by Dr. Ruckman (.PDF format), and prepare to be angered at what Satan has done to infiltrate, corrupt and destroy America's churches through a bunch of self-styled, reprobate, cowardly, arrogant, mammon-loving, deeper-life, college professors and dried-up dead theologians, aka, the Bob Jones University, Dallas Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist Bible College And Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, and HUNDREDS of other theological preacher's cemeteries! I SAID CEMETERIES!!! These institutions have betrayed the inspired Word of God.

“God has a special rebuke, again and again and again in the Bible,
toward those people who keep their neutrality in the work of God!”
—SOURCE: Pastor Jack Hyles (1926-2001), a quote from the needful and precious MP3 sermon titled: “Where Were You In The Battle?”

And I'm going to say it, I am leery of any preacher who denies the inspiration of the King James Bible. I cannot change how I feel and what I believe. I mean, there's just something very wrong with a preacher who thinks that God only inspired the original autographs, which NO LONGER EXIST! So if only the originals were given by inspiration, then we do not have a perfect Holy Bible today! I am not talking about The Book that someone thinks could have been translated better, I am talking about God's Word!

THE REAL BATTLE (MP3 by Dr. Jack Hyles: “Bob Jones... they make light on the verbal inspiration!”)

Psalms 119:140, “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” Let me ask you an important question: “Would David have still loved God's Word with such passion had it been impure?”; not on your life! David loved God's words because they weren't just pure, they were VERY PURE!!!!!!! Folks, either we still have God's very pure words today in 2018, that He Promised to preserve unto every generation in Psalms 12:6-7 (if you have a reliable King James Bible), or we don't!!! Psalms12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” What does “them” refer to? Why, to the “pure words” in verse 6.

Now take a look at how the modern scholarship-produced perversions (100% sanctioned by Bob Jones University) all change God's promise in Psalms 12:6-7 to preserve His “very pure” words unto every generation. Here's a comparison of Psalms 12:6-7. Look how all of these new satanic Bible revisions totally butcher, change and remove God's PROMISE to preserve His Words. Instead of preserving God's “very pure” words, all the new versions change it to say that God preserves the saints instead...

King James Bible (KJB)
Psalms12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The Common English Bible (CEB)
Psalms 12:6-7, "The LORD's promises are pure, like silver that's been refined in an oven, purified seven times over! You, LORD, will keep us, protecting us from this generation forever."

The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Psalms 12:6-7, "The words of ADONAI are pure words, silver in a melting-pot set in the earth, refined and purified seven times over. You, ADONAI, protect us; guard us forever from this generation."

The Message Bible (MSG)
Psalm 12:6-7, "God's words are pure words, Pure silver words refined seven times In the fires of his word-kiln, Pure on earth as well as in heaven. God, keep us safe from their lies, From the wicked who stalk us with lies."

Good News Translation (GNT)
Psalm 12:6-7, "The wicked are everywhere, and everyone praises what is evil. Keep us always safe, O Lord, and preserve us from such people."

...AND ON THEY GO, THE NEW VERSIONS JUST KEEP COMING TO CORRUPT THE CHURCHES!!!

READ MORE: The Ugly Truth About Today's Bible Versions

Doesn't anyone have a problem with what I just showed you? I agree with Dr. Gail Riplinger that the men behind the modern corrupt Bibles are sincere, truly believing that they are doing something good; but Satan in very subtle and clever and is the driving force of darkness behind the entire Bible revision movement. You can hear Dr. Riplinger (I love this dear lady) talk about these things, and much more: NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS (a 1:23 hour MP3 interview with Dr. Gail Riplinger; You must hear this!).
“That book [King James Bible], sir, is the rock on which on republic rests.” —U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)

Where is Hyles-Anderson College?

I know exactly how Peter Ruckman felt, because my own Bible college from which I earned my Bachelor's degree (HYLES-ANDERSON COLLEGE, 1985-1993) in Crownpoint, Indiana, has bailed-out of the battle for the inspiration of God's Word. By openly denying the inspiration of the King James Bible in 2008 (and since), one foolish man destroyed the lifetime work of Dr. Jack Hyles at the First Baptist Church of Hammond (FBCH), Indiana. Ecclesiastes 9:18, “Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.” First Baptist Church of Hammond (who owns Hyles-Anderson College) are AWOL from the battle. I'm sick of standing alone, but I WILL continue to do so by God's grace for as long as I can! I thank God for the few HAC graduates who do stand—I praise God for BOTH of you! Where are the 7,000? “It's Time To Come Out Of The Closet” (Dr. Jack Hyles; The Bible's under attack—where's the 7,000?).

Where Were You During The Battle? (MP3, Dr. Jack Hyles; The sin of neutrality in the Work of God!)

FBCH made a wonderful tribute online to honor Brother Hyles, but if FBCH really wants to honor Dr. Hyles, then why don't they uphold the truths that he so fervently fought to uphold? Folks, was Dr. Hyles a fool? Why is FBCH totally abandoning THE TRUTH that Dr. Hyles preached? There is a deafening silence heard from FBCH and HAC! Satanic Bible versions are flooding into the churches!!! What were those truths that Dr. Hyles thought were so important, which HE HIMSELF in 1994 called...

their number long before I did! I am so sick and tired of these neo-evangelical, dead, lukewarm, lifeless, fuddy-duddy churches today, like the Harvest Baptist Church on Guam! Did I mention that they forced me out and banned me from returning! Yes, it is true! Do you know why? It is because I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG ON THE HOLY BIBLE. They are all shameful Bob Jones graduates! The truth hurts, don't it! I mean, I couldn't put it any simpler. This is what happens when light meets darkness, when a real Hyles-Anderson College graduate (back when HAC graduates still believed what Dr. Hyles actually taught) meets the neo-evangelical Bob Jones University camp!!! I wouldn't give you a dime for that mess at Bob Jones, nor their sorry graduates. What a shame to the cause of Christ. The gloves are off!
THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS! THE TRUTH MATTERS!

Lance Welton #fundie vdare.com

If there’s one thing that unites wealthy Leftists, it’s the need to pretend they are compassionate.

And there are few better ways of doing this than campaigning against the death penalty.

Increasingly, Leftists take advantage of modern technology to do this: Activist groups like the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty have created a virtual cottage industry geared toward virtue-signalling on the death penalty. They use their websites to direct the bleeding hearts to the next execution site, so they can launch a protest rally.

Cutting-edge research, however, reveals just how fantastically ironic this is. It seems that without the death penalty there’d be no internet, no television; in fact, very little civilization.

The first scholars to develop this king of all Left-triggering ideas were Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost and the late University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending. They published their landmark research in 2015 under the title Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.[PDF]

It was a truly ingenious argument.

When Europe became Christian, the death penalty was abolished. Right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages, people were left to settle their own disputes by fighting each other or demanding, from the state, that the murderer pay a fine for killing their relative. But, as Frost and Harpending put it, the Church gradually came to accept that, the "wicked" should be executed "so that the good can live in peace."

With biblical justification, more and more crimes became subject to the death penalty. By the High Middle Ages, every single felony (any crime serious enough to have traditionally warranted the confiscation of property) was met with the hangman’s noose.

Those sent to the gallows were almost always high-testosterone young men prone to violent crime. In fact, Frost and Harpending calculated that one percent of the male population were executed every generation throughout the Middle Ages. And another one percent were killed at the scene of the crime or died in fetid prisons awaiting trial or execution. So two percent of young men were eliminated every generation.

And because they tended to be young, this process meant that they had fewer children than if they hadn't been executed. Thus, they would have passed on fewer of their genes.

It’s here that Frost and Harpending perceptively draw their conclusion. Capital punishment must have changed the nature of European personality—by, in effect, culling out the psychopaths.

Criminality is strongly predicted by three key traits associated with psychopathology:

Low impulse control
Low altruism
Low mental stability.

These traits are at least 50 percent genetic. [See Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are, by Daniel Nettle, OUP, 2007]

The murder rate collapsed between the 14th and 20th centuries and they statistically proved that part of the reason for this was the continual killing of the most impulsive and disagreeable young males every generation. The pool of violent men essentially dried up.

Those who were executed were overwhelmingly poor, with poverty associated with poor impulse control and low altruism. They had to be extremely poor because, in England at least, if you could read, then you could avoid execution by claiming "benefit of the clergy."

Frost and Harpending are clear: Widespread execution led to the genetic "pacification" of Western Europe. It made people more cooperative, more forward-thinking, less impulsive . . . in other words more psychologically able to develop civilization. And as the late Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton showed in his 1995 book Race, Evolution and Behavior, that it is the ethnic groups with these personality traits that develop civilization.

More recently, anthropologist Edward Dutton and Swedish psychologist Guy Madison have taken this insight further. In a 2018 article in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science [Execution, Violent Punishment and Selection for Religiousness in Medieval England] they point out that this system of widespread execution would also have selected strongly for intelligence. Low socioeconomic status is predicted by low intelligence and it was overwhelmingly young, low SES men who met the hangman's noose. Low IQ predicts living for the now and not thinking about the future. And considering the dire consequences of breaking the law up until the 19th century, in England for example, you’d have to have been fairly stupid to do it.

And it is quite clear that national-average intelligence is the motor of civilization. In their huge 2012 study, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen showed that average national IQ strongly predicts national levels of education, research and development, wealth, earnings, employment, lack of poverty, lack of crime, democracy, honesty, health, life expectancy, sanitation, openness to change, lack of religious extremism . . . the list goes on [Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences].

But central to Dutton and Madison’s study is something which, on the surface, might seem rather counter-intuitive in terms of the importance of the death penalty to civilization. They use the same statistical methods as Frost and Harpending to show that widespread execution was partly behind English people becoming more religious between the Medieval Era and the 16th century.

They argue that the English definitely became more religious, as evidenced by higher and higher percentages becoming monks and nuns, while heresy and witchcraft, deviations from accepted practice, grew increasingly unacceptable. And they estimate that religiousness is about 40 percent genetic, based on twin studies, and is predicted by exactly the same characteristics that predict not being a criminal: high altruism, high impulse control, and high mental stability.

Religiousness is also associated with low levels of autistic traits. Dutton and Madison demonstrate that there is a degree to which autism is associated with criminality. So the Medieval system of executing almost all criminals also effectively involved curtailing the fertility of the least religious young men every generation.

This policy bore fruit in the 16th and 17th centuries, according to the two researchers, with wars based around religion.

However, it also had another consequence, which they don’t look at but which has been explored by the German biologist Gerhard Meisenberg in his 2007 book In God’s Image. Precisely because Europeans were so intensely Christian, they didn’t adopt contraception, something which all previous civilizations had done when they got to about the stage the West reached in the early 18th century. Once contraception was adopted, it was taken up by cleverer and more educated people and used more efficiently by them, due to their higher IQ and better foresight. This has eventually resulted in a negative associated between SES [Socio-Economic Status] /intelligence fertility. Since the early 20th century, stupidity has predicted having lots of children.

Meisenberg shows this is exactly what happened in Greece and Rome. But because of this religious rejection of contraception, it didn’t happen in the modern West until much later in our development. This meant that we could get to the Industrial Revolution before the positive correlation between IQ and number of surviving children, which you see in all primitive societies, went into reverse due to contraception.

So, in a roundabout way, widespread execution made us more religious. And, paradoxically, if that hadn’t happened, there’d be no websites telling when and where the next execution will be, so we can Virtue-Signal about the death penalty. IQ would have declined, and we would have returned to the Dark Ages, just like the Romans and Greeks and Muslims did before us.

Put it this way: In April 2017, Johnny Depp made his way to Arkansas to protest against the planned execution of seven murderers that month. However, if it wasn’t for the widespread execution of young criminals, it’s very likely civilization would never have progressed beyond the technology and morality of Pirates of the Caribbean.

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

[Archbishop Justin Welby describes the British as "a very mixed bunch"]

The vast majority of the indigenous population are sick of this country being turned into a human dumping ground and cesspit where indigenous children are raped and murdered, women abused and the people ordered to embrace their biological extinction without offering resistance. Interestingly Welby's mother was the personal assistant to the warmonger and war criminal Winston Churchill who by the way was half jewish on his maternal side thus making Churchill according to rabbinical law legally a jew.

Unlike Mr Welby who by his own admission appears not to be indigenous, genetic research in recent years has demonstrated that the vast majority of the population can trace their ancestry back to the Neolithic and indeed even the Mesolithic period, defying the pc mantra that we "are a very mixed bunch". Speak for yourself Welby, not the people whose land this is! Arthur Kemp in his booklet Four Flags: The Indigenous People of Britain makes the case that the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish populations of the British Isles can trace their presence here for many thousands of years and belong primarily to the R1b and R1a haplotypes, which together make up 80% of the population. Genetics has slain the myth that we "are a very mixed bunch". Welby should apologise for his offensive remarks and should in future only comment on matters of which he has a modicum of knowledge about.

"If the interrelatedness of the various R1b subclades and the R1a Haplotype are taken into account, then it becomes possible to say that at least 80 or more percent of Britain's population derives from a single source." (Kemp, 2010)

Xtianity is a semitic religion that is totally at odds with the Aryan psyche. Thankfully I can no longer be burned at the stake for opposing this religion of love. Thankfully also it is dying but in its place another alien and semitic religion is rearing its head: Islam. Xtianity under the leadership of a jewish archbishop is trying its best to neutralise the growing resistance to the take over of Europe by militant islam. the New World Order has stirred up a hornets' nest with its unnecessary and criminal wars against the islamic world and opening the floodgates of Europe to allow in millions of racially diverse immigrants, the majority of whom appear to be of the islamic religion, a number of these very dangerous individuals as the idiots who run this country are begining to realise. I dare say that the clowns who post my comments on the FSTDT website will no doubt laugh at these words and make further cowardly remarks regarding me but I tell you this, the prophecy of Ragnarok-Korangar and Walhalla-Allahlaw is coming to pass in their lifetimes and they will eventually realise that we were right!

Todd #fundie queerty.com

You people are fucking pathetic. Are you even listening to yourselves? “Oh, he’s so self centered, he’s not getting tested for ME”. Seriously? Grow the fuck up and wear a condom. Accept that if you’re screwing strangers, some of them aren’t going to be the most savory people. Refusing to get tested for YOUR convenience is hardly the worst thing someone’s trick could do.

Let me get this straight: the average queerty reader is apparently engaging in sex with strangers. Rather than admit that strangers sometimes don’t behave as we’d like and respond accordingly, we’ve constructed an ideal in our heads that these people have an obligation to get tested and disclose for OUR protection. Then, when we’re presented with the reality that not everyone does this, it is somehow THEY who are selfish, stupid and mean? Wow. I mean, wow. All ideals aside, you people are fucking idiots. Would you also leave your doors unlocked and wallet out only to be horrified that someone took your stuff? As for selfish: I don’t think you even know the meaning of the phrase. To be offended that someone isn’t risking a legally subordinate position just so you can have the sex you want kinda takes the cake, doesn’t it? Wow. What part of Bizarro World do you people live on?
All these fucking girls sit here whining about how its a “deadly weapon”. We’re not talking about fucking rape here. If they’re so fucking terrified, they need to sit at home and jack off.

[ Assholes like you are the ones who spread the disease just cause you’re horny. Fuck that; if you have the balls to fuck another guy, have the balls to say whether you carry HIV, and let him decide for himself if some stranger fucktard like you is worth risking infection? ]

Oh grow the fuck up you sanctimonious asshat. I haven’t spread it to anyone. Between condoms and undetectable status, the people I sleep with are more likely to be crushed by blue ice falling from an airplane than infected by me.
For the record, I *do* disclose to everyone, mostly because I don’t want some crazed nutjob like the losers on this website to come after me when they inevitably test positive. And yes, many of them will inevitably test positive. Anyone who thinks that disclosure is an effective way to protect agains the virus is setting himself up for a rude awakening. Just because I disclose doesn’t mean I agree with these laws, and just because someone disagrees with these laws (or doesn’t disclose) doesn’t mean they spread the disease. They’re separate issues. It is only because people like you keep reinforcing the idea that they’re one and the same that people continue to operate under the delusion that disagreement=nondisclosure=infection=murder..

...

.
Disclosure isn’t about “someone else’s right”. We don’t disclose when we have any other STD, including HCV and HPV which each kill more people than HIV. We don’t disclose to everyone we walk near if we have TB, despite the fact that you’re more likely to get TB from a casual acquaintance than HIV from a condomed, undetectable trick. We don’t disclose our driving records to our passengers or our credit scores to our lovers. All of these things are “relevant risks”, but we don’t demand people talk about them. Why? Because in every other area, we concede that there is some small amount of risk, and we admit that sometimes people have to take responsibility for their own decisions. HIV and “disclosure” are special areas, detached from the actual complications of the virus or the liklihood of infection.
HIV Disclosure hasn’t been about anything noble since it became apparent that condoms were an effective way to stop the disease. Its about forcing people to wear a scarlet letter, ghettoizing those who are infected and covering the whole thing up with a cheap veneer of “personal harm reduction” or whatever the discrimination-disguised-as-prevention crowd wants to whitewash it as.
No one has trumpeted this horn as loudly, or as uncle-tomishly as you, and for that, I’m rightfully calling you out on the carpet as a jerk and a bigot of the highest order. You’re not “saving anyone”, you’re validating discrimination, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Doc Savage #conspiracy freerepublic.com

OK, one more time:

1. HIV does NOT cause AIDS.

2. AIDS is NOT a sexually-transmitted disease.

3. There is no pandemic. There is no epidemic. There is no heterosexual epidemic.

4. African AIDS is NOT AIDS. It is not caused by HIV. It is based on malnutrition, common bacterial, viral and fungal infections, and poor sanitation.

5. The HIV test is NOT a test for the presence of live virus (antigen). It is an antibody test showing prior exposure to a harmless retrovirus.

6. The only people who are at risk of acquired immune deficiency are homosexuals (for a variety of disease issues) and IV drug users. Period.

7. AZT is a DNA chain terminator and kills people, it doesn't cure them. Next?

Terry Michael #conspiracy terrymichael.net

Losing a debate about one of your most cherished beliefs? There’s a handy way to shut down such discourse, to discredit intellectual enemies employing pesky reading-and-fact-based arguments. Just call them out as deniers or denialists, as in the epitome of earthly evil, Holocaust Denialism.

Demonize your critics, to stop them from criticizing your demons. It works really well for talking heads, like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, observed in December on Cable Noise Network putting down the global warming “deniers,” as he called them (while hawking the tree-killing paperback version of his latest opus magnum, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded 2.0: Why We Need a Green Revolution.”)

Not convinced? Then consult preachers at The Al Gore Church of Greenhouse Gas Bags, or medical science experts in The HIV-AIDS Industrial Complex. Listen to them shout about the apocalyptic meltdown being wrought by global warming denialists. Hear them exhort against the killer AIDS denialists.

The “tricking” of tree ring “data” revealed in the Climategate emails should be instructive to all free minds. Many scientists are just politicians with advanced degrees. They play their expertise card to propagandize for less-than-fully-baked theories--just like the best and the brightest domino theory’d us into Vietnam, those brilliant neo-con-artists WMD’d us into Iraq, and our super smart president fooled himself (and us) into the Afghan abyss.

As I tell my political journalism students, accept no received wisdom, especially when it comes from figure-ers who lie, and liars who figure.

For the past quarter century, the “denialist” epithet has been hurled at credible, well-motivated biologists, bio-chemists, physicians, epidemiologists, investigative science-and-health journalists, and other intelligent outliers with the temerity to question the scientific consensus behind the single pathogen theory of what caused AIDS.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, as it was labeled after first being called Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome or GRID, really was--no denying it--killing thousands of gay men for about a decade, from the early 1980's to the beginning of the 1990's, when its incidence started to decline. But most of the interpreters of our reality, the science-and-math-challenged Main Stream Media, who wouldn’t know a biology lab from a Labrador Retriever, believe the drop in what has become known as “HIV disease” was a function of miracle drugs peddled by the pharmaceutical industry, the Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies--that benign-sounding but highly toxic “side”-affecting HAART, introduced in 1996, three or four years after AIDS began to subside.

AIDS “denialists,” the first of whom was biologist Dr. Peter Duesberg of the Univ. of California at Berkeley, have been shunned from the free market of ideas. They have been denied entry to scientific and medical peer review journals. They are much like the “deniers” who dare question the received wisdom of The Gore-acle of Global Warming.

Having spent the past three years studying mysteries of the HIV=AIDS paradigm, I am ready to admit I am a full-fledged, out-of-the-closet, HIV-AIDS denialist. After some pretty intense book reading, almost daily internet-assisted document research, and considerable old-fashioned journalistic interviewing of knowledgeable sources, I have concluded there is not now, there never was, a “human immunodeficiency virus.” The single pathogen theory was wrong. A controversial view, to be sure, but one for which I can cite facts and fact-based arguments.

AIDS among gay men was of multi-factorial causation, from an unusually intense exchange of old pathogens in the aftermath of the mid-20th Century sexual revolution; an unprecedented ingestion of toxins, in the form of recreational drugs; and the psychogenically health damaging effects of being a hated minority group--all of which were immuno-suppressive in a subset of gay men who ghetto-ized themselves in urban America after the late 1960's.

And heterosexual AIDS in Africa? It’s just the name given by western medicine men to health harm from old immuno-suppressive malnutrition and unclean drinking water, and a high incidence of old diseases like tuberculosis and malaria--not the result of a wily retrovirus that never caused a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS in the white West.

I published the results of my study in an 8,000-word piece at my web site on the internet, about the only place we denialists can give voice to our dissent, and even there it’s difficult. I learned that December 7, when a guest commentary I wrote on AIDS and Big Pharma was erased Soviet-style from the popular Wall Street web site founded by CNBC’s Jim Cramer, TheStreet.com, after being up only four hours. I made the mistake of mentioning one of the powerful purveyors of anti-retrovirals, Gilead Sciences, Inc.

You can read my thoughts on the mysteries of HIV-AIDS here: End to AIDS Nearer Than We Think? Re-appraising HIV in its 25th Anniversary Year. And you can see the trailer for a new documentary film here: "House of Numbers," which raises questions about the single pathogen theory of AIDS.

"Give the people a new word and they think they have a new fact," Willa Cather wrote. The acronym HIV-AIDS is not even a word, let alone a fact.

Blunderbus #conspiracy news.yahoo.com

It is easy as pie to be a pervert anywhere with the Democrat Party, symathetic international Communist/Muslim Media, White House, Academia, Hollywood, Talk Shows, Internet, Big Education leading, and covering for them. Most of those defending them are closet perverts themselves in all those groups, mostly likely, even our President and his shrill wife included. It's hard to live out the moral compass we were all given originally and develop a real character.

But the Democrat Party has socially engineered an entire population of subhumans with their progressive ideologies and all these perverts think they normal. They can't remember they have forgotten God. But He still exists, in people who haven't forgotten. And one day, coming sooner than we think, one group is going to have to kill the other completely so that there will be peace, lasting peace on Earth. The end to story has already been written. We are all just watching it being played out and soon everyone will be involved in the play.